Look I'm not here to deminish anything Lebron has accomplished. He has obviously cemented his name as one of the greats ever. That being said he has no business being in the discussion with MJ. Bill Russell , Kareem ? That is a discussion we can have . I understand people get tired of hearing about Jordan ,but at the end of the day when the lights shined the brightest he delivered. Its not about the amount (6)it's the fact that when Mike got to the biggest stage you knew he was going to get it done. Did he take his Ls to get there? Yes. I'm not saying he didnt , made him a better player, made him The GOAT
What would lebrons case be ? How could you hide the fact that he's been to the finals 8 times and lost 5 of them.
Never could stand Kobe. Creepy guy who chewed on his shirt and couldn't be touched without a foul being called against the defenders. Just when I finally didn't have to watch him anymore Mr. mouthpiece hanging out of the mouth Curry comes along to bring back that vomit in the mouth taste when I have to watch him on TV.
Arguments based around team success or "ringzzz" are flawed to the point of being laughable. You judge players on how they perform, not on the caliber of teams they played on or against. The case for Lebron is that he's a supremely talented player in just about every aspect of the game. Not only is Lebron a dominant individual scorer, he's a better and more willing passer than Jordan ever was which in the end results in Lebron being responsible for creating more offense than Jordan did more efficiently than Jordan did while being arguably a defender than Jordan was at the same time. Essentially you take 27/7/7 over 30/6/5 especially when the guy scoring 27 points has a higher TS% and eFG% And despite the topic of this thread, the 25/5/5 guy with the significantly lower eFG% and TS% shouldn't even be mentioned in conversation BTW
You aren't talking about "their" success, you are talking about the success of their teams. Team success is completely irrelevant to how good a player is...and if it wasn't, there would be no case for MJ over Robert Horry. The greatest player ever to play the game would still be the greatest player to ever play the game even if their team was never good enough to even make the finals.
He's got more "ringzzz" and team success than MJ, thus by the logic that team success and "ringzzz" equals individual success, Horry was better than Jordan. Of course, I personally believe that thinking that way is laughable, but here we are.
We are comparing Greats Leaders of championship teams not Role Players I was assuming you would apply common sense, but it's ok give it another try.
Those with sense would know better than trying to bring team success into a conversation about individual players. Team success is completely and totally irrelevant to how good any one individual player is. I was assuming you would apply common sense and understand that intuitively, but it's ok give it another try.
Then why don't they just play exhibition games then because who cares who wins championships right ? Smh
Clearly you are confused here, they do playoffs and have championships to crown the best team....they don't do them to show who is the best individual player. That shouldn't be an advanced concept. If they only played exhibition games, you could still figure out who was the best players, but you'd want a playoffs to prove which team was best....which is why they do it. Glad I could help relieve some confusion.
How are you failing to follow along? Let's do a thought exercise. If you took the all time best player ever, and put them on the all time worst team for their entire career, would they cease to be the all time best player ever due to a lack of team success?
LeBron's case would be: - he could retire as the games leading scorer while still being top 15 or top 10 in assists - his peak averages - his longevity - all the accolades he's won - his unmatched versatility on both sides of the ball - how many titles he's actually won and led teams to, since only 6 players have led teams to more titles than him A 3-5 Finals record means you were dominant enough to compete in a title series 8 times and [bled[/b] teams to 3 victories, which is more than any player not named Russell, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Kareem, Magic and Bird. Making the Finals is an accomplishment, even if you lose. I guess he should've lost more in an earlier round so his Finals record could look better.
if they are the all time best player ever then they would have success. Unlike you I don't make excuses. If you are the best or one of the best you are expected to have success at the highest level . If I were to compare one great to another I would compare they're success at the highest level. Bottom line Mj never chocked Lebron on the other hand did Twice as favorites.
Because you are mentioning Kobe, who didn't lead half of the teams he won titles on. If leading the team matters then stay consistent.
The teams best player. The guy who gets doubled the most that gets everyone else open looks. Kobe was only that guy twice. Horry isn't on his level, but Kobe hasn't had more impact on team success the majority of times teams he won on had title success.
LOL so in your mind, the all time best player ever would have success being on a team comprised entirely of random CF posters? You seriously think that if they failed to have success in that scenario then it means they weren't good? C'mon, tell me you know better than that. I want to believe that you know better than that despite your "their/they're" mistake and your "choked/chocked" mistake.
Don't you realize Jordan was only the best player from 91-93 and 96-98. Hmm, which Detroit Piston was the best player in 04? Which Spur in 14?
