How many more rings will it take for LeBron to become the GOAT?
1
11%
[ 6 ]
2
9%
[ 5 ]
3
14%
[ 8 ]
4
14%
[ 8 ]
5 or more
9%
[ 5 ]
He already is the GOAT.
16%
[ 9 ]
He cannot become the GOAT no matter how many more rings he wins.
24%
[ 13 ]
Total Votes : 54
Author
Message
Mike@LG Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:30 am Post subject:
Quote:
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
He still won.
Beating the 73 win Warriors on the road sealed it for me. _________________ 14-5-3-12
“Blocked by James” has to be the most iconic finals moment, right? The play alone is incredible but when you add the stakes I don’t know how anything else compares.
I think if you have a negative record in periods where you had a competitive team, you can't be a GOAT. And James lost more than he won in the period where he did 2010-2018 and now
I am not sure if I know what "competitive team" means in this context. For example, I'd say Magic and Duncan had competitive teams their entire careers.
And do you get dinged if you had "a competitive team" and lost in the conference finals or the second round? Or do you only get dinged if your "competitive team" loses in the finals?
It's more about who you lose to than when you lose. Duncan was past his prime in his later years. Peak Duncan lost to Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Kobe-Pau Lakers, and twice to Dirks Mavs in the 2000s. You could say his team underachieved in 2006 against a 60win Dallas (where he still put up 32 a game), but by the time they played the Mavs and Suns in 2009 and 2010, he wasn't the no.1 option anymore. If the Spurs reached the final in 2002 and lost, without facing us on the way (someone else kicks us out) I'd consider it a failure. But not being able to go past Kobe-Shaq is not a failure, despite it happening in a earlier round. Regarding Magic, it wasn't always his team, there was a transition from Kareem's Lakers to Magics Lakers.
Like I said, if you are evaluating guys' success based on your perception of the quality of their opponents, that's fine. Very difficult to do in a systematic way, of course.
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
But I'm not doing the 2nd, I thought I established that already _________________ 48 49 50 52 53 54 72 80 82
85 87 88 00 01 02 09 10 20
It's not about wins at this point. 6 losses in the Finals takes him out of the conversation. He's the modern-day Jerry West, and nobody considers him the GOAT even though he was a terrific player.
Hogwash he took a couple of teams to the Finals that had no business making the playoffs.
Which of his teams do you think had no business making the playoffs?
2006-07: Drew Gooden, Larry Hughes, Eric Snow & Zydrunas Ilgauskas were the other starters.
2017-18: J.R. Smith, Jae Crowder, Kevin Love & George Hill were the other starters.
Both of those teams were talent poor and injury depleted. Without LeBron, they were lottery teams. _________________ On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
He still won.
See that's where I disagree. He was out talented in 2017 and 2018 (2015 because of injuries), but every other year in that 8 season span? No. Plus he out talented everyone in the east during that timespan. The impressive thing was getting back from 1-3, not them actually winning _________________ 48 49 50 52 53 54 72 80 82
85 87 88 00 01 02 09 10 20
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29151 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm Post subject:
loslakersss wrote:
“Blocked by James” has to be the most iconic finals moment, right? The play alone is incredible but when you add the stakes I don’t know how anything else compares.
If I'm being honest. I think Kyrie's shot that game was way more iconic.
_________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
It's not about wins at this point. 6 losses in the Finals takes him out of the conversation. He's the modern-day Jerry West, and nobody considers him the GOAT even though he was a terrific player.
Jordan going 1-9 including 2 sweeps in the first round is much worse than losing in the finals. Lebron has never lost a first round series.
Lol, am I really reading that more wins in the first round >>> more wins in the Finals?
Let me give you some logic. You are arguing that losing in the finals is worse than losing before the finals (including losing in the first round). Had Lebron lost 6 times before the finals instead of in the finals it would have meant he was better?
Are you seriously arguing that it is better to lose in the first round than it is to win the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounds and then lose in the 4th round? You are seriously arguing that it is better to lose in the first round (or 2nd) than it is to win the EASTERN CONFERENCE TITLE and then lose in the finals? lmao
The whole losing in the finals thing being bad has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard LOL
I think that majority of the NBA fans will start to put him as the GOAT with 2-3 more rings, probably 3 more rings. If he can rip off a 3 peat with the Lakers he will be considered the consensus GOAT by the majority of NBA fans. Not all, but a majority.
