|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LaLaLakeShow
Star Player
Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 2989
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Once again. Please answer the question.
Player A: 15 year career, 15 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Player B: 15 year career, 3 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Who had the better career knowing no other information? |
KOBE |
Cha-Ching 
Last edited by LaLaLakeShow on Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LaLaLakeShow wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | golaker wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | LaLaLakeShow wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | NBAFAN24 wrote: | | 542 points away. |
Are you talking about when Lebron > Kobe on scoring?
Based on 25.4 ppg, that’s 21.3 games out. Meaning, assuming he misses no games it could be ...
@BOS or @NY
Ohhhh myyyy. Can you imagine if it happened at either Boston or at Madison Square? So fitting if it happens at such a historic arena.
Do you think it would be better for it to be at Staples? Or no given the sensitivity of it? |
What sensitivity?
We were told it didn’t mean jack when Kobe passed Jordan so why would we care if LeBron passes Kobe? I certainly don’t. It doesn’t mean he was ever the kind of scorer Kobe was. Unless you think Malone was a better scorer than Kobe or Michael |
It wasn't a big deal when Kobe did it for the following reason:
1-Kobe is Jordan-lite. Not the real deal like Jordan ever was. All the points in the world could never get Kobe to be in the same conversation as MJ
It IS a big deal for Lebron passing Kobe for the following reason:
1-He's doing it in a Lakers uniform
2-Depending on how his career plays out, still has the potential to be potential GOAT. Something Kobe was never close to(see my crowdsourced compilation a few pages back where credible media outlets have Lebron @ 3, Kobe @ 11)
3-He will do it 2 years younger than Kobe, and will have likely accomplished this feat despite taking 2000 shots less.
BTW, what does it say about Lebron's scoring ability that he will surpass Kobe in scoring this season despite being 2 years younger and taking 2000+ less shots? It's OK guys, ill concede Kobe being the better 'scorer'. You guys desperately need a 'win' here so Ill let you have that it if makes you feel better. |
It is not a big deal. LeBron has had a team to himself since he entered the league. Kobe played 7mpg in his first season and came off the bench. There are tons of variables.
|
Easy answer: If he were as good as Lebron was coming out of high school, he would have started. When you're the #1 pick out of high school, typically you are starting. Not so when you're #13 pick. |
Ignorance personified |
Actually ignorance would be trying to argue that Lebron will surpass Kobe in scoring due to LeBron being a starter in his rookie season while Kobe sat on the bench. As if that has anything to do with it? Doesn’t matter if LeBron started and Kobe was on the bench, fact of the matter is he will pass him up while taking 2000 less shots doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LaLaLakeShow
Star Player
Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 2989
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| george w kush wrote: | | LaLaLakeShow wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | golaker wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | LaLaLakeShow wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | NBAFAN24 wrote: | | 542 points away. |
Are you talking about when Lebron > Kobe on scoring?
Based on 25.4 ppg, that’s 21.3 games out. Meaning, assuming he misses no games it could be ...
@BOS or @NY
Ohhhh myyyy. Can you imagine if it happened at either Boston or at Madison Square? So fitting if it happens at such a historic arena.
Do you think it would be better for it to be at Staples? Or no given the sensitivity of it? |
What sensitivity?
We were told it didn’t mean jack when Kobe passed Jordan so why would we care if LeBron passes Kobe? I certainly don’t. It doesn’t mean he was ever the kind of scorer Kobe was. Unless you think Malone was a better scorer than Kobe or Michael |
It wasn't a big deal when Kobe did it for the following reason:
1-Kobe is Jordan-lite. Not the real deal like Jordan ever was. All the points in the world could never get Kobe to be in the same conversation as MJ
It IS a big deal for Lebron passing Kobe for the following reason:
1-He's doing it in a Lakers uniform
2-Depending on how his career plays out, still has the potential to be potential GOAT. Something Kobe was never close to(see my crowdsourced compilation a few pages back where credible media outlets have Lebron @ 3, Kobe @ 11)
3-He will do it 2 years younger than Kobe, and will have likely accomplished this feat despite taking 2000 shots less.
