RealGM

HeartBreakKid wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Saying MVP is harder to get than a title is pretty objective. Allen Iverson getting an MVP but no title isn't proof that it is easier to obtain an MVP, for every Allen Iverson there are two Gasols (literally). Two Mournings. Two Pierces'. Two Allen's. Two Greens. Two Thompsons. Two Ginobilis. Two Parkers.

You're being way too conservative here. There's 14 players on title winning rosters. There's one mvp. It is objectively 14 x harder to win an mvp.

OP should math better.

He added the caveat of "great players" only. And Gooner isn't the OP.

OP doesn't have to refer to the topic poster.

That aside @gooner, being "great" or "bad' would not make winning any easier or harder relative to winning an mvp. The available # of awards don't go up because you cross an arbitrary treshold.

Gooner wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:
I know there was gonna be someone comparing Jordan's era to this era that way, but it's simply not true. Athleticism, strength and skill was on the same level in the 90's as it is now. Some aspects of the game are better now, some were better then, but the biggest myth is that today's league is much more athletic.

There are so many MVP's who don't have a title, but most of the guys who led their teams to championships have a MVP.

But the same logic can be applied to 1960s basketball compared to 1990s. The game was a bit different in 1960s mostly because of different rules but 1960s players were already big, athletic, skilled and not only whit like at the beginning of the 1950s. Find me one all-star from late 60s than would be bad player in 1990s.

I'm not trying to disrespect the players from the 60's, I respect what they did for the game. But they were definitely skinnier and less athletic than players in the 90's. I'm not saying all stars form that era would be bad players in the 90's, but someone like Tommy Heinsohn wouldn't have the same impact.

Are you trying to tell me that players like Joe Caldwell, Gus Johnson, Johnny Green, Walter Dukes, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and many others wouldn't be as athletic as 1990s players? That's not true and you should know that.

Gooner wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:

Gooner wrote:
It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

LeBron spent 11 seasons in Cleveland and made the Finals 5 times. Over that entire period, the Cavs had a negative point differential when LeBron was on the bench all 11 seasons. The team went 14-39 when he didn’t play. And the best teammate he ever had played with had 7/7 losing seasons without him. Superteams indeed.

LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

You actually are a troll. Go outside, get some air and figure out what makes you happy in life. You will be thankful in 20 years.

Gooner wrote:

Franco wrote:

Gooner wrote:
LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

Not only you use basically out of the league Deron Williams to say a team was stacked, but you also created an alternate reality version of the Cavaliers, since some of those players never played together for us.

Williams was the guy LeBron wanted, and he should have been a good backup point guard. Adjustment to LeBron system is never easy though. All these guys have played together, except Dellavedova, ok. Williams was his replacement.

Ah yes, Deron Williams was such a great backup that every single team didn’t give him a shot after 2017. Apparently LeBron absolutely destroyed his career for good, despite he fact that his putrid efficiency went up all-around when playing with him.

Gooner wrote:They lost to 60 win team, no shame in that.

Other players lose to an unproven core with 60 wins:

“No shame in that!”

LeBron loses to a 67-win team when his two best teammates go down, a 73-win core that added Kevin Durant, a 62-win Spurs dynasty that has a historic point differential, a Warriors squad with 3 other stars (and two of the top 5 players on earth) that just beat a 65-win Rockets, and a Spurs team with prime Duncan/Ginobili/Parker:

“LeBum! He makes his teammates worse! No excuses! 3-6!!!”



You guys flip-flop around more than a damn fish out of the pond

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:
You could say the same comparing Jordan's era to James era. And 1969 is more comparable to 80s basketball than 2010s, so if you're criticizing Bill Russell you are criticizing Jordan.

And Bill Russell won when the league was much bigger than that, and Michael Jordan only won when the league had expanded and diluted its talent pool. The competition thing makes no more sense, if the NBA expanded today to 36 teams would it be more difficult to win an NBA championship for the current contenders?




There are more great players who do not have an MVP or DPOY than a title. MVP is significantly harder to get than an NBA title.