This is why I can't stand these discussions. After all these years, people still don't reference net ratings, SRS, or betting lines when discussing Lebron's Finals losses or his domination of the Eastern Conference. Despite the relative weakness of his conference, he overachieved in his match-ups. He's alongside MJ as one of the greatest playoff performers in history, and there's no shortage of stats/metrics to prove it.
He's not the GOAT, but he's far better than his Finals record would indicate.
Would you consider it overachieving if we beat the clippers? I personally wouldn't, but those ratings will tell you otherwise
I don't if it's a coin toss, but betting markets wouldn't exist if their predictions had no bearing on the outcome.
I've already said he's not the GOAT, but I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:29 pm Post subject:
GOODRICH25 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
He still won.
See that's where I disagree. He was out talented in 2017 and 2018 (2015 because of injuries), but every other year in that 8 season span? No. Plus he out talented everyone in the east during that timespan. The impressive thing was getting back from 1-3, not them actually winning
Oh we definitely disagree on team construction then. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:30 pm Post subject:
ocho wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
He still won.
Beating the 73 win Warriors on the road sealed it for me.
Same. Like, he was always in the discussion since we had seen most of his peak by then, but that championship run was real validation. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 22 Mar 2003 Posts: 3239 Location: so many places
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:31 pm Post subject:
loslakersss wrote:
“Blocked by James” has to be the most iconic finals moment, right? The play alone is incredible but when you add the stakes I don’t know how anything else compares.
Maybe on defense, but I think MJ's shot against Russell and Magic's baby skyhook against the Celtics are just as iconic, if not more.
If you are evaluating guys based on "finals record" or "playoff records" or whatever without considering the quality of their team or the quality of their opponent, that's meaningless to me.
Yeah, I'm not with it either. I do think winning championships absolutely do matter, but if a guy basically gets to the Finals for roughly a decade, and doesn't always have the better overall team, and still wins a few, that has proven more than enough.
Like, he was clearly out talented by a 73 win Warriors team.
He still won.
See that's where I disagree. He was out talented in 2017 and 2018 (2015 because of injuries), but every other year in that 8 season span? No. Plus he out talented everyone in the east during that timespan. The impressive thing was getting back from 1-3, not them actually winning
I think beating a 73 win team in the finals was impressive no matter how it was done. And doing it on the road with that legendary block? That was iconic.
Last edited by ducasse on Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:22 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
GOODRICH25 wrote:
But he won only 3 in 16, that's worse that majority of the GOAT candidates.
That's a completely different argument than the finals record argument.
And it's a complex argument, since a ring is not an individual accomplishment that is the result of only one player's efforts. It's not singles tennis or golf where one person wins or loses on his own.
Depending on the quality of a player's teammates, I might find him winning 2 out of 10 years more impressive than another player winning 3 out of 10 years.
For me, GOAT is neither a mathematical formula nor does it come down to one single thing, like ring count.
Lebron isn't my choice for GOAT, but I can understand the position of the people who think he is.
The last thing it would come down to for me is ring count. Teams win rings, not players. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
If he wins a title a this year he should absolutely get his Lakers jersey retired with the other Laker greats.
A trip to the lottery and a title gets your jersey retired? How cheap.
As for the OP, a million because he will never be Kareem.
The Lakers have retired every hall of famer that won a ring for them.
There are no rules about who gets retired (beyond the Lakers tradition that you have to be a Hall of Famer). That said, some Hall of Famers who were key members of Lakers ring teams, but no longer stars, didn't have their numbers retired here -- Bob McAdoo and Spencer Haywood.
It's a safe bet that if we win a ring Lebron's # will eventually be retired.
AD's too, if he sticks around for a reasonable length of time.
Best combination of size, athleticism, IQ, package with longevity.
When guys lose their athleticism so much, their games usually drop.
When it comes to LeBron, he's still an elite athlete and gets triple doubles.
I've never seen a dude strategically conserve his energy mid game during the playoffs, but when he decides to step on the gas, no one is close.
Do you you think he has taken "enhancements" to help with his longevity, size and strength?
It wouldn't surprise me. There's been speculation that a lot of the players are using the newer performance enhancement drugs that are very difficult to detect. But in all likelihood, we'll probably never know if Lebron is juicing.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
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