BTW, what does it say about Lebron's scoring ability that he will surpass Kobe in scoring this season despite being 2 years younger and taking 2000+ less shots? It's OK guys, ill concede Kobe being the better 'scorer'. You guys desperately need a 'win' here so Ill let you have that it if makes you feel better. |
It is not a big deal. LeBron has had a team to himself since he entered the league. Kobe played 7mpg in his first season and came off the bench. There are tons of variables.
|
Easy answer: If he were as good as Lebron was coming out of high school, he would have started. When you're the #1 pick out of high school, typically you are starting. Not so when you're #13 pick. |
Ignorance personified |
Actually ignorance would be trying to argue that Lebron will surpass Kobe in scoring due to LeBron being a starter in his rookie season while Kobe sat on the bench. As if that has anything to do with it? Doesn’t matter if LeBron started and Kobe was on the bench, fact of the matter is he will pass him up while taking 2000 less shots doing so. |
Uh-huh.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Once again. Please answer the question.
Player A: 15 year career, 15 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Player B: 15 year career, 3 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Who had the better career knowing no other information? |
Disingenuous take since we're not comparing players with the same amount of rings.
BE BETTER. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
KO
| Batguano wrote: | | BE BETTER. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | I tend to yawn at the “did this guy have the amount of skills/shots that guy did?” argument. That’s usually an argument why a guy scored a lower amount and/or a lower efficiency. David Robinson was more skilled than Shaq. Shaq didn’t need to be because he had physical advantages that trumped the skills gap. Same reason MJ was such a brute without a lot of Kobe’s arsenal. He had physical advantages. Bron is a generational, or maybe I should say once in multiple generations physical freak. He does have a ton of skills, but whether he has more than this guy or that guy doesn’t matter. Getting it done matters.
Not arguing a guy here, just the bad concept that more skills equals top player. Basketball is like any sport. Physical talent is not evenly distributed, even among the stars. Some guys just have an advantage. |
You read my mind. Giannis isn’t as offensively skilled as let’s say AD. Does that make AD a better player. No it doesn’t. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop while minimizing missed shot attempts.
Bringing up stuff like Kobe has better ‘footwork’ or ‘post moves’ it just another pathetic way to try and excuse Kobe’s inefficiency when compared to Lebron.
I’d rather have guys like Shaq, LBJ and Giannis who can just muscle their way to the rim every time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| george w kush wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | I tend to yawn at the “did this guy have the amount of skills/shots that guy did?” argument. That’s usually an argument why a guy scored a lower amount and/or a lower efficiency. David Robinson was more skilled than Shaq. Shaq didn’t need to be because he had physical advantages that trumped the skills gap. Same reason MJ was such a brute without a lot of Kobe’s arsenal. He had physical advantages. Bron is a generational, or maybe I should say once in multiple generations physical freak. He does have a ton of skills, but whether he has more than this guy or that guy doesn’t matter. Getting it done matters.
Not arguing a guy here, just the bad concept that more skills equals top player. Basketball is like any sport. Physical talent is not evenly distributed, even among the stars. Some guys just have an advantage. |
You read my mind. Giannis isn’t as offensively skilled as let’s say AD. Does that make AD a better player. No it doesn’t. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop while minimizing missed shot attempts.
Bringing up stuff like Kobe has better ‘footwork’ or ‘post moves’ it just another pathetic way to try and excuse Kobe’s inefficiency when compared to Lebron.
I’d rather have guys like Shaq, LBJ and Giannis who can just muscle their way to the rim every time. |
Troll harder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | I tend to yawn at the “did this guy have the amount of skills/shots that guy did?” argument. That’s usually an argument why a guy scored a lower amount and/or a lower efficiency. David Robinson was more skilled than Shaq. Shaq didn’t need to be because he had physical advantages that trumped the skills gap. Same reason MJ was such a brute without a lot of Kobe’s arsenal. He had physical advantages. Bron is a generational, or maybe I should say once in multiple generations physical freak. He does have a ton of skills, but whether he has more than this guy or that guy doesn’t matter. Getting it done matters.
Not arguing a guy here, just the bad concept that more skills equals top player. Basketball is like any sport. Physical talent is not evenly distributed, even among the stars. Some guys just have an advantage. |
You read my mind. Giannis isn’t as offensively skilled as let’s say AD. Does that make AD a better player. No it doesn’t. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop while minimizing missed shot attempts.
Bringing up stuff like Kobe has better ‘footwork’ or ‘post moves’ it just another pathetic way to try and excuse Kobe’s inefficiency when compared to Lebron.
