Lakers had four (4) players score 25+ Points last night...

[thedangerouskitchen]

Those are your words fool, not mine.

You said "impact on winning" is the criteria used to determine the GOAT... and again, with just 4 rings in 21 years (including one *asterisk* Championship) LeBron simply has not "won" enough to be considered the GOAT.

That's the bottom line. Deal with it.

Yes, and "impact on winning" need not correlate to winning a title/game, depending on a million different factors.

A player who adds +5 to his team in a 108-100 (i.e.--would have been a 13 point loss without him) loss is impacting winning more than a player who adds + 2 to his team in a 105-100 win (it would have been a 3 point instead of 5 point win without him).

Dummy.

lol!

What's the point of playing, fool. Exactly: To Win.

Thus, first and foremost the criteria MUST look at the player's impact on Championship teams... and thus, by default the "number" of Championship must be factore in, otherwise Dream would be in the GOAT discussion.

And again... LeBron does not own enough Championships to even qualify for GOAT discussion when you have other all-time greats like Russell, MJ, Jabbar, Kobe, Magic, Duncan, Hondo, etc. all with more Rings, and guys like Shaq and Steph with just as many.

Further... that drivel you spewed about adding this or that many points to a team is based on what, exactly? Plus/Minus???

...and you expect to be taken seriously?



Keep trying, little buckaroo.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Yeah those 97 and 98 Jazz were so weak they CRUSHED the Lakers in the playoffs 4-1 and 4-0, respectively... a Lakers team with HOFERS Shaq and Kobe, and All-Stars Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel.

Again, too easy.

Next

When you are unironically holding up a 12 year old Kobe, and Eddie Jones/Van Exel as all-star markers for an era, you are kinda proving the point, genius.

Good job walking into another trap.

Keep it up!

lmao!

What trap, moron... you said those Jazz/era were weak. I proved to you that they weren't.

You're getting slapped around so hard your head is spinning too fast for you to keep up with the discussion.



The 98 Jazz CRUSHED the Spurs (who would go on and win the Championship the following year / 1999) and then sweep the 61-win Lakers with four (4) All Stars on the team (who would go on to 3-Peat circa 2002-02...

But but but, the Jazz were weak.

hurr durr...

They were weak. Bush put it in context, something you only favor when it suits you.

Stockton and Malone (particularly Malone), are abject playoff failures. Multiple first round losses in their primes as higher seeds. Hornacek was 3rd best player, then a steep drop-off. Ostertag could never get a roster spot in today's NBA and he started.

Malone shoots 45% in the playoffs for his career. A fucking PF who can't shoot the 3 and that's his playoff delivery. The era was weak. The fucking Knicks were winning 60 games for chrissakes and they couldn't make the playoffs in today's NBA.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Ah, so we are back to the "if you don't win a ring, it's all the same amount of winning...winning 15 games is the same as losing in G7 of the NBA Finals because you don't get a ring in either case".

Good one!

Lebron made it to the Finals as a 22 year old, with 0 HOF teammates.

Trae Young made it to the WCFs as a 22 (?) year old with 0 HOF teammates.

Jordan...couldn't get out of the first round without a HOF teammate.

lmao!

Those are your words fool, not mine.

You said "impact on winning" is the criteria used to determine the GOAT... and again, with just 4 rings in 21 years (including one *asterisk* Championship) LeBron simply has not "won" enough to be considered the GOAT.

That's the bottom line. Deal with it.

No.it isn't. It only is in your mind because you have incredible blind spots.

Let's take this for example. You like to rail on LeBron for losing to lower seeded teams. Keep in mind, many of those teams were complete dogshit when he wasn't playing. But let's ignore that for a moment. Why do you never ever mention how often he's beaten a higher seeded team? I've not tried to do the math, but I know it's happened multiple times, but because it doesn't fit your narrative and "view of the world", you ignore it.

Intellectual honesty is required for intelligent debate. You simply don't have it.

STop piggy-backing bush and fight your own battle, meatball.



LeBron's "impact" on his 4 Championships is not greater than Jordan's impact on 6... that right there disqualifies LeBron from GOAT status.

That's a fact "if" all you're using is bush's criteria.

Next.

[Bush4Ever.]

What's the point of playing, fool. Exactly: To Win.

So you admit Michael Jordan from 1985 to 1990 was just as bad as the worst player in the NBA that didn't win a ring from 2018-2023 (and didn't already have one), correct?

Since they both won zero rings and thus contributed zero to ACTUALLY winning a ring.

Let me guess...you'll suddenly snap back to reality and understand players can move the needle tons towards winning but not actually win titles/a series/a particular game because the environmental contexts are totally different.

Right?

lmao!

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Those are your words fool, not mine.

You said "impact on winning" is the criteria used to determine the GOAT... and again, with just 4 rings in 21 years (including one *asterisk* Championship) LeBron simply has not "won" enough to be considered the GOAT.

That's the bottom line. Deal with it.

No.it isn't. It only is in your mind because you have incredible blind spots.

Let's take this for example. You like to rail on LeBron for losing to lower seeded teams. Keep in mind, many of those teams were complete dogshit when he wasn't playing. But let's ignore that for a moment. Why do you never ever mention how often he's beaten a higher seeded team? I've not tried to do the math, but I know it's happened multiple times, but because it doesn't fit your narrative and "view of the world", you ignore it.

Intellectual honesty is required for intelligent debate. You simply don't have it.

STop piggy-backing bush and fight your own battle, meatball.