I know there was gonna be someone comparing Jordan's era to this era that way, but it's simply not true. Athleticism, strength and skill was on the same level in the 90's as it is now. Some aspects of the game are better now, some were better then, but the biggest myth is that today's league is much more athletic.

There are so many MVP's who don't have a title, but most of the guys who led their teams to championships have a MVP.

But the same logic can be applied to 1960s basketball compared to 1990s. The game was a bit different in 1960s mostly because of different rules but 1960s players were already big, athletic, skilled and not only whit like at the beginning of the 1950s. Find me one all-star from late 60s than would be bad player in 1990s.

Don Ohl. All-star every year from ‘63 to ‘67. Career PER of 13.2 on .477 TS%. Listed as PG and SG with career high of 4.1 APG despite playing in an incredibly high pace league.

iggymcfrack wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Gooner wrote:
I know there was gonna be someone comparing Jordan's era to this era that way, but it's simply not true. Athleticism, strength and skill was on the same level in the 90's as it is now. Some aspects of the game are better now, some were better then, but the biggest myth is that today's league is much more athletic.

There are so many MVP's who don't have a title, but most of the guys who led their teams to championships have a MVP.

But the same logic can be applied to 1960s basketball compared to 1990s. The game was a bit different in 1960s mostly because of different rules but 1960s players were already big, athletic, skilled and not only whit like at the beginning of the 1950s. Find me one all-star from late 60s than would be bad player in 1990s.

Don Ohl. All-star every year from ‘63 to ‘67. Career PER of 13.2 on .477 TS%. Listed as PG and SG with career high of 4.1 APG despite playing in an incredibly high pace league.

That isnt late 60s but even Don would benefit immensely from the increased space and lax-er rules of the 90s.

Why do you ignore the fact that Don Ohl increased his numbers in the post-season from 19 PPG to over 25 PPG and increased efficiency from 48.2 TS% to 52.1 TS%? That's going from league average to +4%, equivalent to about +4.5% today on 25% more volume. That's hugely impressive.

FYI assist numbers were much more difficult to come by back in the 60s. Basically any dribble after recieving the ball negated an assist.

Gooner wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:

Gooner wrote:
It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

LeBron spent 11 seasons in Cleveland and made the Finals 5 times. Over that entire period, the Cavs had a negative point differential when LeBron was on the bench all 11 seasons. The team went 14-39 when he didn’t play. And the best teammate he ever had played with had 7/7 losing seasons without him. Superteams indeed.

LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

You're literally just naming random guys. Over Half of the guys you've listed are scrubs or washed up and are making lebron's case for him.

BigRedDog wrote:

Gooner wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:
LeBron spent 11 seasons in Cleveland and made the Finals 5 times. Over that entire period, the Cavs had a negative point differential when LeBron was on the bench all 11 seasons. The team went 14-39 when he didn’t play. And the best teammate he ever had played with had 7/7 losing seasons without him. Superteams indeed.

LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

You're literally just naming random guys. Over Half of the guys you've listed are scrubs or washed up and are making lebron's case for him.

You don't understand the importance of role players. Guys like Livingston, West, McGee and Pachulia have had their place on the Warriors, and they were respected. On the other hand, everybody disrespects LeBron's teammates.

Gooner wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

G35 wrote:The year when Lebron won his 5th ring he got into the conversation...when Lebron won his 6th ring he passed him up.....

It's a shame neither Kobe nor LeBron can hold a candle to John Havlicek. Hell, neither can Jordan.

It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

This always makes it seem like it would've been better for him to lose in earlier rounds like Jordan than actually make the finals and lose. As for the losses, MJ isn't beating 2015 Warriors by himself, and he probably isn't even getting to the finals. In 2017 and 2018, MJ is not beating the Warriors. I'm sorry, he lost to Shaq and Penny, idc if he was coming back he was back to normal by then. GSW is far better than any team MJ beat in the finals. The 2014 Spurs were a miraculous squad and DWade was finished by then. Bosh was also a non-factor. MJ's not winning that. MJ wins 2K11 finals, for sure. 2007 MJ isnt getting to the finals.

