Thanks, I appreciate it.

lol at asking for a ban. you guys are the ones responding and then getting upset about it. who's the real idiot?

I’m not upset, I’m really very calm.

Yes inclusion of Wemby was a joke.



surprising you didn't get that. Everyone else did.

This kind of pettiness is acceptable.

We should put that post number in the thread title.

Which post was that

Bro this is all you

Can't ask for a reference when you're the one leading this thread

Use the search button it ain't hard.

Apparently zero without MJ or his clone (Kobe)

i didn't notice it - sabr has many posts itt

it kind of sounds like you guys are using the bron goggles again, aka it's better to mostly lose than mostly win

Everyone beside Russell mostly lost, you just rose-tint the circumstances for Jordan and take the opposite for Lebron, imagine if instead of Rodman they traded for Westbrook's corpse and gutted role players too in 96, Jordan had expertly constructed rosters for his skillset, Lebron has largely had bad ones and the AD one was great lost a year to injuries and then made an alltime awful trade for Westbrook and now have a sketchy roster

But you think Westbrook in 22 was a valuable player so hell you'd probably think the 96 bulls with that version still win 70+

"mostly won" was defined as having a stretch where the team mostly won - i.e. MJ won 6 in 7 years, or Curry won 3 in 4 years, or Duncan won 3 in 5 years, while Lebron never had a stretch where he mostly won with a cast and mostly lost with every cast that he ever had.. He went 1/4 with AD, or 1/4 with Love and the only exception is the Allen miracle, which allowed 2/4.

I understand that Lebron fans have been told that Jordan had the "perfect situation", but what's the excuse for Curry, Duncan, Kobe, or Kareem having teams that mostly won, while Lebron continues to prove incapable of mostly winning for any stretch with a cast, and mostly loses with all casts for 2 decades?.. Btw, even though MJ only won 6 in 15 years (40%), that's the best winning frequency in the history of 3-pointer basketball or since the ABA-merger.

Ultimately, Lebron fans have mind-warped themselves into thinking that it's better to produce weak records and mostly lose every year so the 1 time you win, it's considered a historic upset.. What a backwards way to think about it - it isn't better to lose - it isn't better to produce perennial underdogs that rarely win, than produce perennial favorites that rarely lose.. Producing perennial favorites and having stretches of mostly winning yields superior title equity than a player that mostly loses with any cast.

The statistical record tells the story of how Lebron achieves this worst winning frequency of any top 10 candidate, or routinely underachieves favored talent by losing with preseason favorites and with multiple all-star teammates:

Lebron starts at forward but becomes a 2nd point guard on the floor (2nd player with a point guard hold-time and assisted rate) - these 2-point guard lineups are abnormally-ball-dominant, which gives teammates less hold-time and assists than they get in traditional 1 point guard lineups - this is statistical fact.. Lower teammate assists yields low TEAM assists and a brand that produced the worst teams in Finals history.. "Worst teams" is defined by a 20-21 record in the Finals excluding the 07', 15', and 18' Finals, so Lebron has a lottery-record on the Finals level regardless of cast.. Overal, Lebron is 22-33 in the Finals (worst all-time), which includes the 3 worst losses in Finals history (14', 17', 18') and the goat choke (11').. Accordingly, history shows that Lebron teamed up with opposing franchise players and hand-picked 8 preseason favorites but still mostly lost in historic fashion and at historic rates.. He's simply the greatest loser in sports history.

The reason that Lebron loses so often compared to other all-timers while having favored talent (preseason favorites). or homecourt advantage, or multiple all-star teammates and top seeds is because of his limited skillset - his lack of expert jumpshooting skill and great basketball instinct to play off teammates (off-ball) yields a reliance on ball-dominance that imposes spot-up roles (reduces teammate assists and increases their assisted rate/play-finishing).. These spot-up roles hinder teammate development, chemistry, and strategic capacity/coaching, thereby yielding weak records, perennial underdogs and Finals losers regardless of cast..

This isn't an opinion - Lebron's imposition of spot-up roles never developed any low-producing rookies to meaningful producer in 2 decades (zero teammate development) - Lebron isn't capable of developing teammates or elite chemistry, so he needs ready-made stars, aka can't win organically (can't develop teammates or chemistry).

3 in 5,
12, 13, 16

No one win in 15 with the injuries, and while you say 14, 17, 18 are bad losses no one else thinks that, GS is a favorite vs every team in NBA history and the 18 team is only a little behind thar

hmm, very interesting

Lebron never had a stretch where he mostly won with a cast and mostly lost with every cast that he ever had.. He went 1/4 with AD, or 1/4 with Love and the only exception is the Allen miracle, which allowed 2/4 with Wade.. So it took a miracle for Lebron to not mostly lose with a cast.

