No free pass for Lebron

[AlexanderRight]

Are you pretending that the Bulls the following year didn't lose Horace Grant?

And if hypothetically MJ and Co could.have matched their performance in today's era there is no basis to discount what Russell could have done had he been transported holus bolus to the 80s. You simply cannot discount Russell and his titles.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

I'm not discrediting Russell's titles. I'm pointing out that Russell was the 3rd and 4th option on offense on his own team. That matters when you're talking best player in history. A quarter of his teammates made the HOF. That matters. His only competition was 7 other teams. That definitely matters if you're just counting rings. He was an average at best offensive player and arguably wasn't the best player of HIS OWN era. Your arguments against MJ is a hypothetical placing him OUTSIDE his era.

I don't have to go into make believe land and say "what if he played today?" to bring a fair argument against Russell. There's a valid case of him not being best player of his own decade. Your case against MJ is pure speculation and assumption. Do you see the difference?

And talking about 95 is dumb. The man played 16 games in two years. Nobody should kill him cause he lost in 6 games to a Finals team after sitting out damn near 2 years. Him sweeping Orlando the very next year more than made up for that.

I'm not saying what if MJ played today. I'm saying the league today won't allow for a team to go 6-0 because max contracts exist. You won't have an underpaid MJ and Scottie. Just like Jordan's league won't allow for 11 rings because there were more teams and deeper talent.

For the 100th time. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. That is pure speculation and assumption. A GOAT argument cannot be based off hypothetical.

Duncan and Pop were a rebound away from going 6-0 in the new millennium and were a strong championship contender for the majority of Lebron's prime. You have no basis to claim a greater player and a greater coach in MJ and Phil would be stonewalled out of similar success.

[Gregoire]

So you value a player staying with one team. Kobe actually tried to get traded but we can act as though you didnt know that.

As a minority, i give no fux about a player being loyal to a franchise or business. In fact, after seeing the crap they did to I.Thomas and others, i think its stupid. We can differ on that because i am guessing we are from different perspectives.

You ignored Brons move to LA because it didnt fit your narrative. I caught that.

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Oh, frustrated LeBron fanboy... niiiiiice! I likeeee it!11 Just stop coping, your idol is done

[DonaldSanders]

Warriors WERE unbeatable when healthy in the KD years, drayomond is an all time great defender and jokic is the best player in the league these last years.

And guess what? None of this have anything to do with Lebron. You guys just see what you want to see......

Warriors were down 3-2 in the WCF in 2018 but prevailed in large part due to a poorly timed hamstring injury to Chris Paul. They also played in perhaps the weakest era for bigs in the history of the sport. The fact that skilled guys like Embiid, Jokic, and Giannis have since come along and are dominating the league again is evidence that small ball dominance was a temporary thing that existed mainly because the skill transition that transformed the league in the 2010s hadn't fully taken place among very large humans.

Draymond being an ATG defender is arguable but the claim was GOAT status, or at least GOAT non-big status. I certainly don't think his man defense is on that level, and would Draymond have been nearly as effective in any other non-small ball era? I tend to think no.

What makes the things I listed (in addtion to many other examples) about Lebron is the way his fans consistently overrate them in order to prop up Lebron.

You know what people tend to forget about that series? At 2-1 for the dubs one of their starters went down as well, Iguodala. So please read again what i wrote.

Not only that, the next year Chris Paul played and Durant got injured, and the Rockets lost. The "one CP3 hammy" fallacy was put to bed. You get told some BS about "oh well CP wasn't as good the next year." The Rockets got their chance with a healthy Chris Paul and the Warriors down Durant and couldn't get it done.

[lessthanjake]

Warriors were down 3-2 in the WCF in 2018 but prevailed in large part due to a poorly timed hamstring injury to Chris Paul. They also played in perhaps the weakest era for bigs in the history of the sport. The fact that skilled guys like Embiid, Jokic, and Giannis have since come along and are dominating the league again is evidence that small ball dominance was a temporary thing that existed mainly because the skill transition that transformed the league in the 2010s hadn't fully taken place among very large humans.