I’d rather have guys like Shaq, LBJ and Giannis who can just muscle their way to the rim every time. |
Troll harder. |
You have absolutely no ground to stand on when making that accusation. And I’m not taking his side of the argument. But you couldn’t troll this subject harder if you had Russian help...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L4L
Starting Rotation
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 291
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Omar and DreamShake,
Man, I couldn’t disagree more with this notion that skillset doesn’t matter at all!
First of all, NO ONE has ever had a truly unstoppable move. Kareem and Shaq are the closest but even they had counters. They also never won anything without all-time level talent next to them.
That last point is very important because winning rings requires multiple great players and a GOAT-level player with a narrow skill set risks marginalizing potential complimentary pieces and even limiting the possible championship level roster combinations.
Because Shaq couldn’t shoot, at all, and he’s far from a GOAT PnR level player, he cannot play in today’s modern spread offenses as effectively as Hakeem or even Duncan, IMO. He has to be your focal point in the post and that means you need a very specific secondary piece next to him. It cannot be another penetration heavy wing/guard without a great jumper because they cannot space the floor well enough for each other.
Early career LeBron couldn’t shoot at all, either. I’ve posted the quotes and, to reiterate, he wasn’t even comfortable taking jumpers in important moments early in his career. He was also a poor off-ball player in general before 2nd/3rd season in Miami. This essentially means he has to be an on-ball player in his preferred offense: spread pick and roll. If not, he’s marginalized significantly and even a potential hindrance to spacing. We know this is the case because he AND Wade (before the decline came) lost in one of the biggest upsets in history to Dallas. Dallas won by playing a matchup zone that Miami couldn’t shoot them out of. Both Wade and LeBron were mediocre shooters at that point in their career and the fit wasn’t great offensively. They also turned a 25ppg+ post player into a jump shooting defensive specialist in the process because he simply COULDNT occupy the paint with two mediocre shooters out there. Bottom line, a lack of skill set diversity cost them a championship even with overwhelming talent on their side.
This doesn’t happen with Kobe or Dream. Sure, in a vacuum, the idea makes sense: keep feeding the unstoppable move; Spam Shaq post-ups and spam LeBron PnRs. Basketball is still a team game though and you need the other four guys to also work well in the system. Kobe and Dream fit more systems than Shaq and LeBron. That’s not THE deciding factor but I don’t believe it isn’t a factor at all.
I believe Shaq and LeBron BOTH lost rings due to not being able to incorporate players into their preferred system (Payton as one example of a PnR/traditional PG that was near worthless in the triangle).
It doesn’t mean they aren’t still GOAT candidates but it is a negative that I take into account, personally.
Guys like KD, Kobe, Dirk and other all-time candidates with all-time skills can fit into ANY offensive system and still dominate without marginalizing the talent next to them or needing a certain role to still be elite.
Last edited by L4L on Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | I tend to yawn at the “did this guy have the amount of skills/shots that guy did?” argument. That’s usually an argument why a guy scored a lower amount and/or a lower efficiency. David Robinson was more skilled than Shaq. Shaq didn’t need to be because he had physical advantages that trumped the skills gap. Same reason MJ was such a brute without a lot of Kobe’s arsenal. He had physical advantages. Bron is a generational, or maybe I should say once in multiple generations physical freak. He does have a ton of skills, but whether he has more than this guy or that guy doesn’t matter. Getting it done matters.
Not arguing a guy here, just the bad concept that more skills equals top player. Basketball is like any sport. Physical talent is not evenly distributed, even among the stars. Some guys just have an advantage. |
You read my mind. Giannis isn’t as offensively skilled as let’s say AD. Does that make AD a better player. No it doesn’t. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop while minimizing missed shot attempts.
Bringing up stuff like Kobe has better ‘footwork’ or ‘post moves’ it just another pathetic way to try and excuse Kobe’s inefficiency when compared to Lebron.
I’d rather have guys like Shaq, LBJ and Giannis who can just muscle their way to the rim every time. |
Troll harder. |
You have absolutely no ground to stand on when making that accusation. And I’m not taking his side of the argument. But you couldn’t troll this subject harder if you had Russian help... |
We'll let others be the judge of that. Besides Metro2Staples no one seems to agree with any of the nonsense that George W Kush spews, and vice-versa. At least I have a handful of posters who agree with my points.
There's a difference between arguing passionately about opinions you truly believe and simply trolling to try to bait people into arguments. I'll let you figure out which is which... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kava
Star Player
Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Posts: 2173
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All time laker starting lineup? Why sure, I'll answer a question that was never asked...
pg- Magic sg-Kobe sf-Lebron pf-AD c-Shaq (sorry Capt/Wilt - Shaq's prime was the best I've ever seen - the MDE)
Point is, Kobe and Lebron are both GREAT. I don't see the need to compare great players that play different positions and fulfill different roles.
