RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 3)

[ScrantonBulls]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

It doesn't mean much to intelligent NBA fans. The definition of a "dynasty" is arbitrary and it lacks any context needed when evaluating an individual player. It's like the "bright" fans that simply count rangz when evaluating a player.

[SaveTheHens]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

It doesn't mean much to intelligent NBA fans. The definition of a "dynasty" is arbitrary and it lacks any context needed when evaluating an individual player. It's like the "bright" fans that simply count rangz when evaluating a player.

Ah thank god you chimed in, we were desperate for an intelligent NBA fan to contribute. The context of a dynasty is showing that a player has the power to maintain a winning culture in a place for a sustained period. Just like players get some points for longevity, points for dominance, you can get points for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning. And as a side note, those 'bright' fans include some of the greatest legends of the nba so I think at least some of them do have at least an inch of your intelligence, maybe..

[ScrantonBulls]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

It doesn't mean much to intelligent NBA fans. The definition of a "dynasty" is arbitrary and it lacks any context needed when evaluating an individual player. It's like the "bright" fans that simply count rangz when evaluating a player.

Ah thank god you chimed in, we were desperate for an intelligent NBA fan to contribute. The context of a dynasty is showing that a player has the power to maintain a winning culture in a place for a sustained period. Just like players get some points for longevity, points for dominance, you can get points for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning. And as a side note, those 'bright' fans include some of the greatest legends of the nba so I think at least some of them do have at least an inch of your intelligence, maybe..

Wait wait now. You just implying that winning with 2 different teams is potentially a "failure" . But somehow your claiming working with "changing parts" is a testament to a player's greatness? Changing teams is the ultimate "change of parts" when it comes to playing with new players.

Stay with me here for a second. It's almost as if individual players don't went championships, but TEAMS do. So maybe we should apply a little context, and look at every team and championship differently, and see how much a player contributed to a team during a season. "Rangz" and "dyanastiez" is just bottom of the barrel, contextless drivel. I take it you have Bill Russell as your GOAT. Ultimate dynasty. Unless you want to use some context here...

[michaelm]

So you have moved on from ad hominem to calling arguments you haven’t disproved ‘mental gymnastics’ now ?.

I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA nor does the USA control English usage.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word “ and used it quite advisedly, in this context your first definition being relevant. It implies taking things past the point of normal sports fandom to the point of ideology/a fixed position and is common usage in the context of sporting fandom in Australia and England. I have mostly applied it generically to those who are imo extreme LeBron fans, but if I have inattentively applied it to you directly you might have me on ad hominem. I would admit to being a Steph Curry partisan, in regard to whom I am able to see little wrong, and before him my favourite player was Tim Duncan. I do consider Jordan the GOAT having watched many of the finals games from the dual threepeats in various sports bars because I was mostly in the USA at the time, and followed the 2nd threepeat team more intensively because the Australian player Luc Longley was involved, but would not classify myself as a fan in the same sense that I am a Curry or Duncan fan.

Just for the heck of it I googled partisan fan myself, and the first thing which came up was from Reddit, viz-
“A partisan fan is one who strongly supports a team or athlete, prioritizing their success over all else, even the quality of the game itself. They are deeply invested in their teams wins and losses, often exhibiting a strong emotional connection. This contrasts with a ‘purist’ fan who appreciates the sport itself and may follow multiple teams or focus on the overall quality of play”.


Reddit is I believe an American/US site hence the spelling of “prioritizing”. “Partisan fan “ employs partisan as an adjunctive noun, but I just say partisan because it is both more efficient and avoids tautology.

Using reddit as a citation, dear lord. What’s even more hilarious is the word used right after in redundancy.

It's better than the trash you've been posting like offensive plus minus and blaming points per game doesn't matter! You have embodied the word redundancy with your last several posts. Dear lord.

Perhaps not this guy or these guys, but many point to LeBron’s points record. I don’t see how that is relevant but Jordan’s many scoring titles are irrelevant, except for proving LeBron’s longevity which everyone acknowledges.

The irony word applies once more to your point in this post particularly given I have been chastised for going off topic when nearly all of my recent posts have been in reply to ad hominem posts pointing out that they were ad hominem posts.