Draymond being an ATG defender is arguable but the claim was GOAT status, or at least GOAT non-big status. I certainly don't think his man defense is on that level, and would Draymond have been nearly as effective in any other non-small ball era? I tend to think no.

What makes the things I listed (in addtion to many other examples) about Lebron is the way his fans consistently overrate them in order to prop up Lebron.

You know what people tend to forget about that series? At 2-1 for the dubs one of their starters went down as well, Iguodala. So please read again what i wrote.

Not only that, the next year Chris Paul played and Durant got injured, and the Rockets lost. The "one CP3 hammy" fallacy was put to bed. You get told some BS about "oh well CP wasn't as good the next year." The Rockets got their chance with a healthy Chris Paul and the Warriors down Durant and couldn't get it done.

This is an interesting point, but I do think there’s something to the idea that the 2019 Rockets were meaningfully less good than the 2018 Rockets. One team won 65 games and had a 8.21 SRS and the other team won 53 games and had a 4.96 SRS. Part of that may be that Chris Paul wasn’t as good, but it’s such a dip that there’s surely more factors than just that. In any event, I don’t really think the 2019 series tells us all that much about 2018, given how much better the Rockets clearly were in 2018.

I guess my view is that the 2018 Warriors were incredibly good, but they genuinely were pretty even with the 2018 Rockets, and that that’s not really an indictment on the 2018 Warriors’ quality but rather is an indication of how incredibly good the Rockets were that year.

Whether the 2018 Warriors could’ve dealt with a dominant big man like Jokic is an interesting question. I tend to think Draymond could’ve held his own against elite big men enough for those Warriors to not get just completely cooked, despite giving up a lot of size on those guys. I thought Draymond actually did a pretty decent job on Jokic in the 2022 series. Obviously he couldn’t stop him from doing well, but with a guy like that it’s more about containing the damage to at least some degree and then hoping your offense can do even better. And I tend to think the 2018 Warriors would have a good shot at doing that against the elite big men of today’s era. Definitely an interesting hypothetical to think about.

[DonaldSanders]

This is an interesting point, but I do think there’s something to the idea that the 2019 Rockets were meaningfully less good than the 2018 Rockets. One team won 65 games and had a 8.21 SRS and the other team won 53 games and had a 4.96 SRS. Part of that may be that Chris Paul wasn’t as good, but it’s such a dip that there’s surely more factors than just that. In any event, I don’t really think the 2019 series tells us all that much about 2018, given how much better the Rockets clearly were in 2018.

I guess my view is that the 2018 Warriors were incredibly good, but they genuinely were pretty even with the 2018 Rockets, and that that’s not really an indictment on the 2018 Warriors’ quality but rather is an indication of how incredibly good the Rockets were that year.

The teams are almost the same though, and a drop in SRS/wins doesn't always tell us the whole story. Take the KD Warriors own progression:

2016-17 Warriors had an SRS of 11.35 and 67 wins
2017-18 Warriors had an SRS of 5.79 and 58 wins
2018-19 Warriors had an SRS of 6.42 and 57 wins

Yet people believed all 3 years that this was basically the same team, although I know 2016-17 is considered the best (and I agree). Shuffling a few role players for Houston while subtracting Durant late in the 19 series isn't really comparable.

[B_Creamy]

So you value a player staying with one team. Kobe actually tried to get traded but we can act as though you didnt know that.

As a minority, i give no fux about a player being loyal to a franchise or business. In fact, after seeing the crap they did to I.Thomas and others, i think its stupid. We can differ on that because i am guessing we are from different perspectives.

You ignored Brons move to LA because it didnt fit your narrative. I caught that.

