|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
 Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
You can make that argument, though I'd probably go with the '95 Rockets (#6 seed in the West beating the Malone/Stockton Jazz, the Barkley/KJ Suns, the Robinson Spurs, and then sweeping the Shaq/Penny Magic in the Finals).
Anyway, that's not what the other poster was talking about. He's obsessed with trashing Lebron for losing in the Finals, when in fact Kobe was the goat in the biggest Finals upset in modern times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The trouble with clutch stats is people can't even agree with what clutch means, let alone how it should be statistically depicted. You can google and find a gazillion different versions of clutch stats, some of which "prove" Kobe is more clutch, and some of which "prove" Lebron is more clutch.
I've never seen a "clutch" statistical formula that I found particularly convincing, no matter which player came off looking better or worse in the particular formula.
Last edited by activeverb on Tue May 15, 2018 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Assuming that those stats are real (there are a lot of fake stats out on places like Reddit, so you never know), what they tell me is that neither of them were impressive in "clutch" situations (as the poster defines them), but that Lebron was more unimpressive than Kobe. That's generally consistent with what I would have expected. The idea that Kobe was magically clutch in big games has been debunked before. However, the idea that Lebron has been less than stellar at the end of big games is fairly well documented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | 24Legend007 wrote: | For me the reasons Lebron can never be the GOAT
A 17/7/7 stat line in an NBA finals.
The level of talent he actually played with is much better then what MJ had imo. I always here the argument that players and the game is better well that could also mean Jordan won with less.
A 3-5 finals record. The only way I think most people would of considered Kobe the GOAT is if he posted a 7-0 record in the finals. I always here alot of excuses for Lebron but Kobe never gets such an argument. Like how he actually sat through a Lakers rebuild where someone like James runs for the hills when the going gets tough. First chance, he's out.
The stats are only thing putting Lebron in the convo, the man may have six finals losses and we are talking about him being better then MJ. It kind of boggles the mind? And no championships arent everything. I would take Kobe's resume, and would take the five titles Kobe helped to bring to LA. |
1. I don't think Lebron will ever be the consensus GOAT. Highest I can see him ever coming is 3rd.
2. Lebron sure stunk it up against Dallas. I think that's reasonable to take into the mix.
3. "Finals record" -- never understood that concept. It presumes thart getting to the finals and losing is worst than not making the finals; heck it's worse than finishing 0-82. I've brought this up a few times and everyone always ignores the question, which makes me assume the people who bring up the "finals record" don't have an explanation for why it's important. I'd be impress if you attempted to answer that.
4. I rarely see anyone say Lebron is better than MJ; when they do, it seems to be only to get attention. People merely say it's something to discuss or ask if he'll ever reach GOAT status. What irritates some LGers, of course, is people rarely asked that about Kobe anymore, which they interpret as a slight against Kobe or a statement Lebron is better. |
3. it’s the same concept for when people say, “lebron has been to 7 straight finals” as if it’s a crowning achievement. It’s impressive, but then you look at the finals record that he lost in the finals 5 times and then realize that the east has been a sham and historically bad, full of injured competition and far lesser talent. So it’s less of a “finals team” and more of a “well somebody from the east had to show up here” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DangeRuss wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | 24Legend007 wrote: | For me the reasons Lebron can never be the GOAT
A 17/7/7 stat line in an NBA finals.
The level of talent he actually played with is much better then what MJ had imo. I always here the argument that players and the game is better well that could also mean Jordan won with less.
A 3-5 finals record. The only way I think most people would of considered Kobe the GOAT is if he posted a 7-0 record in the finals. I always here alot of excuses for Lebron but Kobe never gets such an argument. Like how he actually sat through a Lakers rebuild where someone like James runs for the hills when the going gets tough. First chance, he's out.
The stats are only thing putting Lebron in the convo, the man may have six finals losses and we are talking about him being better then MJ. It kind of boggles the mind? And no championships arent everything. I would take Kobe's resume, and would take the five titles Kobe helped to bring to LA. |
1. I don't think Lebron will ever be the consensus GOAT. Highest I can see him ever coming is 3rd.
2. Lebron sure stunk it up against Dallas. I think that's reasonable to take into the mix.
3. "Finals record" -- never understood that concept. It presumes thart getting to the finals and losing is worst than not making the finals; heck it's worse than finishing 0-82. I've brought this up a few times and everyone always ignores the question, which makes me assume the people who bring up the "finals record" don't have an explanation for why it's important. I'd be impress if you attempted to answer that.