After Lebron loses, he changes teams and refreshes his cast with the best young stars in the league - this avoids the aging teammates or rookies that other stars must deal with.. But despite the team changes, the tenures that he has with each cast entails mostly losing, for 2 decades.

I understand that Lebron fans have been told that Jordan had the "perfect situation", but what's the excuse for Curry, Duncan, Kobe, or Kareem having teams that mostly won, while Lebron was incapable of mostly winning for any stretch with a cast, and mostly loses with all casts for 2 decades?.. Btw, even though MJ only won 6 in 15 years (40%), that's the best winning frequency in the history of 3-pointer basketball or since the ABA-merger.

Ultimately, Lebron fans have mind-warped themselves into thinking that it's better to produce weak records and mostly lose every year, so the 1 time you win, it's considered a historic upset.. That's like saying the current Pistons accomplish a goat accomplishment each time they win.. What a backwards way to think about it - t isn't better to lose - it isn't better to produce perennial underdogs that rarely win, than produce perennial favorites that rarely lose.. Producing perennial favorites and having stretches of mostly winning yields superior title equity than a player that mostly loses with any cast.

When MJ first beat the Bad Boys in 1991, Larry Bird led the Bulls in scoring and carried MJ...

oh wait that was actually WADE being the 1st option when Lebron finally got past the Celtics in 2011.

Wade led the Heat in scoring for the ECF, Finals and entire 2011 Playoff run - a 6'4" Jordan with baby hands was 1st option over peak Lebron when he finally got past the Bad Boys, I mean KG's Celtics

This would be such an interesting discussion if it wasn't for the ****ing permanent trolling. Makes this thread so unreadable when it should be great.

AIDS indeed

How dare you.

No one has ever accused me of trolling.

This is the GOAT post people are referring to.


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=19140


#19140 itt.

Luka doncic: « hold my beer ».

And for the defensive aspect it’s very debatable.
Mj been the best perimeter defender almost his entire career.
So ok lebron did a little more on rebounding and passing but he certainly never did as much defensively as MJ .
And again players like wilt, Kareem ,etc didn’t even had the right to join the nba younger ….

same lame stuff as all the other labald stan bullshit, 19k posts in lol...

goat post? it's simply a summary of long-debunked false narratives spewed and taught by Klutch Sports.. literally every point has been refuted many times and in many ways..

But I'll start with the bolded part at the bottom of SABR's post that says lebron was a better younger and older player... Even if you think Lebron was better from 18-23 and 36+, many all-timers reached higher levels of basketball performance during the prime of their careers than young or old Lebron.

So who cares about the inherently lower caliber of basketball that players have young or old ages.. The issue at hand is who was better during their prime years that the young or old versions can't touch.

Jordan was clearly superior during these prime years.. The other years (young or old) only measure who was a later-bloomer and who decided to focus on playing longer, respectively.

Of course, even though it's clear that MJ was better during their respective primes, he was also better from 21-23 year old.. People simply make a mistake by comparing Lebron's early playoff teams to Jordan's, since Lebron had a 3-year headstart to develop a favored high seed before entering his first playoffs.. Obviously, the playoff records of 3rd-year high seeds that face losing teams cannot be compared to the records of rookie 8 seeds that face dynasties.

So putting aside Lebron's 3-year headstart that prevents a comparison of their teams at 21 years old or early playoff records, the only viable measuring stick left at that age is to compare their performance against similar competition.. Specifically, Lebron's run to the 2007 Finals was invalidated after it was confirmed that a bed-wetter achieved it (22 on 36% vs Spurs)... He simply couldn't achieve viable performance versus Finals comp at that age because he wet the bed against the 08' Celtics too (26 on 35%).. How could anyone think that a confirmed bed-wetter vs top teams compares to Jordan's goat-caliber at that age vs top teams (44 on 50% vs Celtics)?

So that's hardcore evidence of Lebron's inferiority at 21-23 years old (bed-wetting against top teams), while the regular season and playoff records at these ages are skewed by Lebron getting a 3 year headstart to develop a high seed before reaching 21.

Btw, Lebron's victory of the 07' East as a confirmed bed-wetter was consistent with other bed-wetters winning the East with 1-star teams during that decade, such as Miller, Iverson, Dwight, or Kidd twice - that's 6 times that the East was won by 1-star teams and none of the runs required elite stats or top 30 all-time status.. The 00's East was the only conference in history that was won by multiple, different 1-star teams and it happened 6 times.. The fact that everyone won the East with 1-star teams at that time, along with Lebron being exposed as a bed-wetting vs Finals comp completely invalidates his 07' East victory as a goat-caliber achievement.