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Dog you do nothing but meat ride LeBron on here. Have some self awareness when you say someone else is glazing lmao

[KyRo23]

One thing I’ve noticed people do without fail is lionize the guys Lebron loses to.

Everyone knows Duncan was an ATG, but he also had a lot of help. Parker, Ginobli, Kawhi, great role players, the greatest coach of all time… You look at PC board top 100 list and Duncan is now all the way up to 5th all time. Sorry, TD isn’t the 5th greatest player ever.

Lebron loses to Warriors and now people think 6’6 Draymond is the greatest defender ever. Yeah, he’s really good. Is he the GOAT defender? NO!! He’s not even on the top 10 list! Also, small ball Warriors are the GOAT team because Lebron lost to them.

Lebron can’t beat Jokic and so now Jokic is the best player since Jordan and people are arguing about whether his peak is the GOAT peak. Jokic is amazing. Is he the greatest player of all time? NO!!

I’m surprised Lebron fans aren’t claiming Tyson Chandler is the greatest defensive big just because Lebron lost to him.

This is one of the ways we do give Lebron a free pass. Not everyone needs to be the greatest just because Lebron lost to them.

You think it's LeBron fans saying this stuff?

Yeah, LeBron fans are saying that Jokic is the best player since MJ... this doesn't even make sense. Why would LeBron fans, who think LeBron is the best player ever or since Jordan, say Jokic is the best since MJ?

Most LeBron fans HATED Dray when Bron and him went head to head in the finals. We were not calling him the GOAT defender. Actually most LeBron fans gave Iggy a lot of credit for 2015 than anything.

You may want to ask yourself why some people say some of these things. Some of them might just be true. I don't think Dray is the best defender ever, but man he is one of the best team defenders I have seen.

I just don't think this is a solid point at all

[Gregoire]

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Dog you do nothing but meat ride LeBron on here. Have some self awareness when you say someone else is glazing lmao

Yeeea, LeFlop is his owner, this days are one of the worst days in his life, have some mercy for him

[SpreeS]

Leave this grandpa alone. He one of the best all time and let have his sunshine

[Heej]

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Dog you do nothing but meat ride LeBron on here. Have some self awareness when you say someone else is glazing lmao

Cry more about it. Somehow that's still more respectable than going around begging every intelligent poster on PC Board for top 5 takes

[therealbig3]

One thing I’ve noticed people do without fail is lionize the guys Lebron loses to.

Everyone knows Duncan was an ATG, but he also had a lot of help. Parker, Ginobli, Kawhi, great role players, the greatest coach of all time… You look at PC board top 100 list and Duncan is now all the way up to 5th all time. Sorry, TD isn’t the 5th greatest player ever.

Lebron loses to Warriors and now people think 6’6 Draymond is the greatest defender ever. Yeah, he’s really good. Is he the GOAT defender? NO!! He’s not even on the top 10 list! Also, small ball Warriors are the GOAT team because Lebron lost to them.

Lebron can’t beat Jokic and so now Jokic is the best player since Jordan and people are arguing about whether his peak is the GOAT peak. Jokic is amazing. Is he the greatest player of all time? NO!!

I’m surprised Lebron fans aren’t claiming Tyson Chandler is the greatest defensive big just because Lebron lost to him.

This is one of the ways we do give Lebron a free pass. Not everyone needs to be the greatest just because Lebron lost to them.

You think it's LeBron fans saying this stuff?

Yeah, LeBron fans are saying that Jokic is the best player since MJ... this doesn't even make sense. Why would LeBron fans, who think LeBron is the best player ever or since Jordan, say Jokic is the best since MJ?

Most LeBron fans HATED Dray when Bron and him went head to head in the finals. We were not calling him the GOAT defender. Actually most LeBron fans gave Iggy a lot of credit for 2015 than anything.

You may want to ask yourself why some people say some of these things. Some of them might just be true. I don't think Dray is the best defender ever, but man he is one of the best team defenders I have seen.