Gooner wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

Gooner wrote:
LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

You're literally just naming random guys. Over Half of the guys you've listed are scrubs or washed up and are making lebron's case for him.

You don't understand the importance of role players. Guys like Livingston, West, McGee and Pachulia have had their place on the Warriors, and they were respected. On the other hand, everybody disrespects LeBron's teammates.

The problem is that you can't separate out individual games, series and years. You just have them all mashed together in the way most detrimental to James, but it's a fictitious creation.

Role players are hugely important. In the 2012 finals, James had great stats, but several of his role players went off too. It was a great team win. I didn't think I've ever heard anyone arguing James was carrying bums in that series.

In the 2011 finals the role players were pure trash. Joel Anthony got big minutes. Despite terrible role players the Heat still should have won,butnJames had the worst series of his life. That series is on him. He should have overcome poor role player play there, but he didn't.

In 2013 Mario Chalmers had a great game six and Ray Allen made an iconic shot. That shot should be his career defining moment, but James haters have siezed on it to discredit James and by making it about James are the ones who are undermining the credit role players deserve.

Throughout the Heat runs Bosh sacrificed for the betterment of the team. He was a big part of the Heat coming from behind to get past the Celtics when he came back from injury. He deserves plenty of credit for their success, but be also tended to underperform at times.

The 2016 title was again a great team effort. JR Smith was an excellent, vitally important role player with good defense and timely threes including some big one in game seven without which the Cavs probably don't win. Tristan Thompson was great through the playoffs. Richard Jefferson's old self made a difference. But don't tell me Matthew Dellavadova was a key role player in the finals. He was unplayable. He did help in earlier rounds for what that's worth. Obviously Kyrie was huge there too.

But in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018 James was the best player on the floor and lost. A big part of that was inadequacies of his supporting cast especially in 2015 and 2018, though there were problems in 2014 and 2017 as well. The other part was that the teams James faced in 2014, 2017 and 2018 were flat out elite even by championship standards. Combine elite competition with inadequate support and its basically an auto loss. (See MJ in 86). It doesn't even mean the support is bad in terms of general NBA support. There is a difference between championship level supporting casts and second round level supporting casts which you seem to be missing.

I think it was apparent by LeBron's third season (2005-06) that he was on Kobe's level and would most likely become the better player. Then the talent was roughly equivalent for a couple years, but Kobe's big advantage in experience made him the more effective of the two until LeBron hit another gear in 2009.

Gooner wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

Gooner wrote:
LeBron, Irving, Love, Smith, Thompson, Korver, Dellavedova, Deron Williams, Richard Jefferson, Shumpert...those teams were stacked.

You're literally just naming random guys. Over Half of the guys you've listed are scrubs or washed up and are making lebron's case for him.

You don't understand the importance of role players. Guys like Livingston, West, McGee and Pachulia have had their place on the Warriors, and they were respected. On the other hand, everybody disrespects LeBron's teammates.

And Rightfully so. They were horrible basketball players or on their absolute last legs. Matt Dellavedova was never, not once, not one of the worst players in the entire league.


You wantalk about role players. Talk about the 2011 Dallas Mavericks. Let's talk about arguably the best defensive player in the league Tyson Chandler absolutely shutting down the paint by utilizing the 2.9 second zone defense that kevin garnett used to shut down Kobe Bryant in the 2008 Finals. Heck, Tyson Chandler made even Carmelo ANthony look good one year. Let's talk about one of the greatest to ever play Jason Kidd. Who after winning a title in Dallas also managed to make Carmelo Anthony look good the next year. Let's talk about Shawn Marion one of the greatest glue guys in NBA history and the defense he played on Lebron. Let's talk about Deshawn Stevenson having an out of body experience in the NBA Finals and draining 3 pointers.

You give Lebron an outstanding role player like Chris ANderson instead of Joel ANthony an it's night and day. Miami scrapped their entire roster to put together the Wade/Bosh/Lebron trio. And they paid for it that first season. Wade wasnt an outside shooter. He hadnt learned how to play off-the-ball as a cutter yet. Miami was playing 4 on 5 on offense with Anthony out there. Mike Miller suffered a devastating injury. Miami hadn't picked up enough shooters and role playing veterans like Shane Battier and Ray Allen. Mario Chalmers wasn't battle tested yet.

