Larry Bird vs Lebron James - Greatest SF of all Time

[wigglestrue]

Ah the old skip bayless " it hasnt been done before, so it is impossible" logic

Also indiana has been slumping as paul george hasnt been playing that well.

I think some celtics fans may be heavily overrating indiana solely because of larry bird.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No, no, no. If anything, Celtics fans would be overrating Indiana because we despise Miami.
Bird would have about...I don't know, 0.01% to do with it or less?

[WinisKing]

Problem for Bron is he's not winning another MVP or another chip as the "man".

So you're saying that the best player in the league, on the best team in the league, isn't likely to win another championship?

Durant is not part of the discussion here for this season.

He isn't, as clearly magicmerl wrote about the best player in the league, the current NBA champion, and the reigning MVP. I don't see how he is alluding to Durant at all in this discussion.

[RSCD3_]

Ah the old skip bayless " it hasnt been done before, so it is impossible" logic

Also indiana has been slumping as paul george hasnt been playing that well.

I think some celtics fans may be heavily overrating indiana solely because of larry bird.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No, no, no. If anything, Celtics fans would be overrating Indiana because we despise Miami.
Bird would have about...I don't know, 0.01% to do with it or less?

Well maybe just bill simmons lol. Evan turner, organize the parades!

But seriously bird has done a great job in indiana

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[wigglestrue]

Miami Heat 9/4
Indiana Pacers 5/2
Oklahoma City Thunder 15/4
San Antonio Spurs 11/1
Los Angeles Clippers 12/1
Houston Rockets 16/1
Golden State Warriors 20/1
Portland Trailblazers 20/1

That's how one oddsmaker puts it.

Durant is likelier than LeBron to win MVP.
But one MVP doesn't necessarily tell us who the best player is.

And while the Heat's chances might be less than 50%...
They're still the likeliest to win, in the opinion of most reasonable observers.
Or, the least unlikely. Whatever. They're the favorites.

To say they are "not likely" to win is technically true, but if so, only just so.
To say Durant is currently the best player might be true enough.
But, look, peak LeBron is never going to be not tied for the best.

[PaulieWal]

^^Durant is likelier to win MVP but LeBron is still the best in the league. MVPs don't always go to the best player and LeBron is rightfully behind KD for taking it easy for the first few months. On the other hand, I don't blame him either for taking it easy. Guy has played 4 seasons in 3 years + the Olympics.

[JordansBulls]

Problem for Bron is he's not winning another MVP or another chip as the "man".

So you're saying that the best player in the league, on the best team in the league, isn't likely to win another championship?

See you after the finals.

nba history says no team since the SIXTIES has gone to 4 straight finals and won more than 2. la didn't do it in the 80's, boston didn't do it.

yeah but this era isn't strong and the conference has been bad with the injuries the past few years. What the Heat have working against them is that for 2 years in a row they have been down 3-2 in series with HCA, so sooner they will not overcome that.

[KING JAMES1978]

So you're saying that the best player in the league, on the best team in the league, isn't likely to win another championship?

See you after the finals.

nba history says no team since the SIXTIES has gone to 4 straight finals and won more than 2. la didn't do it in the 80's, boston didn't do it.

yeah but this era isn't strong and the conference has been bad with the injuries the past few years. What the Heat have working against them is that for 2 years in a row they have been down 3-2 in series with HCA, so sooner they will not overcome that.

Well 90"s wasn't strong Era like the 80's and Jordan won at the 90's so what?Nobody takes something away from him?You still use HCA?LOL.Basketball is a team game saying that Jordan didn't lose with HCA is ridiculous.

[blessofcurse]

The Heat 's still not faced a 50 win team in their 2 championship run.
Not including finals.

[JordansBulls]

nba history says no team since the SIXTIES has gone to 4 straight finals and won more than 2. la didn't do it in the 80's, boston didn't do it.

yeah but this era isn't strong and the conference has been bad with the injuries the past few years. What the Heat have working against them is that for 2 years in a row they have been down 3-2 in series with HCA, so sooner they will not overcome that.

Well 90"s wasn't strong Era like the 80's and Jordan won at the 90's so what?Nobody takes something away from him?You still use HCA?LOL.Basketball is a team game saying that Jordan didn't lose with HCA is ridiculous.

90's was tougher than now and 80's west. 80's east was tougher though. And HCA matters a lot. It means you won when you were supposed to win. But in this case between and Lebron and Bird it is a mute point because both loss several series as the favorite so that cancels one another out.

[PaulieWal]

And HCA matters a lot. It means you won when you were supposed to win.

Not really, maybe when we are talking about a 1 vs. 8 seed but HCA doesn't mean you are "supposed to win". HCA when it comes to elite teams doesn't work that way. For one elite teams approach the RS with different intensity and may have injuries/tougher conference to go through to get to the playoffs. Secondly, when it comes to Conference Finals and Finals you will see teams without HCA winning all the time because when both the teams are elite the HCA advantage is significantly reduced.

[therealbig3]

The Heat 's still not faced a 50 win team in their 2 championship run.
Not including finals.

That's...pretty arbitrary, and pretty disingenuous in fact.

Their first championship run was during a 66 game season, so not many teams were going to win 50 games. They beat the Pacers, who were on pace to win 52 games in a full season, and the Celtics weren't all that far back, on pace to win 48 games.

And in their second championship run, the only reason the Pacers didn't win 50 games was because one of their games was cancelled. They were 49-32 on the season.

And as for the 50 game mark...why 50? It's an arbitrary number. What about 48 win teams? Or 49 win teams? Are the teams that win 50 games just WAY better than the 48-49 win teams?

[JordansBulls]

Are the teams that win 50 games just WAY better than the 48-49 win teams?