I just don't think this is a solid point at all

I mean, if any players get lionized, isn’t it Jordan’s competition more than anything? Isiah, Ewing, Drexler, Miller, Payton…if it wasn’t for the Jordan association, none of these guys would be talked about as highly as they are now. Even Barkley or Malone, who were great players, get overrated because they were Jordan’s rivals.

Hakeem was the one guy who could have owned the Bulls if they ever matched up, but Jordan never faced him. Which is probably why he actually gets underrated. He gets downplayed to make it seem like he wasn’t the clear 2nd best player of the Jordan era, so that the narrative of Jordan shutting down all of the best competition sticks.

[KembaWalker]

One thing I’ve noticed people do without fail is lionize the guys Lebron loses to.

Everyone knows Duncan was an ATG, but he also had a lot of help. Parker, Ginobli, Kawhi, great role players, the greatest coach of all time… You look at PC board top 100 list and Duncan is now all the way up to 5th all time. Sorry, TD isn’t the 5th greatest player ever.

Lebron loses to Warriors and now people think 6’6 Draymond is the greatest defender ever. Yeah, he’s really good. Is he the GOAT defender? NO!! He’s not even on the top 10 list! Also, small ball Warriors are the GOAT team because Lebron lost to them.

Lebron can’t beat Jokic and so now Jokic is the best player since Jordan and people are arguing about whether his peak is the GOAT peak. Jokic is amazing. Is he the greatest player of all time? NO!!

I’m surprised Lebron fans aren’t claiming Tyson Chandler is the greatest defensive big just because Lebron lost to him.

This is one of the ways we do give Lebron a free pass. Not everyone needs to be the greatest just because Lebron lost to them.

You think it's LeBron fans saying this stuff?

Yeah, LeBron fans are saying that Jokic is the best player since MJ... this doesn't even make sense. Why would LeBron fans, who think LeBron is the best player ever or since Jordan, say Jokic is the best since MJ?

Most LeBron fans HATED Dray when Bron and him went head to head in the finals. We were not calling him the GOAT defender. Actually most LeBron fans gave Iggy a lot of credit for 2015 than anything.

You may want to ask yourself why some people say some of these things. Some of them might just be true. I don't think Dray is the best defender ever, but man he is one of the best team defenders I have seen.

I just don't think this is a solid point at all

I mean, if any players get lionized, isn’t it Jordan’s competition more than anything? Isiah, Ewing, Drexler, Miller, Payton…if it wasn’t for the Jordan association, none of these guys would be talked about as highly as they are now. Even Barkley or Malone, who were great players, get overrated because they were Jordan’s rivals.

Hakeem was the one guy who could have owned the Bulls if they ever matched up, but Jordan never faced him. Which is probably why he actually gets underrated. He gets downplayed to make it seem like he wasn’t the clear 2nd best player of the Jordan era, so that the narrative of Jordan shutting down all of the best competition sticks.

Those guys get understated because MJ killed the competition so bad. LeBron couldn’t do that to Curry because he played an inferior brand of basketball. He basically couldn’t even get over the hump of a bunch of 90s players either and had to stack the deck to finally do so. lol

[prophet_of_rage]

I'm not discrediting Russell's titles. I'm pointing out that Russell was the 3rd and 4th option on offense on his own team. That matters when you're talking best player in history. A quarter of his teammates made the HOF. That matters. His only competition was 7 other teams. That definitely matters if you're just counting rings. He was an average at best offensive player and arguably wasn't the best player of HIS OWN era. Your arguments against MJ is a hypothetical placing him OUTSIDE his era.

I don't have to go into make believe land and say "what if he played today?" to bring a fair argument against Russell. There's a valid case of him not being best player of his own decade. Your case against MJ is pure speculation and assumption. Do you see the difference?

And talking about 95 is dumb. The man played 16 games in two years. Nobody should kill him cause he lost in 6 games to a Finals team after sitting out damn near 2 years. Him sweeping Orlando the very next year more than made up for that.