4. I rarely see anyone say Lebron is better than MJ; when they do, it seems to be only to get attention. People merely say it's something to discuss or ask if he'll ever reach GOAT status. What irritates some LGers, of course, is people rarely asked that about Kobe anymore, which they interpret as a slight against Kobe or a statement Lebron is better. |
3. it’s the same concept for when people say, “lebron has been to 7 straight finals” as if it’s a crowning achievement. It’s impressive, but then you look at the finals record that he lost in the finals 5 times and then realize that the east has been a sham and historically bad, full of injured competition and far lesser talent. So it’s less of a “finals team” and more of a “well somebody from the east had to show up here” |
I agree with that; they are two sides of the same coin. He's gotten to the finals a lot, in part, because he faced weaken competition in the playoffs. He's lost in the finals a lot, in part, because he faced better competition in the finals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZ-Ryder
Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
So is it really an 'upset' when you're beating the defending champs, KD/WB/Harden and then LB/Wade/Bosh? That's called being the best team in the league when you have to go thru teams like that to win a title, just like I said.
But since we are talking about upsets in the finals, a more accurate definition of an upset would be when the Pistons nearly swept the Lakers in 2004. Kobe. Shaq, and PJ got ran out of the Palace in Detroit by Ben Wallace and Richard Hamilton.
But let's all pretend that did happen since they don't favor the Lakers or Kobe. Biggest upset in the finals in the last 20 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part, there was no question we were the best team because we defeated the best both conferences had to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZ-Ryder
Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part. |
Right. That was clearly a bigger challenge for us than winning the finals itself. Just bringing that up because I think Kobe's legacy has benefited from weak eastern conference competition just as much as Lebron has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZ-Ryder wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part. |
Right. That was clearly a bigger challenge for us than winning the finals itself. Just bringing that up because I think Kobe's legacy has benefited from weak eastern conference competition just as much as Lebron has. |
That literally makes zero sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZ-Ryder wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part. |
Right. That was clearly a bigger challenge for us than winning the finals itself. Just bringing that up because I think Kobe's legacy has benefited from weak eastern conference competition just as much as Lebron has. |
What Kobe has benefited from is having Shaq. As mentioned before, those 00-02 Lakers teams don't even sniff the playoffs without him. Shaq also won finals MVPs all of those years as well. Lebron on the other hand has always took his teams to the playoffs/finals without having to ride someone elses coat tails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZ-Ryder
Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part. |
Right. That was clearly a bigger challenge for us than winning the finals itself. Just bringing that up because I think Kobe's legacy has benefited from weak eastern conference competition just as much as Lebron has. |
That literally makes zero sense |
Why not? One of the biggest knocks against Lebron always making the finals is that he plays in the east where the competition isn't great. One of the biggest boosts to Kobe's legacy is his ring count, but the eastern conference teams we played in the early 2000's were horrible. They were guaranteed rings to whoever was coming out of the west. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part, there was no question we were the best team because we defeated the best both conferences had to offer. |
Any team that wins a ring defeats the best that both conferences had to offer.
You always have to get past the best teams in your own conference, as well as the best team that came out of the other conference.
You don't an extra big ring if your conference competitor was tougher; you don't get a smaller ring if your opponents best player was injured; you don't get a consolation ring if your best guy got hurt.
At the end of the day, one team comes out on top. Hardly anyone cares about the exact route a team took to the top of the mountain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| george w kush wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
So is it really an 'upset' when you're beating the defending champs, KD/WB/Harden and then LB/Wade/Bosh? That's called being the best team in the league when you have to go thru teams like that to win a title, just like I said.
But since we are talking about upsets in the finals, a more accurate definition of an upset would be when the Pistons nearly swept the Lakers in 2004. Kobe. Shaq, and PJ got ran out of the Palace in Detroit by Ben Wallace and Richard Hamilton.