Dir Nowitzki was an absolute steaming pile in the series clinching game and yet Dallas took an early lead and never looked back. Because they had a cast of hall of famers and great role players.

You are extremely confused here and this thread is full of people who are pointing that out to you.

At the moment : 2009

All Time : 2015



I have LeBron 6th all time (I have MJ, Kareem , Russell , Magic and Shaq ahead) and had Duncan ahead till 2018

Pelly24 wrote:

Gooner wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

It's a shame neither Kobe nor LeBron can hold a candle to John Havlicek. Hell, neither can Jordan.

It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

This always makes it seem like it would've been better for him to lose in earlier rounds like Jordan than actually make the finals and lose. As for the losses, MJ isn't beating 2015 Warriors by himself, and he probably isn't even getting to the finals. In 2017 and 2018, MJ is not beating the Warriors. I'm sorry, he lost to Shaq and Penny, idc if he was coming back he was back to normal by then. GSW is far better than any team MJ beat in the finals. The 2014 Spurs were a miraculous squad and DWade was finished by then. Bosh was also a non-factor. MJ's not winning that. MJ wins 2K11 finals, for sure. 2007 MJ isnt getting to the finals.

It would have been better for LeBron to actually win those finals, that's my point. You had 9 chances to win a title, and he barely got those 3, barely. On the other hand, almost all of his losses were very convincing.

MJ's Bulls would beat the Warriors from 2017 and 2018. They were just too tough and smart, and they had MJ. They would pound them in the post and on the glass. They could play big and small. Houston almost beat those Warriors, they are not this unbeatable team everybody makes them out to be. Chicago was definitely better than Houston.

It's funny that you mention MJ's loss to Orlando, and say he was back to normal by then. What happened next year? Go look it up. Bulls swept that Orlando team, and they showed that last year was an aberration. That Orlando team was better than any team LeBron has faced in the east during his final runs.

Gooner wrote:

KeithCozart wrote:It was 10 years ago when LeBron crushed every single argument over Kobe. Eye test clearly showed that he is playing at level Kobe never reached, talking strictly about basketball.

Legacy wise and all time lists, probably 2013.

Maybe on your all time list, but outside of this forum most people would put Kobe ahead of LeBron. Especially the NBA players who played against both. Winning matters. Excuses for 6 finals losses don't matter. People here are obsessed with stats, and they know less basketball than those fans that they call "casual".

I'm no Lebron fan, but truth be told, he had awful teams before he went to Miami, after that his teams were great until last season on the Lakers. Players' success is much reliant on the level of talent of their teams and comparing Kobe's to Lebron's, right from the start of their careers shows how Kobe's were much better, Lebron had to play saviour for a bad Cavs team. You switch the two players and things are so much different.

Kobe gets likely no championships being substituted for Lebron on his championship teams and the Lakers probably win 5 straight instead of just 3 at the start of the 2000s and maybe one or two more if Shaq didn't leave.

Gooner wrote:

Pelly24 wrote:

Gooner wrote:
It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

This always makes it seem like it would've been better for him to lose in earlier rounds like Jordan than actually make the finals and lose. As for the losses, MJ isn't beating 2015 Warriors by himself, and he probably isn't even getting to the finals. In 2017 and 2018, MJ is not beating the Warriors. I'm sorry, he lost to Shaq and Penny, idc if he was coming back he was back to normal by then. GSW is far better than any team MJ beat in the finals. The 2014 Spurs were a miraculous squad and DWade was finished by then. Bosh was also a non-factor. MJ's not winning that. MJ wins 2K11 finals, for sure. 2007 MJ isnt getting to the finals.

It would have been better for LeBron to actually win those finals, that's my point. You had 9 chances to win a title, and he barely got those 3, barely. On the other hand, almost all of his losses were very convincing.

MJ's Bulls would beat the Warriors from 2017 and 2018. They were just too tough and smart, and they had MJ. They would pound them in the post and on the glass. They could play big and small. Houston almost beat those Warriors, they are not this unbeatable team everybody makes them out to be. Chicago was definitely better than Houston.