I'm not saying what if MJ played today. I'm saying the league today won't allow for a team to go 6-0 because max contracts exist. You won't have an underpaid MJ and Scottie. Just like Jordan's league won't allow for 11 rings because there were more teams and deeper talent.

For the 100th time. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. That is pure speculation and assumption. A GOAT argument cannot be based off hypothetical.

Duncan and Pop were a rebound away from going 6-0 in the new millennium and were a strong championship contender for the majority of Lebron's prime. You have no basis to claim a greater player and a greater coach in MJ and Phil would be stonewalled out of similar success.

A GOAT argument is purely hypothetical. You know that, right? There Iis no actual title to that effect. There is no statistical requirement. According to you there can now be no context?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[prophet_of_rage]

I'm not discrediting Russell's titles. I'm pointing out that Russell was the 3rd and 4th option on offense on his own team. That matters when you're talking best player in history. A quarter of his teammates made the HOF. That matters. His only competition was 7 other teams. That definitely matters if you're just counting rings. He was an average at best offensive player and arguably wasn't the best player of HIS OWN era. Your arguments against MJ is a hypothetical placing him OUTSIDE his era.

I don't have to go into make believe land and say "what if he played today?" to bring a fair argument against Russell. There's a valid case of him not being best player of his own decade. Your case against MJ is pure speculation and assumption. Do you see the difference?

And talking about 95 is dumb. The man played 16 games in two years. Nobody should kill him cause he lost in 6 games to a Finals team after sitting out damn near 2 years. Him sweeping Orlando the very next year more than made up for that.

I'm not saying what if MJ played today. I'm saying the league today won't allow for a team to go 6-0 because max contracts exist. You won't have an underpaid MJ and Scottie. Just like Jordan's league won't allow for 11 rings because there were more teams and deeper talent.

For the 100th time. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. That is pure speculation and assumption. A GOAT argument cannot be based off hypothetical.

Duncan and Pop were a rebound away from going 6-0 in the new millennium and were a strong championship contender for the majority of Lebron's prime. You have no basis to claim a greater player and a greater coach in MJ and Phil would be stonewalled out of similar success.

How do you talk about hypothetically and then say why couldn't Jordan and Phil win six today. Isn't that a hypothetical?

You see the fatal flaw in this argument? And anything you can do for Jordan you can do for Russell. In fact, you must do.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[lessthanjake]

This is an interesting point, but I do think there’s something to the idea that the 2019 Rockets were meaningfully less good than the 2018 Rockets. One team won 65 games and had a 8.21 SRS and the other team won 53 games and had a 4.96 SRS. Part of that may be that Chris Paul wasn’t as good, but it’s such a dip that there’s surely more factors than just that. In any event, I don’t really think the 2019 series tells us all that much about 2018, given how much better the Rockets clearly were in 2018.

I guess my view is that the 2018 Warriors were incredibly good, but they genuinely were pretty even with the 2018 Rockets, and that that’s not really an indictment on the 2018 Warriors’ quality but rather is an indication of how incredibly good the Rockets were that year.

The teams are almost the same though, and a drop in SRS/wins doesn't always tell us the whole story. Take the KD Warriors own progression:

2016-17 Warriors had an SRS of 11.35 and 67 wins
2017-18 Warriors had an SRS of 5.79 and 58 wins
2018-19 Warriors had an SRS of 6.42 and 57 wins

Yet people believed all 3 years that this was basically the same team, although I know 2016-17 is considered the best (and I agree). Shuffling a few role players for Houston while subtracting Durant late in the 19 series isn't really comparable.

This is a fair point. A couple things I’d note though:

1. People generally downplay drops in SRS and wins on multiple-title-winning teams in the middle of their run of titles, since the general assumption is that they just stopped caring as much in the regular season and started coasting. Which applies to those Warriors and doesn’t apply to those Rockets. It’s not necessarily *actually* the explanation, but I think it’s one people generally assume is a factor.