But let's all pretend that did happen since they don't favor the Lakers or Kobe. Biggest upset in the finals in the last 20 years. |
You sound so angry 
Honestly, I would argue that 2011 Mavericks over Heatles is an even bigger upset. The Pistons are in hindsight considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest defensive team of all time. The very next year they took the Big 3 Spurs (you know, the other great dynasty of that era) to 7 and were a bounce here and there and some Robert Horry heroics away from repeating.
Also the idea of what a Superteam is has changed over the years. And while Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton is certainly a Superteam, I think most people now in hindsight view them as an a team with aging pieces (kind of like how the Barkley, Drexler, Olajuwon Superteam is now viewed as past their prime when they got together), in comparison to the Superteams of this current era who are all in their primes (Heatles, Warriors, etc.). Not to mention they had key injuries (Malone), while the Heatles were completely healthy.
Also, if LeBron is THAT much better than Kobe then doesn't that just by itself make it a bigger upset? Funny how you want it both ways... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| george w kush wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
So is it really an 'upset' when you're beating the defending champs, KD/WB/Harden and then LB/Wade/Bosh? That's called being the best team in the league when you have to go thru teams like that to win a title, just like I said.
But since we are talking about upsets in the finals, a more accurate definition of an upset would be when the Pistons nearly swept the Lakers in 2004. Kobe. Shaq, and PJ got ran out of the Palace in Detroit by Ben Wallace and Richard Hamilton.
But let's all pretend that did happen since they don't favor the Lakers or Kobe. Biggest upset in the finals in the last 20 years. |
You sound so angry
Honestly, I would argue that 2011 Mavericks over Heatles is an even bigger upset. The Pistons are in hindsight considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest defensive team of all time. The very next year they took the Big 3 Spurs (you know, the other great dynasty of that era) to 7 and were a bounce here and there and some Robert Horry heroics away from repeating.
Also the idea of what a Superteam is has changed over the years. And while Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton is certainly a Superteam, I think most people now in hindsight view them as an a team with aging pieces (kind of like how the Barkley, Drexler, Olajuwon Superteam is now viewed as past their prime when they got together), in comparison to the Superteams of this current era who are all in their primes (Heatles, Warriors, etc.). Not to mention they had key injuries (Malone), while the Heatles were completely healthy.
Also, if LeBron is THAT much better than Kobe then doesn't that just by itself make it a bigger upset? Funny how you want it both ways... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZ-Ryder wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part. |
Right. That was clearly a bigger challenge for us than winning the finals itself. Just bringing that up because I think Kobe's legacy has benefited from weak eastern conference competition just as much as Lebron has. |
That literally makes zero sense |
Why not? One of the biggest knocks against Lebron always making the finals is that he plays in the east where the competition isn't great. One of the biggest boosts to Kobe's legacy is his ring count, but the eastern conference teams we played in the early 2000's were horrible. They were guaranteed rings to whoever was coming out of the west. |
1, only reason lebron has been to so many finals is being in the east, it’s the reason his teams lost 5 times vs the West, because the east teams just don’t even truly belong there and are only there because it’s a rule that an eastern team has to show up. If you’re truly the best player in the world playing on a finals team, you’d think that your record would be at the very least .500 or better. But lebron has a 37% win percentage in finals might even be 33% if his team gets to the finals again this year by beating a Celtics team missing their two best players.
2, Kobe’s teams coming out of the West has already beaten the best the West had to offer and then beat the best the east had to offer, literally being the best team in the nba by beating the best both conferences had to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | DangeRuss wrote: | | EZ-Ryder wrote: | | For everyone saying that Lebron has had the benefit of playing against weak competition to make the finals, shouldn't that go both ways? The 3 teams we beat in the East from 00-02 were horrendous. Obviously there is a difference there because we actually won those rings, but the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets teams we faced were garbage. Whoever made it out of the west were beating those teams easily. |
Yeah but there’s that whole making it out of the West part, there was no question we were the best team because we defeated the best both conferences had to offer. |
Any team that wins a ring defeats the best that both conferences had to offer.
You always have to get past the best teams in your own conference, as well as the best team that came out of the other conference.