It's funny that you mention MJ's loss to Orlando, and say he was back to normal by then. What happened next year? Go look it up. Bulls swept that Orlando team, and they showed that last year was an aberration. That Orlando team was better than any team LeBron has faced in the east during his final runs.

MJ would’ve won in 16.

OKC Thunder should’ve won in 16, without homecourt and a free win given by Draymond’s suspension. Or Bogut and Iggy being injured.

The Suns were a great team. Barkley Majerle KJ ...Sonics were stacked as well. Stockton is very underrated.

I rank the finals opponents
Warriors 17 > Spurs 14 > Suns 93 > Warriors 18 > Spurs 13 > Sonics 96 > Jazz 98 > Spurs 07 > Warriors 16 > Thunder 12 > Jazz 97 > Blazers 92 > Warriors 15 > Mavericks 11

The best team beaten was by MJ....

Gooner wrote:

Pelly24 wrote:

Gooner wrote:
It's not just the fact that LeBron has "only" 3 rings, it's those 6 finals losses that really put things into perspective. He played in a very weak eastern conference and he had superteams in most of those years he was making the finals, so he had his opportunities for titles. That's why I don't wanna hear these excuses. All time great player, but there is something missing there.

This always makes it seem like it would've been better for him to lose in earlier rounds like Jordan than actually make the finals and lose. As for the losses, MJ isn't beating 2015 Warriors by himself, and he probably isn't even getting to the finals. In 2017 and 2018, MJ is not beating the Warriors. I'm sorry, he lost to Shaq and Penny, idc if he was coming back he was back to normal by then. GSW is far better than any team MJ beat in the finals. The 2014 Spurs were a miraculous squad and DWade was finished by then. Bosh was also a non-factor. MJ's not winning that. MJ wins 2K11 finals, for sure. 2007 MJ isnt getting to the finals.

It would have been better for LeBron to actually win those finals, that's my point. You had 9 chances to win a title, and he barely got those 3, barely. On the other hand, almost all of his losses were very convincing.

MJ's Bulls would beat the Warriors from 2017 and 2018. They were just too tough and smart, and they had MJ. They would pound them in the post and on the glass. They could play big and small. Houston almost beat those Warriors, they are not this unbeatable team everybody makes them out to be. Chicago was definitely better than Houston.

It's funny that you mention MJ's loss to Orlando, and say he was back to normal by then. What happened next year? Go look it up. Bulls swept that Orlando team, and they showed that last year was an aberration. That Orlando team was better than any team LeBron has faced in the east during his final runs.

This is where you can't compare eras, teams are build to fit that era's style.

Rodman was a good post defender, dirty and allowed to get away away with it, but Draymond is a playmaker and Rodman would be a fish out of water trying to defend him. Curry's and Klay's great shooting limits Pippen's and Jordan's defense. Harper likely would defend Barnes. Think Iguodala's effect would also be more than Kukoc's, because of his defense more than anything. Think benches are similar but Bogut's higher IQ than Longley and Draymond's great defensive versatility would be the final difference. If somehow the rules were half way between the two eras, the Warriors would win, though barely.

The Warriors with Durant is not disputable, Warriors have too much talent with a third star scorer, Bulls didn't have that.

euroleague wrote:MJ would’ve won in 16.

OKC Thunder should’ve won in 16, without homecourt and a free win given by Draymond’s suspension. Or Bogut and Iggy being injured.

The Suns were a great team. Barkley Majerle KJ ...Sonics were stacked as well. Stockton is very underrated.

I rank the finals opponents
Warriors 17 > Spurs 14 > Suns 93 > Warriors 18 > Spurs 13 > Sonics 96 > Jazz 98 > Spurs 07 > Warriors 16 > Thunder 12 > Jazz 97 > Blazers 92 > Warriors 15 > Mavericks 11

The best team beaten was by MJ....

