he's somehow even a worse GM than MIKE lulz

was that the yankees hat wpt?

That's a ****ing outrageous performance

it's no 63 points against the 86 Celtics

When LeBron threepeats (finals losses) in the next ten days will this thread finally be locked?

missed the part in that vid where lebron wins the title that year

If Lowry, Millsap, and George are the 2-4th best players in a conference, that's a lol conference.

Damon Jones sighting

Nice to watch the good jumpshot shooting version of LeBron

No because he likely will have been the best player in each of last 3 finals.

Going to be 3rd best this year. Klay's going to make Lebron sniff his musty ass.

GSW o41.5 without Curry is a lock, they win 48ish. They were considerably better than actual .500 teams without him in the playoffs.

The East 5+ beats the West 5+ by a decent amount. The West was incredibly top heavy this year, in recent history it's been strong down to 7/8, this year the 1st round was a bye.

5-8 of the East wouldn't be as good either if they had to play GS, Spurs, OKC, and Clippers 2 more times a piece. Playing each East team 4 times a year is a nice treat.

Lol, well yea, kind of? Like, if you think LeBron just has all the strengths of MJ and none of the weaknesses then sure, you just call him the GOAT and stop the conversation there. But pretty much anyone reasonable thinks that they are super duper close overall/in a vacuum. Which logically means that if LeBron has less weaknesses/a more rounded game, then he must necessarily also have lower extremes in his strengths.

My argument is that this more rounded 'distribution' of LeBron's abilities makes his teams higher floor lower ceiling than MJs (see: MJs rings in 6 out of 7 or 8 years with All Star help vs Lebrons 2 out of 4 or 5, LeBron dragging scrubs to ECF victory one season then 66 wins two seasons later, etc.).

I really don't think any of this is super controversial to be honest...

But you are just asserting it. It is in no way obvious that being well rounded leads to a lower ceiling or makes it easier to build a team around you than being flawed. And Jordan seems like a weird example to hang your hat on since his flaw was like...3pt shooting maybe? At a time when the 3 pt shot was far less important. So he seems to really be a counterexample to your point. He was well rounded and had a super high ceiling....because he just had better players on his team.

It seems like you are just trying to make up a narrative to fit.

i can sort of see it though. LBJ is almost certainly a "worse fit" with other stars bc they are largely redundant. there were arguments that the Heat were better with Wade on the bench. the Cavs #1 lineup throughout the playoffs +/- wise has been with Kyrie & Love on the bench. now i think LBJ/Wade/Bosh kinda proved that they were all willing to and good enough to sacrifice for the sake of winning. and i'm not sure wade/mj or wade/kobe would have fit any better than wade/lbj did. in fact i think itd be a lot worse due to spacing issues. still i sort of see what he's saying. i don't think it should be held against LeBron though.

there is a superstar however who would fit really well with LBJ and it kinda makes me sad we'll probably never see them play together.



dat P&R

Maybe he'll go to GS after they lose this year

HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

wouldn't put it past him

ofc he'll wait for Durant to sign there first

ya its complete hilarity to imagine lebron in the dray role getting the ball off a steph trap and having the 4 on 3 with a straight line to the basket and shooters in the corners

I have a opinion/theory, and have supporting evidence. I'm really not sure what more you want from me? Everyone should just stick to empirically provable statements?

The comparison is with other all time greats. If you compare LeBron with say MJ or peak Shaq or whatever, LeBron is a bit better in a lot of categories and noticeably worse in one or two (another ASSERTION, sue me).

Coming up with theories/narratives to fit facts and try to understand why things happened is what you are supposed to do.

This is a complete nonanswer to my question. It suggests that the supporting cast is badly underrated.

Kids here don't remember how mediocre people thought Pippen was until Jordan got all those rings playing with him.

I remember Pippen carrying the Bulls to the playoffs and balling out of control the year Michael went to play baseball. Average 22 8 5 for that year. Whoever thought he was mediocre was on to many drugs. Jordan had one of the best 2nd options of all time, and didnt do anything til he had him.

At the time people mostly thought of Pippen as the bitch who got mad when Kukoc got his shot. He really wasn't as highly regarded as he is now.

The rest of those Jordan teams were much better than people seem to remember. It was really the addition of Cartwright and Grant underneath that changed that team. They always had a good shooter, a Paxson, Hodges, Kerr, etc. Those were well rounded teams, far from a one man show. Jordan alone couldn't do it anymore than Nique could. Possibly Nique got farther with less (Willis and Rivers).

I bet the worst part of being WILbron is that there in no headband big enough to hide the receding hairline of his heart

Pippen was a solid player (top 10 probably in the league), and the Bulls were a solid team. People like to knock Jordan for playing on a solid team (Lebron doesn't have enough help!) that experienced a perceived limited drop-off after he left.

The truth is the Bulls were a dynasty just coming off a 3-peat. They were already being considered one of the great teams of all-time.

Without Jordan, the Bulls were just a solid team that got bounced in the 2nd round. No drop-off at all!