Regarding 2016, the Cavs had 3 franchise players compared to 1 for the Warriors, which is why the Cavs were favored in the preseason.. Initial favorite status of the on-paper talent is important because the entire fraud of Lebron's career is that his style underachieves favored talent (loses with preseason favorites, or falls to underdog) - this makes any win seem like an "upset" and carry-job despite the roster being favored initially... lebron fans claim that HE'S the reason the rosters are initially favored but this is false because his rosters weren't preseason favorite until he teamed up with the #2 producer in the league at the time (Wade) plus another all-timer at 3rd option (big 3) - Lebron hand-picked 8 preseason favorites from 2011 to 2016 and 2020-21'.. So he isn't the reason for his roster's initial favorite status, but his weak brand of ball is the reason they fall to underdog or loser (underachieves favored talent).

Ultimately, it's better to produce perennial winners that rarely lose than perennial losers that rarely win.. Otherwise, the next win by the league-worst pistons should be considered a goat achievement and Cade beginning his goat case... That's what Lebron does except on the Finals level - his teams are the "pistons" of the Finals - even the worst teams eventually win but it doesn't mean their best player is goat..




Again, it was a compilation of debunked arguments

for example, guys like Curry don't get credit for beating the injured Cavs in 15', so why would Lebron get credit in 2018 for beating an injured team in the ECF?? Lebron had the only all-star sidekick in the conference and a 3-year defending conference champion vs baby teams that were injured with no chance.

Wins over weak and injured teams are irrelevant because everyone has carry-jobs vs weak teams - the issue and unrefuted point is that Lebron never had carry-jobs or carried weak help vs TOP teams - he never won a series against a top 5 SRS or Finals team with weak scoring & efficiency from a sidekick.. We already know that he lost with 18 on 38% from Mo, while MJ beat many top teams with that from Pippen, while often having worse team defenses..

Ultimately, there are more ways to demonstrate MJ's goat dominance than for any other player... i.e. the best-scoring DPOY was Hakeem with 27 ppg and DPOY, except MJ achieved 35 and DPOY - the goat caliber of 2-way play.. MJ was also a 1st-time point guard at 26 years old and he was instantly the best point guard in the league - this is goat talent for the game of basketball.. There were no other 30/10/10 point guards at that time and there wouldn't be any until the "30/10/10 era" some 30 years later... So Jordan could dominate the way Lebron does (point guard style) but Lebron can't dominate via expert jumpshooting skill and instinct to play off teammates (off-ball).. Jordan's dominance on and off-ball allowed him to fit with any teammate or system - this flexibility of skilset allowed the best teammate development, chemistry and strategic capacity/coaching, thereby producing the best team ceilings/Finals records.




If the NBA viewed high school players in 1981 the same way they viewed them in 2003, aka "instead of only looking at the best college players, we increase our chances of finding the next superstar by looking at the best high school players as well, and we should look at both groups with nearly equal viability".

If this was the case in 1981, MJ would've made a massive late-draft surge to the top of the boards above #1 pick Mark Aguirre and Isiah/Buck Williams that came after.. The reason we can say this with certainty is that we know that anyone who saw MJ during his senior year instantly thought he was the best in the country - Roy Williams said he was the best 6'4" high school player that he'd ever seen after seeing him dominate a few scrimmages at 5-star.., Meanwhile, Bobby Knight swore that MJ was the GOAT before he played a single NBA game.. In today's era, Jordan's alien-like hangtime and big man hands would be the hottest thing in the HS hoops youtube world.. He would be like Zion in HS and not a secret like many prodigies were in the 80's,

And I do believe that 19-year MJ could easily average 20 on weak efficiency in the NBA... And the jump that Jordan made between his freshman and sophomore years was the biggest development of his career, according to Dean Smith - and he actually stagnated during his junior year in the strict college system.. Accordingly, sophomore Jordan was basically the same as rookie MJ and would easily average 25+ in the league... People don't seem to understand that most perimeter stars average more PPG in the NBA than they do in college.. The same goes for other tougher formats like international stars, who also average more in the NBA than international leagues.

Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving are not franchise players, if they are your best player your team is in the lottery to maybe a 7seed at best

It's the same repeats, Lebron's teammates are amazing, the opponents he played aren't actually good.

Lebron couldn't play with players like Wade/Westbrook, Wade wasn't a good fit, they won despite it.

meanwhile Jordan never had to share and had rosters built to supplement his skills, imagine they picked up some washed scorer in 96 instead of a dominant defense player in Rodman

It's the same repeats, Lebron's teammates are terrible, the opponents he played are the GOAT teams.

fallguy,


Is Kareem the GOAT for fighting with Bruce Lee?