2. A lot of the drop in 2017-2018 was just due to Steph missing a lot of games. The Warriors won at a 66-win pace in games he played, and I imagine had a commensurately high SRS, given that their net rating in the games Steph played was +9.7. So that seems less about a real serious drop in team quality, and more just the team’s most impactful player missing a lot more time in one year than the other. Even in 2018-2019, Steph missed fewer games but the net rating without him was +8.65. That’s still a drop from 2017 though and I think people do attribute that drop in significant part to point #1 above (as well as to the team infighting by that point). Anyways, the Rockets don’t have this same kind of injury issue skewing the SRS downward from one year to the next. Chris Paul missed 24 games in both seasons, and Harden actually played more games in the 2018-2019 season than he had in 2017-2018.

Basically, I think there’s some more ready reasons why the Warriors’ drop in SRS and wins was not really reflective of a huge drop in quality (though I think most would agree that the 2017 Warriors team was actually the best one).

Ultimately, though, my view is that the 2018 Rockets were actually a genuinely great team. The Rockets had a 50-8 record that season when Chris Paul played (and a 44-5 record that season in games Harden and Chris Paul both played in). That’s a 71-win pace with Chris Paul (and a 74-win pace with both Paul and Harden). And that’s despite the fact that the games Chris Paul missed were an easier strength of schedule than the ones he played. Their SRS in games Chris Paul played in was +10.28! (And it was +3.21 without Chris Paul). So we are talking about a 70+ win, 10+ SRS team in games Chris Paul played in the regular season! And the Rockets had a +12.4 SRS in the first two rounds of the playoffs. I think this was actually a historically elite team, which there was no shame at all in struggling against. Indeed, it’s a team that was good enough that I think you’d expect any team in history to struggle against them.

[svart]

You know what people tend to forget about that series? At 2-1 for the dubs one of their starters went down as well, Iguodala. So please read again what i wrote.

Not only that, the next year Chris Paul played and Durant got injured, and the Rockets lost. The "one CP3 hammy" fallacy was put to bed. You get told some BS about "oh well CP wasn't as good the next year." The Rockets got their chance with a healthy Chris Paul and the Warriors down Durant and couldn't get it done.

This is an interesting point, but I do think there’s something to the idea that the 2019 Rockets were meaningfully less good than the 2018 Rockets. One team won 65 games and had a 8.21 SRS and the other team won 53 games and had a 4.96 SRS. Part of that may be that Chris Paul wasn’t as good, but it’s such a dip that there’s surely more factors than just that. In any event, I don’t really think the 2019 series tells us all that much about 2018, given how much better the Rockets clearly were in 2018.

I guess my view is that the 2018 Warriors were incredibly good, but they genuinely were pretty even with the 2018 Rockets, and that that’s not really an indictment on the 2018 Warriors’ quality but rather is an indication of how incredibly good the Rockets were that year.

Whether the 2018 Warriors could’ve dealt with a dominant big man like Jokic is an interesting question. I tend to think Draymond could’ve held his own against elite big men enough for those Warriors to not get just completely cooked, despite giving up a lot of size on those guys. I thought Draymond actually did a pretty decent job on Jokic in the 2022 series. Obviously he couldn’t stop him from doing well, but with a guy like that it’s more about containing the damage to at least some degree and then hoping your offense can do even better. And I tend to think the 2018 Warriors would have a good shot at doing that against the elite big men of today’s era. Definitely an interesting hypothetical to think about.

You might want to think another angle. I think kd played the best defense of his career while with the dubs. He cold have helped draymond with a skilled big, he also had it easy on offense with steph and klay, so he could have spent some energy on defense.

[AlexanderRight]

I'm not saying what if MJ played today. I'm saying the league today won't allow for a team to go 6-0 because max contracts exist. You won't have an underpaid MJ and Scottie. Just like Jordan's league won't allow for 11 rings because there were more teams and deeper talent.