At least Kobe and Jordan played similar roles/styles on their respective teams. Compare Lebron to someone similar in size like Karl Malone. Then consider what Lebron can do on the floor and bask in his greatness.
Should we start a different thread to discuss Lebron vs. Magic?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
george w kush
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | george w kush wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | I tend to yawn at the “did this guy have the amount of skills/shots that guy did?” argument. That’s usually an argument why a guy scored a lower amount and/or a lower efficiency. David Robinson was more skilled than Shaq. Shaq didn’t need to be because he had physical advantages that trumped the skills gap. Same reason MJ was such a brute without a lot of Kobe’s arsenal. He had physical advantages. Bron is a generational, or maybe I should say once in multiple generations physical freak. He does have a ton of skills, but whether he has more than this guy or that guy doesn’t matter. Getting it done matters.
Not arguing a guy here, just the bad concept that more skills equals top player. Basketball is like any sport. Physical talent is not evenly distributed, even among the stars. Some guys just have an advantage. |
You read my mind. Giannis isn’t as offensively skilled as let’s say AD. Does that make AD a better player. No it doesn’t. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop while minimizing missed shot attempts.
Bringing up stuff like Kobe has better ‘footwork’ or ‘post moves’ it just another pathetic way to try and excuse Kobe’s inefficiency when compared to Lebron.
I’d rather have guys like Shaq, LBJ and Giannis who can just muscle their way to the rim every time. |
Troll harder. |
You have absolutely no ground to stand on when making that accusation. And I’m not taking his side of the argument. But you couldn’t troll this subject harder if you had Russian help... |
We'll let others be the judge of that. Besides Metro2Staples no one seems to agree with any of the nonsense that George W Kush spews, and vice-versa. At least I have a handful of posters who agree with my points.
There's a difference between arguing passionately about opinions you truly believe and simply trolling to try to bait people into arguments. I'll let you figure out which is which... |
This coming from someone who has been temporarily banned TWICE now for trolling. I’ve never been banned once. Funny stuff dude, keep the laughs coming. BTW did any of those ‘handful of posters’ agree with you when you stated the Lakers were swept by the Mavs due to ‘championship fatigue’? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LaLaLakeShow wrote: |
So if LeBron had been to 17 straight Finals and his record was 0-17 that wouldn’t have a negative impact on how you judge his legacy??
|
It would certainly harm his legacy if he didn't win any rings, no matter how many finals he got to.
I'd say getting to 17 finals and not winning would be notable, similar to how Jim Kelly was notable for getting to a lot of SuperBowls and not winning.
But I don't know that his reputation would be any worse for getting to 17 finals and not winning than it would be if he got to fewer finals and didn't win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epak
Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 34147
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Once again. Please answer the question.
Player A: 15 year career, 15 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Player B: 15 year career, 3 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Who had the better career knowing no other information? |
Disingenuous take since we're not comparing players with the same amount of rings.
BE BETTER. |
Side: How would Magic who appeared in 9 Finals to capture 5 titles be rated. Just too sad that his career was cut short 
Side2: I wonder how many people dog on Magic's first ring as Kareem was still a beast that year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Once again. Please answer the question.
Player A: 15 year career, 15 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Player B: 15 year career, 3 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Who had the better career knowing no other information? |
Disingenuous take since we're not comparing players with the same amount of rings.
BE BETTER. |
That shouldn’t matter if finals record is all that matters.
But I happen to agree with you. 5 rings in 20 finals is still better than 3 rings in 10 finals, right? That’s why finals record means nothing if you’re comparing correctly and genuinely.
It’s the number of rings that matters. Then you look at finals appearances and compare them. Finals “Losses” aren’t negatives. They are positives that are smaller in magnitude to wins. Hope we can agree on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| epak wrote: | | Side2: I wonder how many people dog on Magic's first ring as Kareem was still a beast that year. |
During Magic's era, people were less obsessed about the GOAT discussion, so stuff like that didn't get much attention.
Today, Magic's place in the GOAT discussion doesn't stir much passion, so I doubt you'll find many people who will dog him for any length of time about anything. If you started a thread about Magic's GOAT standing, I suspect it would run out of steam quickly because enough people wouldn't care.
