The definition of greatness is someone who does extraordinary things. Whats so great about joining a team that is already the champ favs without you? Maybe durant doesn't regret his decision, but his ring doesn't make him great since it was such a gimme.
One can argue that Durant was already great, before superteaming with GS. I don't think he necessarily needed a ring to cross the threshold of being a great player.
I wasn't comparing James to Durant, I was comparing BOTH of them (as James was hated in 2010, before people knew that Durant would be an even greater villain in 7 years) to superteams of the past and noting that no one cared about "league competitiveness" when GMs constructed superteams. People suddenly care about how uncompetitive the league is when players build, or have a hand in building, the superteams.
I agree with your premise, I also don't like how people differentiate when GMs build super teams and when players build super teams, there is no difference. However Durant didn't build anything and he didn't have a hand in anything. There was no effort on his part, GSW was already a super team before he signed and he didn't need to do anything except sign the dotted line once he became a FA. Nene probably had more effort going to Houston than Durant going to GSW.
Durant could have been a great player but thanks to this he will never be great. Great players don't join the best team in the league, it's like google shutting down and selling to Microsoft out of the blue. Its funny to see KD try to defend himself and talk both sides out of his mouth saying how he had such a hard road to the Finals and how nobody wanted the GSW players. b**** spent a couple months injured and only suited up in the Finals. When did Lebron have that luxury? In fact the opposite seems to happen to him, Wade and Bosh combined for 10 pts in game 7 his last game in Miami and now KLove totally wilted in the Finals. In fact I don't recall any super team that reached the finals when arguably their best player became injured for majority of the playoffs. No other team can afford it except GSW because they were already the best team to begin with before Durant joined them.
If Lebron James started the "super team era"...then Kevin Durant started the "If you can't beat them then join them era"...so when players start joining teams they can't beat to win a ring...we have Kevin Durant to thank for that!!
Lebron erased the Decision forever after last year's come from behind win in the Finals. Social media never forgets. Remember Iverson's "Practice" speech? Or the "Crying Jordan" meme? He redeemed himself last year and completely wiped the Decision from this Earth.
I agree with that with respect to seeing it from the perspective of the player. I totally understand that players want to win a ring, make a lot of money, be adored by everyone. I would too if I was in their shoes. However, I would also recognize that if I made a move which significantly decreases the competitiveness of the league, and therefore makes the sports less enjoyable for the fans, then fans would not appreciate it and there would be backlash. There are consequences to one's actions, as much as we hate to believe it. I find it disingenuous and possibly delusional for people like Kevin Durant to claim otherwise. KD should enjoy the championship, the adoring GSW fans, and the media attention. But, it's not unreasonable for newly formed detractors to criticize him. Going back to the medical student analogy, I didn't mean that going to a top ranked school would hurt one's professional existence. That statement was meant to say that the analogy does NOT work because going to a top ranked school doesn't hurt the profession in the same way that KD going to GSW hurt the league and the sport as a whole. I understand that a stellar student would want to go to the best possible school. I did that, and I would never consider the alternative. Medicine is a tough field, as it really requires one to give up one's life for approximately 7-12 years post-undergrad. I'm close to the end of my training, and looking back, I'm not sure I would have it in me to do this all over again. The worst part may be watching your non-medical friends live their lives, make money, buy houses, have kids, while you are studying for boards or pulling 24 hour shifts in the hospital. But, if that's your passion, then go for it. Best of luck! Feel free to PM me if you have questions or anything.
It's amazing how people gloss over the fact that the celtics built a "super team" just to beat a 23 year old Lebron James after he lead Larry Hughes and Sasha Pavlovic to the finals.
It's about perception of competitiveness. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly didn't hate the Bulls, Celtics (didn't watch the Showtime Lakers). I hated the Heatles until they started playing and it was quickly obvious that they were neither the dominant nor even the best team in the league. Do I have to remind you that they were the 3rd seed in the East and got bounced in 6 games by a 3rd seed Mavs team their first year? The Celtics with the big 3 were also far from dominant. They had to grind out 7 excruciating games against the Lakers, then lost the next time around. Ultimately, they ended up with only one championship, and more importantly, there was never the perception that they were unbeatable. This Warrior team, on the other hand, was basically unbeatable. They're anti-competitive in ways that the others were not. That's my two cents, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is some hatred of players' making choices, though I am uncertain why that matters. Perhaps it's the fact that players signing as free agents has the POTENTIAL of creating more anti-competitive situations than GMs making trades, simply due to the fact that trades usually are bilateral exchanges of value, whereas free agency is pure acquisition. Sure, you can have situations where established talent is traded for youth or picks, but more often than not, there is at least some value lost at the present time.
I do not think how we train doctors in this country is the best way. Other countries do not require four year of pre med and are doing just fine. A system of BA of medicine, MS and Phd would work much better than this current system.
Agree entirely. There's nothing I learned in undergraduate which has helped my medical training. And I was a biochemistry major. I can't even imagine the people that didn't major in a hard science. The problem is that there is no impetus for the system to change. Medical schools aren't going to change themselves, as long as there are thousands of applications coming in from college graduates. If anything, there is more competition nowadays for medical school than when I was applying. I believe the acceptance rate back then was around 5%, and this year, my med school accepted only 3% of applicants.
But why not the Bulls? It was basically a foregone conclusion each year that they were going to win. I'd argue that there was more "Cleveland gonna pound those overrated Warriors" talk this year than any "X is going to beat the Bulls" talk for the Bulls (not counting the seasons that Jordan was either absent or didn't play the full season). I wouldn't speak for any individual person but, in general, I'd argue that there's a strong "Owners and GMs are the ones who should be making decisions, players are lucky to be paid to play a game, they should just shut up and play." There's a lot of sentiments that I believe come out of that same dynamic--lockouts or strikes both mean the players are greedy, never the owners. Players leaving their teams for more money is "mercenary," owners/GMs cutting loose players who they don't consider worth paying is "just business." Etc. I think there's a pretty clear pattern among basketball fans as a whole that players doing anything but playing basketball is wrong.
If you do not love money that much, then you do not need go to medical school to be a doctor. There are a few other choices too to have a good life in USA.
yeah but in a couple of countries in asia that i've been to, you can be a doctor with only 4 years of undergrad. and usually there are countless malpractice cases too.
I can only speak for myself, as any type of statement on this from either position is going to be anecdotal and speculative at best. But, from what I recall from childhood, the Bulls, while dominant in how many championships they won, never had the type of utter one-sidedness that the Warriors display. Looking back at the two Jazz vs Bulls series, they were always tight games that came down to the wire. Sure, there were no 7 game series, but the Jazz at least gave the perception of being able to take the series from the Bulls. This obviously didn't happen, but at least there was the excitement of competition. If Jordan didn't make the last jumper against Russell, what would have happened? The Bulls would likely have lost game 6, and anything happens in a game 7. It's at least somewhat debatable. Perhaps. I don't know how to quantify this type of sentiment or even to prove its existence, but I can acknowledge that it's a possibility. Players move all the time, while teams and their front office are usually permanent (with the exception of a few moves in the past several decades). So I can see how this feeling can be generated over time in the subconscious minds of fans. But that doesn't change the legitimate argument that the Warriors, as currently built, is largely anti-competitive for the NBA in general.