Again there are arguments for LeBron which these guys don’t seem able or willing to make, instead concentrating on trying to diminish Jordan, which both has been fruitless and is an admission of defeat imo, including by pointing to the accolades of Jordan’s team mates as though that is somehow a negative for Jordan, particularly since while doing so Jordan’s own accolades such as his scoring titles are dismissed.

If the only reply someone has is that I posted a redundant “-“, fairly close to the smallest possible small point, I perhaps oddly don’t feel particularly dismayed.

[SaveTheHens]

It doesn't mean much to intelligent NBA fans. The definition of a "dynasty" is arbitrary and it lacks any context needed when evaluating an individual player. It's like the "bright" fans that simply count rangz when evaluating a player.

Ah thank god you chimed in, we were desperate for an intelligent NBA fan to contribute. The context of a dynasty is showing that a player has the power to maintain a winning culture in a place for a sustained period. Just like players get some points for longevity, points for dominance, you can get points for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning. And as a side note, those 'bright' fans include some of the greatest legends of the nba so I think at least some of them do have at least an inch of your intelligence, maybe..

Wait wait now. You just implying that winning with 2 different teams is potentially a "failure" . But somehow your claiming working with "changing parts" is a testament to a player's greatness? Changing teams is the ultimate "change of parts" when it comes to playing with new players.

Stay with me here for a second. It's almost as if individual players don't went championships, but TEAMS do. So maybe we should apply a little context, and look at every team and championship differently, and see how much a player contributed to a team during a season. "Rangz" and "dyanastiez" is just bottom of the barrel, contextless drivel. I take it you have Bill Russell as your GOAT. Ultimate dynasty. Unless you want to use some context here...

I said 'for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning'.. reading comprehension needs to catch up to your IQ I think . Just jumping ship and joining a team with two fresher superstars is easier than dealing with the coming & going of talent. And Bill russell is nowhere near my goat list you can keep the psychoanalyst gig on hold for now.

[ScrantonBulls]

Ah thank god you chimed in, we were desperate for an intelligent NBA fan to contribute. The context of a dynasty is showing that a player has the power to maintain a winning culture in a place for a sustained period. Just like players get some points for longevity, points for dominance, you can get points for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning. And as a side note, those 'bright' fans include some of the greatest legends of the nba so I think at least some of them do have at least an inch of your intelligence, maybe..

Wait wait now. You just implying that winning with 2 different teams is potentially a "failure" . But somehow your claiming working with "changing parts" is a testament to a player's greatness? Changing teams is the ultimate "change of parts" when it comes to playing with new players.

Stay with me here for a second. It's almost as if individual players don't went championships, but TEAMS do. So maybe we should apply a little context, and look at every team and championship differently, and see how much a player contributed to a team during a season. "Rangz" and "dyanastiez" is just bottom of the barrel, contextless drivel. I take it you have Bill Russell as your GOAT. Ultimate dynasty. Unless you want to use some context here...

I said 'for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning'.. reading comprehension needs to catch up to your IQ I think . Just jumping ship and joining a team with two fresher superstars is easier than dealing with the coming & going of talent. And Bill russell is nowhere near my goat list you can keep the psychoanalyst gig on hold for now.

Ah got it, so dealing with MODERATELY changing parts is very impressive, but dealing with a complete part change is a "failure" this type of thinking is mindboggling. It's obvious you're just making this point based on what fits your narrative. It's a terrible point. By your logic, if a GOAT level player has a god tier front office that continuously puts the best supporting cast around him, it's a testament to the player if they keep winning. Let's ignore any context regarding the front office or the talent surrounding the player though. Because the front office put together the great team instead of the player.going to a great team, it's somehow a massive difference

But Bill Russell is the ultimate dynasty player. He kept winning with changing parts on the same team. He has the best dynasty in NBA history by far What happened? I thought that's what defined a GOAT?

[MavsDirk41]

Spo and Pat Riley havent ever accomplished much drafting/developing players, attracting free agents, or getting the most out of the players on their rosters. I can see why James left Miami.