I suspect Kobe's and Lebron's fan bases will have a similar lack of interest when they start pushing 50 and 60. At a certain point in life, people tend not to get worked up about stuff like this anymore.
Last edited by activeverb on Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| epak wrote: | | Batguano wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Once again. Please answer the question.
Player A: 15 year career, 15 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Player B: 15 year career, 3 finals appearances, 3 rings.
Who had the better career knowing no other information? |
Disingenuous take since we're not comparing players with the same amount of rings.
BE BETTER. |
Side: How would Magic who appeared in 9 Finals to capture 5 titles be rated. Just too sad that his career was cut short
Side2: I wonder how many people dog on Magic's first ring as Kareem was still a beast that year. |
nobody dogs magic on that because he was clearly doing so much, i mean, its legendary. and yes, kareem was still the man. and magic didnt overtake kareem in scoring until years later anyway. different times, different things.
the player A player B thing doesn't work in reality. it's not these numbers that is the debate. like someone said earlier, if it were numerical, just find the right numbers and that's it. it would take one day max.
magic lost a bunch of finals, and won a bunch of finals. is that better than lebron's career? hell yes. is it better than jordadn's career? hard to say, most would say no. but people love that 6/6, like its clearly better than 5/9.
the problem with lebron is always the shortcuts. he shortcutted all the things most others had to go through (adversity-wise) to get his awards and accolades. so you can commend him on his strategy, but it means nothing as far as his performance. which i still claim to be far far below most anyone else mentioned there like kobe, magic, mj. lebron is a far less talented/skilled whatever you want to say than those guys. there are guys in the league right now who are far far better than how people perceive them through the media and just fan talk. guys like lillard and PG are pretty much better than anyone else in their category. that includes curry for lillard, and that includes lebron/luka/kawhi when it comes to PG. but thats a similar argument to kobe vs lebron.
i think if lebron didn't have his stats and awards....and we were having this discussion...and lets say kobe didnt have his stats and awards....this conversation would go very differently. i dont think lebron would be better in almost anything without those stats.
i think magic and lebron SHOULD be compared just to show how much better and different magic was than what lebron is doing. lets say they both get 10 assists...they are going to be of a different quality. i describe lebron's assists as the very easy type, the kind of passes half the nba can make. magic's 10 assists are of a totally different variety, more like a conductor leading an orchestra. nobody else since can even do those passes. you have to look beyond the number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
How about 5-2 vs 3-6? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
I know you get it. But clearly there are some that don’t and still think it’s a gotcha unfortunately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
I know you get it. But clearly there are some that don’t and still think it’s a gotcha unfortunately. |
They either don't get it or choose not to get it because getting it doesn't help the point they want to make.
For that reason, the "finals record" is always a dead end.
But most of the points in this argument are dead ends |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
How about 5-2 vs 3-6? |
Sure, I'd rather win 5 rings rather than 3 rings.
That said, most people aren't ring counters. My sense is most people feel you need a certain amount of rings to get into the GOAT discussion -- at least 2 or 3.
After that, more is better, but the total number of rings tends to be just one factor among many. If you try to make rings a trump card, people tend to yawn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
I know you get it. But clearly there are some that don’t and still think it’s a gotcha unfortunately. |
They either don't get it or choose not to get it because getting it doesn't help the point they want to make.
For that reason, the "finals record" is always a dead end.
But most of the points in this argument are dead ends |
You may be right. But I mean, one can make these silly arguments in any number of ways. One doesn’t have to go down such a lazy method.
But well, maybe that’s the appeal. It’s easy, and when it’s easy, it doesn’t have to make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Speaking of Magic, for the “finals record” truthers, what is the more impressive career feat?
Player A: 5-4 record in the NBA Finals
Player B: 5-2 record in the NBA Finals
(Hint: it’s the opposite of what you think) |
Yeah, yeah. We all know. You're going to say 5-4 is more impressive than 5-2 because the 5-2 doesn't reflect the two times player B was knocked out in an earlier round.
I've made this point a million times; the people who get it don't care that much about "finals records"; the people who care about "finals records" never acknowledge the point. |
How about 5-2 vs 3-6? |
The 2 and the 6 are irrelevant.
Only when the number in front is the same, does the second number matter. And in that case, the bigger the number the better.
This finals record nonsense was laughed out of the room years ago when people realized they were rewarding lottery seasons over NBA Finals appearances. Lol
Last edited by ringfinger on Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
|
|