You don't an extra big ring if your conference competitor was tougher; you don't get a smaller ring if your opponents best player was injured; you don't get a consolation ring if your best guy got hurt.
At the end of the day, one team comes out on top. Hardly anyone cares about the exact route a team took to the top of the mountain. |
Exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: |
Honestly, I would argue that 2011 Mavericks over Heatles is an even bigger upset. The Pistons are in hindsight considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest defensive team of all time. |
The funny thing is the Pistons weren't even the #1 defensive teamn in the NBA that year. The Spurs were, and we went through them pretty easily, but the Pistons pretty much made everyone on our team other than Shaq look like a division 2 college player. That series was a real clankfest.
Generally, I see both our loss to the Pistons and the Heat loss to Mavs listed as among the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. Our loss is generally a couple spots higher in the lists I've seen, but both tend to be in the top 5 of embarrassing losses. Even in hindsight, I don't have a strong sense of which was worse -- I think those series were a big blemish on both Kobe/Lakers and Lebron/Heat.
| Batguano wrote: | | Also the idea of what a Superteam is has changed over the years. And while Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton is certainly a Superteam, I think most people now in hindsight view them as an a team with aging pieces (kind of like how the Barkley, Drexler, Olajuwon Superteam is now viewed as past their prime when they got together), in comparison to the Superteams of this current era who are all in their primes (Heatles, Warriors, etc.). Not to mention they had key injuries (Malone), while the Heatles were completely healthy. |
I haven't seen a lot of people make that distinction myself. In all the lists of NBA superteams I see, the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers are right up there with the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.
Is having two GOAT short-list guys in their prime with two aging Hall of Famers more or less super than one GOAT short-list guy in his prime, a top 25 guy in his prime, and a third Hall of Fame guy at a much lower tier than all the others? You could argue that one forever. (Heck, I'm not entirely sure that Lebron-Wade-Bosh were a stronger "superteam" than Shaq-Kobe alone from their second ring on.)
I consider them both superteams, but I don't have a strong sense on which one was more super. Both of them were sure two of the most hyped teams in NBA history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: |
Honestly, I would argue that 2011 Mavericks over Heatles is an even bigger upset. The Pistons are in hindsight considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest defensive team of all time. |
They weren't even the best defensive team in the league and now they're suddenly the greatest defensive team of all time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: |
I haven't seen a lot of people make that distinction myself. In all the lists of NBA superteams I see, the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers are right up there with the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.
Is having two GOAT short-list guys in their prime with two aging Hall of Famers more or less super than one GOAT short-list guy in his prime, a top 25 guy in his prime, and a third Hall of Fame guy at a much lower tier than all the others? You could argue that one forever. (Heck, I'm not entirely sure that Lebron-Wade-Bosh were a stronger "superteam" than Shaq-Kobe alone from their second ring on.)
I consider them both superteams, but I don't have a strong sense on which one was more super. Both of them were sure two of the most hyped teams in NBA history. |
This!!! none of this non-sense about Kobe being outside of top 10 stuff. Kobe and LeBron are both up there |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144473
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DangeRuss wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | 24Legend007 wrote: | For me the reasons Lebron can never be the GOAT
A 17/7/7 stat line in an NBA finals.
The level of talent he actually played with is much better then what MJ had imo. I always here the argument that players and the game is better well that could also mean Jordan won with less.
A 3-5 finals record. The only way I think most people would of considered Kobe the GOAT is if he posted a 7-0 record in the finals. I always here alot of excuses for Lebron but Kobe never gets such an argument. Like how he actually sat through a Lakers rebuild where someone like James runs for the hills when the going gets tough. First chance, he's out.
The stats are only thing putting Lebron in the convo, the man may have six finals losses and we are talking about him being better then MJ. It kind of boggles the mind? And no championships arent everything. I would take Kobe's resume, and would take the five titles Kobe helped to bring to LA. |
1. I don't think Lebron will ever be the consensus GOAT. Highest I can see him ever coming is 3rd.
2. Lebron sure stunk it up against Dallas. I think that's reasonable to take into the mix.
3. "Finals record" -- never understood that concept. It presumes thart getting to the finals and losing is worst than not making the finals; heck it's worse than finishing 0-82. I've brought this up a few times and everyone always ignores the question, which makes me assume the people who bring up the "finals record" don't have an explanation for why it's important. I'd be impress if you attempted to answer that.