For the 100th time. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. That is pure speculation and assumption. A GOAT argument cannot be based off hypothetical.

Duncan and Pop were a rebound away from going 6-0 in the new millennium and were a strong championship contender for the majority of Lebron's prime. You have no basis to claim a greater player and a greater coach in MJ and Phil would be stonewalled out of similar success.

How do you talk about hypothetically and then say why couldn't Jordan and Phil win six today. Isn't that a hypothetical?

You see the fatal flaw in this argument? And anything you can do for Jordan you can do for Russell. In fact, you must do.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

Because my argument isn't that MJ would win 6 in any day, it's that he rose higher than anyone ever in HIS day, and it ain't just about rings. You have no basis to claim he would not be just as successful today, which is the crutch of your argument which makes it very weak. Your argument against MJ is to place him outside his era and assume WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

My argument against Russell is WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED in his own era. Do you get it now?

25% of Russell teammates made the HOF. Russell played in a 8 team league which vastly increased his chances of winning so just "count the ranngz!" isn't gonna work. Russell was a pedestrian offensive player averaging 15PPG. Russell was the 3rd and 4th leading scorer on his teams. Russell was outplayed by another ATG countless times. You see? These are valid points against him that have nothing to do with magically dropping him in the 90s and saying "he would've sucked". I don't have to play "what if" to make a case against Russell. All you're doing with MJ is playing "what if"? It's purely speculative. Do you see the difference?

I'm not diminishing Russell's rings or trying to push that he wouldn't be as good today, like you're doing with MJ. I'm saying despite Russell's great success, I believe MJ's success was greater. I'm just comparing what he did vs what MJ did at face value and I believe MJ rose higher. You speak as if this entire debate is just a ring count and MJ's only argument against LBJ is just "count the ranngz!" It's not...

[Iwasawitness]

Bron moving to LA is brutal ring chasing... Which is failed

If joining a 35 win team by yourself is ringchasing then blowing up my PMs and quoting me in your sig because I stopped replying must be glazing.

Oh, frustrated LeBron fanboy... niiiiiice! I likeeee it!11 Just stop coping, your idol is done

Sorry dude but this looks really bad on you. There comes a point where just have to accept that someone else doesn’t share your opinion and it let be. And this is coming from me of all people.

[prophet_of_rage]

One thing I’ve noticed people do without fail is lionize the guys Lebron loses to.

Everyone knows Duncan was an ATG, but he also had a lot of help. Parker, Ginobli, Kawhi, great role players, the greatest coach of all time… You look at PC board top 100 list and Duncan is now all the way up to 5th all time. Sorry, TD isn’t the 5th greatest player ever.

Lebron loses to Warriors and now people think 6’6 Draymond is the greatest defender ever. Yeah, he’s really good. Is he the GOAT defender? NO!! He’s not even on the top 10 list! Also, small ball Warriors are the GOAT team because Lebron lost to them.

Lebron can’t beat Jokic and so now Jokic is the best player since Jordan and people are arguing about whether his peak is the GOAT peak. Jokic is amazing. Is he the greatest player of all time? NO!!

I’m surprised Lebron fans aren’t claiming Tyson Chandler is the greatest defensive big just because Lebron lost to him.

This is one of the ways we do give Lebron a free pass. Not everyone needs to be the greatest just because Lebron lost to them.

You think it's LeBron fans saying this stuff?

Yeah, LeBron fans are saying that Jokic is the best player since MJ... this doesn't even make sense. Why would LeBron fans, who think LeBron is the best player ever or since Jordan, say Jokic is the best since MJ?

Most LeBron fans HATED Dray when Bron and him went head to head in the finals. We were not calling him the GOAT defender. Actually most LeBron fans gave Iggy a lot of credit for 2015 than anything.

You may want to ask yourself why some people say some of these things. Some of them might just be true. I don't think Dray is the best defender ever, but man he is one of the best team defenders I have seen.