Yes they are.

[JordansBulls]

And HCA matters a lot. It means you won when you were supposed to win.

Not really, maybe when we are talking about a 1 vs. 8 seed but HCA doesn't mean you are "supposed to win". HCA when it comes to elite teams doesn't work that way. For one elite teams approach the RS with different intensity and may have injuries/tougher conference to go through to get to the playoffs. Secondly, when it comes to Conference Finals and Finals you will see teams without HCA winning all the time because when both the teams are elite the HCA advantage is significantly reduced.

Yes I understand that but when you are an elite player like these guys are who are lobbying for best player in the league, when they end up having the better record and also higher SRS rating they should win the series. I can understand using the logic if say the team who had the better record had the lesser star player such as the Suns in 2005 when Duncan was the greater player than the Suns star player, or in 2011 when Lebron and Wade were greater than the Bulls star player.

[therealbig3]

Are the teams that win 50 games just WAY better than the 48-49 win teams?

Yes they are.

Why?

[JordansBulls]

Are the teams that win 50 games just WAY better than the 48-49 win teams?

Yes they are.

Why?

They won more games. It's like if you are in school taking the ACT or SAT there is a cut off mark score you have to get in order to get accepted to a certain school. 50 in the NBA is that cut off mark for being considered a decent team. Below that mark the team is not considered that good unless they had significant injuries to star players.

[therealbig3]

They won more games. It's like if you are in school taking the ACT or SAT there is a cut off mark score you have to get in order to get accepted to a certain school. 50 in the NBA is that cut off mark for being considered a decent team. Below that mark the team is not considered that good unless they had significant injuries to star players.

Right, so we should do our NBA analysis in the same arbitrary manner that schools analyze test scores...and the schools that do have those cutoffs are highly criticized for it, because it's easy to see how arbitrary it is.

The difference between a 50 win team and a 49 win team is the same as the difference between a 51 win team and a 50 win team. 50 is just a random arbitrary number...what about 51+ win teams? Why not make that the cutoff?

[PaulieWal]

They won more games. It's like if you are in school taking the ACT or SAT there is a cut off mark score you have to get in order to get accepted to a certain school. 50 in the NBA is that cut off mark for being considered a decent team. Below that mark the team is not considered that good unless they had significant injuries to star players.

Right, so we should do our NBA analysis in the same arbitrary manner that schools analyze test scores...and the schools that do have those cutoffs are highly criticized for it, because it's easy to see how arbitrary it is.

The difference between a 50 win team and a 49 win team is the same as the difference between a 51 win team and a 50 win team. 50 is just a random arbitrary number...what about 51+ win teams? Why not make that the cutoff?

I fully agree. I get that many teams and fans use 50 wins as a landmark but there is no difference between 50 wins and 49 wins in the sense that 1 extra win in the RS doesn't make one team magically better.

[JordansBulls]

They won more games. It's like if you are in school taking the ACT or SAT there is a cut off mark score you have to get in order to get accepted to a certain school. 50 in the NBA is that cut off mark for being considered a decent team. Below that mark the team is not considered that good unless they had significant injuries to star players.

Right, so we should do our NBA analysis in the same arbitrary manner that schools analyze test scores...and the schools that do have those cutoffs are highly criticized for it, because it's easy to see how arbitrary it is.

The difference between a 50 win team and a 49 win team is the same as the difference between a 51 win team and a 50 win team. 50 is just a random arbitrary number...what about 51+ win teams? Why not make that the cutoff?

Because 50 is a more significant number. Think of a 50th Birthday party or 50th year Wedding Anniversary. 49th year or 49th birthday or 51st year or 51st birthday does not hold the same weight. You know this. Cmon now.

[therealbig3]

They won more games. It's like if you are in school taking the ACT or SAT there is a cut off mark score you have to get in order to get accepted to a certain school. 50 in the NBA is that cut off mark for being considered a decent team. Below that mark the team is not considered that good unless they had significant injuries to star players.

Right, so we should do our NBA analysis in the same arbitrary manner that schools analyze test scores...and the schools that do have those cutoffs are highly criticized for it, because it's easy to see how arbitrary it is.

The difference between a 50 win team and a 49 win team is the same as the difference between a 51 win team and a 50 win team. 50 is just a random arbitrary number...what about 51+ win teams? Why not make that the cutoff?

Because 50 is a more significant number. Think of a 50th Birthday party or 50th year Wedding Anniversary. 49th year or 49th birthday or 51st year or 51st birthday does not hold the same weight. You know this. Cmon now.

This is childish reasoning. You're basically saying 50 is more significant, because it's a nice round number and 51 is not.

And comparing birthdays or wedding anniversaries to winning basketball games? Seriously?

[JordansBulls]

Right, so we should do our NBA analysis in the same arbitrary manner that schools analyze test scores...and the schools that do have those cutoffs are highly criticized for it, because it's easy to see how arbitrary it is.

The difference between a 50 win team and a 49 win team is the same as the difference between a 51 win team and a 50 win team. 50 is just a random arbitrary number...what about 51+ win teams? Why not make that the cutoff?

Because 50 is a more significant number. Think of a 50th Birthday party or 50th year Wedding Anniversary. 49th year or 49th birthday or 51st year or 51st birthday does not hold the same weight. You know this. Cmon now.

This is childish reasoning. You're basically saying 50 is more significant, because it's a nice round number and 51 is not.

And comparing birthdays or wedding anniversaries to winning basketball games? Seriously?

No that is not what was meant. A 51 win team is better than a 50 win team. However 50 wins was used as a barometer. You asked why was 51 wins not used instead of 50. That could be the case with anything. Why is the flight scheduled to leave at 6:58 am why not 7:00 am?