4. I rarely see anyone say Lebron is better than MJ; when they do, it seems to be only to get attention. People merely say it's something to discuss or ask if he'll ever reach GOAT status. What irritates some LGers, of course, is people rarely asked that about Kobe anymore, which they interpret as a slight against Kobe or a statement Lebron is better. |
3. it’s the same concept for when people say, “lebron has been to 7 straight finals” as if it’s a crowning achievement. It’s impressive, but then you look at the finals record that he lost in the finals 5 times and then realize that the east has been a sham and historically bad, full of injured competition and far lesser talent. So it’s less of a “finals team” and more of a “well somebody from the east had to show up here” |
So Magic losing 4 of 9 should be held against him? In a weak Western Conference? I disagree.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: |
Generally, I see both our loss to the Pistons and the Heat loss to Mavs listed as among the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. Our loss is generally a couple spots higher in the lists I've seen, but both tend to be in the top 5 of embarrassing losses. Even in hindsight, I don't have a strong sense of which was worse -- I think those series were a big blemish on both Kobe/Lakers and Lebron/Heat.
|
IMO the Pistons loss was clearly worse. First off, the Mavs had defeated the defending champion Lakers. Not only defeated them but embarrassed them. They also beat the Thunder as well with Harden/Westbrook/Durant. Secondly, this was the Heat's first year playing as a trio. Thirdly, the Lakers were -550 against the Pistons, meaning no one thought the Pistons had any chance of winning the series. The Pistons also didn't even have an elite scorer that year, like we have seen on every other team that was won the NBA finals. It was basically a team full of role players. Tayshawn Prince pretty much shut Kobe down that series.
Last edited by george w kush on Tue May 15, 2018 11:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23912
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | So now the 2011 Mavericks were the better team because they won it all? A 1 HOF team vs a Superteam of 3 HOFs all in their prime. It's called an upset, bro. And it's literally the biggest upset in NBA Finals history. |
Not even close. The Lakers were -550 in 2004. Kobe was the goat, not the GOAT. |
Maybe in $ or Vegas line but as far as basketball upset, I think the 2011 Mavs was the biggest underdog champ of all time, beat prime Kobe/Pau then prime KD/WB/Harden then prime LeBron/Wade/Bosh, all with healthy teammates |
So is it really an 'upset' when you're beating the defending champs, KD/WB/Harden and then LB/Wade/Bosh? That's called being the best team in the league when you have to go thru teams like that to win a title, just like I said.
But since we are talking about upsets in the finals, a more accurate definition of an upset would be when the Pistons nearly swept the Lakers in 2004. Kobe. Shaq, and PJ got ran out of the Palace in Detroit by Ben Wallace and Richard Hamilton.
But let's all pretend that did happen since they don't favor the Lakers or Kobe. Biggest upset in the finals in the last 20 years. |
You sound so angry
Honestly, I would argue that 2011 Mavericks over Heatles is an even bigger upset. The Pistons are in hindsight considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest defensive team of all time. The very next year they took the Big 3 Spurs (you know, the other great dynasty of that era) to 7 and were a bounce here and there and some Robert Horry heroics away from repeating.
Also the idea of what a Superteam is has changed over the years. And while Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton is certainly a Superteam, I think most people now in hindsight view them as an a team with aging pieces (kind of like how the Barkley, Drexler, Olajuwon Superteam is now viewed as past their prime when they got together), in comparison to the Superteams of this current era who are all in their primes (Heatles, Warriors, etc.). Not to mention they had key injuries (Malone), while the Heatles were completely healthy.
Also, if LeBron is THAT much better than Kobe then doesn't that just by itself make it a bigger upset? Funny how you want it both ways... |
By the time the Mavs were in the finals, I think they had some believers. The Heat were still a big favorite but I don't think they were favored nearly as much as the Lakers were in the 2nd round.
2004 is the biggest upset I can remember. No one was picking the Pistons in that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
