Jump to content

If the Cavs win the NBA title this year, is LeBron the best ever?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

​"Hey Nator, how was your memorial day weekend?"   "You know what?? FUCK Michael Jordan."

NO.      I'm a big fan of Lebron's actually--but Jordan? He doesn't sniff Jordan. I think time allows us to forget how truly great Jordan was. Not only was he easily the best, most dominant player-

I've never seen an easier path to the finals than Lebron's last four (including this year). Can anyone name a decent matchup they've faced to the finals? Talking about what Jordan had to go through co

Posted Images

The hype the Warriors are getting is absurd. 

​If the lose this series they will be the first team in NBA history to win 80 games(regular and playoffs combined) and not win the title.

There are all kinds of metrics that show they are one of the best NBA teams in history.

I saw someone compare it to the Giants beating the undefeated Patriots. I think that's the perfect comparison because it's all about match-ups and the Cavs are matching up great.

It's also pretty important to note, GS hasn't lost this series yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​If the lose this series they will be the first team in NBA history to win 80 games(regular and playoffs combined) and not win the title.

There are all kinds of metrics that show they are one of the best NBA teams in history.

I saw someone compare it to the Giants beating the undefeated Patriots. I think that's the perfect comparison because it's all about match-ups and the Cavs are matching up great.

It's also pretty important to note, GS hasn't lost this series yet.

​The Warriors are certainly, unequivocally not one of the best teams of all time. They were losing the series to Memphis before Tony Allen (who guarded Curry) got injured. They are a flawed, finesse team. They are still a much better top to bottom roster that Cleveland without their 2nd and 3rd best player though.

 

And to call the Warriors the 3rd best team of all time is stark raving retarded. Also, the best teams of all time were not Jordan led teams. The 86 Celtics are the greatest ever. 87 Lakers next. Jordan's Bulls couldn't beat Detroit (whom prime 80's Lakers and Celtics beat) until they got old and injury riddled. What the fuck would the Bulls have done against those prime 80's Celtics and Lakers teams? They'd have lost is what. And were those Bulls teams as good as the '00 Kobe and Shaq Lakers? Please. They went 4-2 with the old ass late 90's Jazz and 96 Supersonics. Teams not nearly as good as the '00 Lakers squads? They'd have gotten beat. 

 

These Warriors are a finesse team too reliant on outside shooting. 3rd best of all fucking time? The NBA's version of the undefeated Pats team? Get the fuck outta here. 

Edited by 'Nator
Link to post
Share on other sites

​The Warriors are certainly, unequivocally not one of the best teams of all time.

 

And to call the Warriors the 3rd best team of all time is stark raving retarded

​I really don't know enough about the NBA but I'd agree with you. But the point about 80 games is a fact and metrics also make the case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cavs are 4-0 without Love and Irving...and Love is not the third best on the team, that title belongs to Triston Thompson. 

And it's still funny watching this guy think he's a one man wrecking show when talking about the NBA and what teams were the greatest, and who would beat who, blah blah. Pippen could D up anyone in the league, as could MJ for the most part. To say off hand the Bulls, who never lost a finals, would not have a chance against those Lakers and Celtics teams is nuts. I'm not saying they win, but come on. The combo of Jordan, Pippen, and Grant in 93 was unstoppable and would match up well with any team from any period. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

​I really don't know enough about the NBA but I'd agree with you. But the point about 80 games is a fact and metrics also make the case.

 

​Not really. It's a dumb stat. And the league is weak this year. Teams have won 60+ games before and failed, because the league is weak this year and the best of a weak crop makes the finals, then we find a nice round, plump number and say "hey 80 games", well so? 

Before 2003 the first round was best of 5, not 7. So you lose a game there. 

 

You have to win 64 games in the regular season to get to 80 games by the time you win the finals. 65 wins prior to 2003. So it's just a metric'd up way of saying that teams that win a lot of regular season games generally don't lose. It's not a strong stat for "best ever" especially when an average Memphis team made them look mortal in round 2 and a Cavs team with James and a bunch of nobodies is beating them. 

A ton of 60 win teams have lost but most in the conference finals in a more competitive league. 

 

Are the Warriors discernibly better than the 2009 66 win Cavs team that lost in the ECF finals or the 64 win Pistons who lost to Miami in the 2006 finals? No. But they won 1 game in the finals so they are probably a best of all time type team because they reached a nice fat round metric number? 

 

They are a finesse/bitch team. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cavs are 4-0 without Love and Irving...and Love is not the third best on the team, that title belongs to Triston Thompson. 

And it's still funny watching this guy think he's a one man wrecking show when talking about the NBA and what teams were the greatest, and who would beat who, blah blah. Pippen could D up anyone in the league, as could MJ for the most part. To say off hand the Bulls, who never lost a finals, would not have a chance against those Lakers and Celtics teams is nuts. I'm not saying they win, but come on. The combo of Jordan, Pippen, and Grant in 93 was unstoppable and would match up well with any team from any period. 

​You are pretty much embarrassing yourself every time you type at this point. 

 

There isn't an NBA basketball mind on the entire planet that would take Triston (8.5 ppg) over Kevin Love. Christ. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please watch this debate between 2 basketball analysts on Canadian Sportcenter and comment. 

 

Rautins is swaying me back to Jordan Nator!

 

http://www.tsn.ca/video/moves-like-no-other-mj-or-lebron-1.305107

 

 

 

​Lebron is barley 30 and has 6-10 more seasons left in the league so the fact that this is actually debatable at this point is points for Lebron. Extrapolate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nator you had me with the supporting cast and better competition angle. 

However:

- After hearing Rautins say the Cavs teams Jordan beat on the way to the finals were actually better than the cavs now

 

- After being reminded that Jordan was also the best defensive player in the league

 

- Noting that the only championships Lebron has won to date canme with Bosh, Allen, Wade et Al....

 

I'm coming back to Jordan here. 

 

Yes I believe even if the Cavs don't win this series this playoff performance, maybe,  ranks right up there with anything Jordan did...but it's one year. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus those videos of Michael Jordan literally snuggling on the ground with the NBA trophy and giving it Eskimo kisses with his fucking nose is the goofiest most disturbing shit I've ever seen. I feel sorry this sports sociopath in a strange way. 

 

Maybe he is the greatest because he is mentally ill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

​Not really. It's a dumb stat. And the league is weak this year. Teams have won 60+ games before and failed, because the league is weak this year and the best of a weak crop makes the finals, then we find a nice round, plump number and say "hey 80 games", well so? 

Before 2003 the first round was best of 5, not 7. So you lose a game there. 

 

You have to win 64 games in the regular season to get to 80 games by the time you win the finals. 65 wins prior to 2003. So it's just a metric'd up way of saying that teams that win a lot of regular season games generally don't lose. It's not a strong stat for "best ever" especially when an average Memphis team made them look mortal in round 2 and a Cavs team with James and a bunch of nobodies is beating them. 

A ton of 60 win teams have lost but most in the conference finals in a more competitive league. 

 

Are the Warriors discernibly better than the 2009 66 win Cavs team that lost in the ECF finals or the 64 win Pistons who lost to Miami in the 2006 finals? No. But they won 1 game in the finals so they are probably a best of all time type team because they reached a nice fat round metric number? 

 

They are a finesse/bitch team. 

 

 

​Sounds reasonable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...