Zero metrics back that up. The nice thing is we have actual data to support relative team ratings, rather than baselessly claiming the 1993 Suns are better the 2018 Warriors or the 73-win 2016 Warriors or the 67-win 2015 Warriors. People were arguing that the 2016 team might have been the best ever before their loss, but sure, the 1993 Suns totally have them and their Durant iteration beat.

By ELO, Lebron faced the five best teams, and eight of the top ten. SRS says something similar, although feel free to look up those numbers yourself. And unlike Jordan, Lebron only had the favoured team twice.

euroleague wrote:

Gooner wrote:

Pelly24 wrote:

This always makes it seem like it would've been better for him to lose in earlier rounds like Jordan than actually make the finals and lose. As for the losses, MJ isn't beating 2015 Warriors by himself, and he probably isn't even getting to the finals. In 2017 and 2018, MJ is not beating the Warriors. I'm sorry, he lost to Shaq and Penny, idc if he was coming back he was back to normal by then. GSW is far better than any team MJ beat in the finals. The 2014 Spurs were a miraculous squad and DWade was finished by then. Bosh was also a non-factor. MJ's not winning that. MJ wins 2K11 finals, for sure. 2007 MJ isnt getting to the finals.

It would have been better for LeBron to actually win those finals, that's my point. You had 9 chances to win a title, and he barely got those 3, barely. On the other hand, almost all of his losses were very convincing.

MJ's Bulls would beat the Warriors from 2017 and 2018. They were just too tough and smart, and they had MJ. They would pound them in the post and on the glass. They could play big and small. Houston almost beat those Warriors, they are not this unbeatable team everybody makes them out to be. Chicago was definitely better than Houston.

It's funny that you mention MJ's loss to Orlando, and say he was back to normal by then. What happened next year? Go look it up. Bulls swept that Orlando team, and they showed that last year was an aberration. That Orlando team was better than any team LeBron has faced in the east during his final runs.

MJ would’ve won in 16.

OKC Thunder should’ve won in 16, without homecourt and a free win given by Draymond’s suspension. Or Bogut and Iggy being injured.

The Suns were a great team. Barkley Majerle KJ ...Sonics were stacked as well. Stockton is very underrated.

I rank the finals opponents
Warriors 17 > Spurs 14 > Suns 93 > Warriors 18 > Spurs 13 > Sonics 96 > Jazz 98 > Spurs 07 > Warriors 16 > Thunder 12 > Jazz 97 > Blazers 92 > Warriors 15 > Mavericks 11

The best team beaten was by MJ....

That's finals teams, look at all playoff teams:

2016 OKC and Spurs were better than any team the Jordan Bulls faced. The 1993 Suns were very good offensively but average defensively, the two Jazz teams were better overall but not as potent as the 2016 Spurs and OKC. Many can argue the 2018 Rockets were so good at what they did that they were the hardest opponent for the Warriors.

migya wrote:

Gooner wrote:

KeithCozart wrote:It was 10 years ago when LeBron crushed every single argument over Kobe. Eye test clearly showed that he is playing at level Kobe never reached, talking strictly about basketball.

Legacy wise and all time lists, probably 2013.

Maybe on your all time list, but outside of this forum most people would put Kobe ahead of LeBron. Especially the NBA players who played against both. Winning matters. Excuses for 6 finals losses don't matter. People here are obsessed with stats, and they know less basketball than those fans that they call "casual".

I'm no Lebron fan, but truth be told, he had awful teams before he went to Miami, after that his teams were great until last season on the Lakers. Players' success is much reliant on the level of talent of their teams and comparing Kobe's to Lebron's, right from the start of their careers shows how Kobe's were much better, Lebron had to play saviour for a bad Cavs team. You switch the two players and things are so much different.

Kobe gets likely no championships being substituted for Lebron on his championship teams and the Lakers probably win 5 straight instead of just 3 at the start of the 2000s and maybe one or two more if Shaq didn't leave.

Those teams were not awful, they played good defense, and he had a good second option in Mo Williams, a good big man in Ilgauskas. Both of those guys were all stars. But even with that, he went to 8 finals after he left Cleveland in 2010, playing in a weak east with his super teams. He only won 3 titles, barely. He had his chances to climb up in all time great rankings.