[michaelm]

Wait wait now. You just implying that winning with 2 different teams is potentially a "failure" . But somehow your claiming working with "changing parts" is a testament to a player's greatness? Changing teams is the ultimate "change of parts" when it comes to playing with new players.

Stay with me here for a second. It's almost as if individual players don't went championships, but TEAMS do. So maybe we should apply a little context, and look at every team and championship differently, and see how much a player contributed to a team during a season. "Rangz" and "dyanastiez" is just bottom of the barrel, contextless drivel. I take it you have Bill Russell as your GOAT. Ultimate dynasty. Unless you want to use some context here...

I said 'for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning'.. reading comprehension needs to catch up to your IQ I think . Just jumping ship and joining a team with two fresher superstars is easier than dealing with the coming & going of talent. And Bill russell is nowhere near my goat list you can keep the psychoanalyst gig on hold for now.

Ah got it, so dealing with MODERATELY changing parts is very impressive, but dealing with a complete part change is a "failure" this type of thinking is mindboggling. It's obvious you're just making this point based on what fits your narrative. It's a terrible point. By your logic, if a GOAT level player has a god tier front office that continuously puts the best supporting cast around him, it's a testament to the player if they keep winning. Let's ignore any context regarding the front office or the talent surrounding the player though. Because the front office put together the great team instead of the player.going to a great team, it's somehow a massive difference

But Bill Russell is the ultimate dynasty player. He kept winning with changing parts on the same team. He has the best dynasty in NBA history by far What happened? I thought that's what defined a GOAT?

Bill was fairly definitely considered the GOAT at the time, and how exactly could he have achieved more if he had been a better player than he was ? .

Same as comparisons between LeBron and Jordan, except more so, you can’t compare players across widely disparate eras, and Bill’s career was 60 years ago now. By my criteria if not yours Bill deciding that his career aim was to make his team win, as he has said in interviews he determined should be his purpose quite early in his career, and succeeding in doing so to the extent he did are fairly hard to gainsay imo.

And yes a great FO and coach still need a foundation stone to build on. How many titles exactly have the Bulls won without Jordan ?. And you have yet to explain how other players being able to shine next to Jordan somehow diminishes him. Same goes for Tim Duncan and Steph Curry imo.

[SaveTheHens]

Wait wait now. You just implying that winning with 2 different teams is potentially a "failure" . But somehow your claiming working with "changing parts" is a testament to a player's greatness? Changing teams is the ultimate "change of parts" when it comes to playing with new players.

Stay with me here for a second. It's almost as if individual players don't went championships, but TEAMS do. So maybe we should apply a little context, and look at every team and championship differently, and see how much a player contributed to a team during a season. "Rangz" and "dyanastiez" is just bottom of the barrel, contextless drivel. I take it you have Bill Russell as your GOAT. Ultimate dynasty. Unless you want to use some context here...

I said 'for working with the current players & changing parts to keep winning'.. reading comprehension needs to catch up to your IQ I think . Just jumping ship and joining a team with two fresher superstars is easier than dealing with the coming & going of talent. And Bill russell is nowhere near my goat list you can keep the psychoanalyst gig on hold for now.

Ah got it, so dealing with MODERATELY changing parts is very impressive, but dealing with a complete part change is a "failure" this type of thinking is mindboggling. It's obvious you're just making this point based on what fits your narrative. It's a terrible point. By your logic, if a GOAT level player has a god tier front office that continuously puts the best supporting cast around him, it's a testament to the player if they keep winning. Let's ignore any context regarding the front office or the talent surrounding the player though. Because the front office put together the great team instead of the player.going to a great team, it's somehow a massive difference

But Bill Russell is the ultimate dynasty player. He kept winning with changing parts on the same team. He has the best dynasty in NBA history by far What happened? I thought that's what defined a GOAT?

I tried to make it clear originally that dynasty is a factor in ones legacy… really trying to reach there arent you? Changing teams and winning has its own challenges, though even kobe had it harder after shaq left and being patient until another allstar waa got. Lebron just jumped to two allstars. Its still overall a feat of its own to win with 3 diff teams, but he hasnt created a dynasty culture anywhere, not the biggest factor but still a stain on what hes been able to show/prove. 3 in miami or cleveland or even LA would of done it but he doesnt get that checkmark.