I just don't think this is a solid point at all

I mean, if any players get lionized, isn’t it Jordan’s competition more than anything? Isiah, Ewing, Drexler, Miller, Payton…if it wasn’t for the Jordan association, none of these guys would be talked about as highly as they are now. Even Barkley or Malone, who were great players, get overrated because they were Jordan’s rivals.

Hakeem was the one guy who could have owned the Bulls if they ever matched up, but Jordan never faced him. Which is probably why he actually gets underrated. He gets downplayed to make it seem like he wasn’t the clear 2nd best player of the Jordan era, so that the narrative of Jordan shutting down all of the best competition sticks.

Don't ask them to self reflect. The 90s had weak teams without multiple All stars on any team. They had great individuals but weak teams. And we should never speak of Jordan's matchups. He always had the favorable matchup there because he was bigger and stronger than any 90s guard.


Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[prophet_of_rage]

For the 100th time. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT. That is pure speculation and assumption. A GOAT argument cannot be based off hypothetical.

Duncan and Pop were a rebound away from going 6-0 in the new millennium and were a strong championship contender for the majority of Lebron's prime. You have no basis to claim a greater player and a greater coach in MJ and Phil would be stonewalled out of similar success.

How do you talk about hypothetically and then say why couldn't Jordan and Phil win six today. Isn't that a hypothetical?

You see the fatal flaw in this argument? And anything you can do for Jordan you can do for Russell. In fact, you must do.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

Because my argument isn't that MJ would win 6 in any day, it's that he rose higher than anyone ever in HIS day, and it ain't just about rings. You have no basis to claim he would not be just as successful today, which is the crutch of your argument which makes it very weak. Your argument against MJ is to place him outside his era and assume WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

My argument against Russell is WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED in his own era. Do you get it now?

25% of Russell teammates made the HOF. Russell played in a 8 team league which vastly increased his chances of winning so just "count the ranngz!" isn't gonna work. Russell was a pedestrian offensive player averaging 15PPG. Russell was the 3rd and 4th leading scorer on his teams. Russell was outplayed by another ATG countless times. You see? These are valid points against him that have nothing to do with magically dropping him in the 90s and saying "he would've sucked". I don't have to play "what if" to make a case against Russell. All you're doing with MJ is playing "what if"? It's purely speculative. Do you see the difference?

I'm not diminishing Russell's rings or trying to push that he wouldn't be as good today, like you're doing with MJ. I'm saying despite Russell's great success, I believe MJ's success was greater. I'm just comparing what he did vs what MJ did at face value and I believe MJ rose higher. You speak as if this entire debate is just a ring count and MJ's only argument against LBJ is just "count the ranngz!" It's not...

You know I'm not playing what if. I'm contextualising. I know it's not something that a lot of people do with MJ.

So if you acknowledge that someone won more, won more rings, had a huge impact on their team and you just happen to think that MJ rose higher than you can accept someone else will look at certain factors and find that they rose higher than MJ? And when you ask yourself questions like why did player X win so much or dominate so much there has to be some context right?

So this is all subjective and you are cherry picking your criteria. You completely ignore Russell's defensive impact and the fact that he was the main cog of the Celtics because he was the third scorer. But he was their engine nonetheless. And that's okay.

I can dismiss the 6 rings because of the way the league was set up the same way. That's okay, too. You're stuck because you think I'm jumping to MJ sucks. And that's where you fail logically. I have never said that. I have said six rings is impossible in this climate. And that is supported by the fact that we haven't seen it come close to happening thanks to free agency and max contracts. You saying the Spurs almost won six from 1999 to 2014 doesn't change those facts because the league changed several times during that 15 year period.

Lebron's NBA is as different from MJ's as chalk from cheese. You cannot compare eras. Pick your facourite player and make him the fictitious goat. I have mine. And it isn't who you think it is.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app