LeBron's "impact" on his 4 Championships is not greater than Jordan's impact on 6... that right there disqualifies LeBron from GOAT status.

That's a fact "if" all you're using is bush's criteria.

Next.

Why? Because you say so? Lol.

[Bush4Ever.]

"1990 MJ was just as good as rookie Lebron...since neither of them contributed anything to actually winning a championship"

-TDK

[thedangerouskitchen]

When you are unironically holding up a 12 year old Kobe, and Eddie Jones/Van Exel as all-star markers for an era, you are kinda proving the point, genius.

Good job walking into another trap.

Keep it up!

lmao!

What trap, moron... you said those Jazz/era were weak. I proved to you that they weren't.

You're getting slapped around so hard your head is spinning too fast for you to keep up with the discussion.



The 98 Jazz CRUSHED the Spurs (who would go on and win the Championship the following year / 1999) and then sweep the 61-win Lakers with four (4) All Stars on the team (who would go on to 3-Peat circa 2002-02...

But but but, the Jazz were weak.

hurr durr...

They were weak. Bush put it in context, something you only favor when it suits you.

Stockton and Malone (particularly Malone), are abject playoff failures. Multiple first round losses in their primes as higher seeds. Hornacek was 3rd best player, then a steep drop-off. Ostertag could never get a roster spot in today's NBA and he started.

Malone shoots 45% in the playoffs for his career. A fucking PF who can't shoot the 3 and that's his playoff delivery. The era was weak. The fucking Knicks were winning 60 games for chrissakes and they couldn't make the playoffs in today's NBA.

The 98 Jazz were better than 90% of Russell's playoff opponents... and if they were weak then you will also agree that the 99 Spurs and 00-02 Lakers were also weak.

That would make you a fool.

[thedangerouskitchen]

What's the point of playing, fool. Exactly: To Win.

So you admit Michael Jordan from 1985 to 1990 was just as bad as the worst player in the NBA that didn't win a ring from 2018-2023 (and didn't already have one), correct?

Since they both won zero rings and thus contributed zero to ACTUALLY winning a ring.

Again... your words, not mine.

[thedangerouskitchen]

No.it isn't. It only is in your mind because you have incredible blind spots.

Let's take this for example. You like to rail on LeBron for losing to lower seeded teams. Keep in mind, many of those teams were complete dogshit when he wasn't playing. But let's ignore that for a moment. Why do you never ever mention how often he's beaten a higher seeded team? I've not tried to do the math, but I know it's happened multiple times, but because it doesn't fit your narrative and "view of the world", you ignore it.

Intellectual honesty is required for intelligent debate. You simply don't have it.

STop piggy-backing bush and fight your own battle, meatball.



LeBron's "impact" on his 4 Championships is not greater than Jordan's impact on 6... that right there disqualifies LeBron from GOAT status.

That's a fact "if" all you're using is bush's criteria.

Next.

Why? Because you say so? Lol.

So you think James had a greater impact on 4 Championships than Jordan did on 6?

Feel free to expand on that, if that's what you're saying.

If nor, then my point stands.

[Bush4Ever.]

Again... your words, not mine.

No, I said "impact on winning".

If you play great on a team that happens to lose, you still had a major positive impact on winning, even if it didn't turn over to a tangible win for your team.

If you play 10 seconds on a team that happens to win, you still had zero impact on winning, even if whatever you did or didn't do didn't stop the turning over of the game into a win.

This isn't hard to understand.

I'll pray for you to not be retarded in your response to this.

[Bush4Ever.]

Ah, "impact" only counts during seasons where you actually win a title, even though in previous threads (see below), TDK proclaimed Jordan's 1988 season (where he didn't win a ring) to be the GOAT season.

Interesting...interesting.

LMAO!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=131831&p=1864817&hi ... 9#p1864817

[thedangerouskitchen]

"1990 MJ was just as good as rookie Lebron...since neither of them contributed anything to actually winning a championship"

-TDK

Again, your words not mine fool.

I said the number of Championships won should be at the top of YOUR "impact on winning" criteria because the goal of professional sports is to win Championships. Impact on losing / mediocre teams has its place as well, but it all starts with Rings.

Hence: Impact on Championships should be the first thing we look at, and LeBron just doesn't measure up.

Now... you want to establish the next criteria, go for it. I'll crush ya again.

[Bush4Ever.]

TDK, I (honestly, no troll) pity you.

Have a good night man. Don't drink too much.

[Da Stars.]

TDK, I (honestly, no troll) pity you.

Have a good night man. Don't drink too much.

Imagine giving a shit. Gone fishing.

[thedangerouskitchen]

TDK, I (honestly, no troll) pity you.

Have a good night man. Don't drink too much.

You got slapped silly, bush.

Night Night.

[Bush4Ever.]

Terrible 33/14/14 game by Joker, and Joker didn't move the needle towards winning at all, since the Nuggets lost.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

TDK, I (honestly, no troll) pity you.

Have a good night man. Don't drink too much.

You got slapped silly, bush.

Night Night.

He made a fool of you. So did I. You are just too dumb and unaware to realize it.

[wailuaFC]

I’m glad we can all agree Russell is the GOAT. According to the criteria laid forth, no one had a bigger impact on winning titles than Russell. Look at the Celtics before and after him, and just the sheer number of titles he won as the best player. Thanks TDK, because of your criteria it’s obvious Russell is the goat

[thedangerouskitchen]

Terrible 33/14/14 game by Joker, and Joker didn't move the needle towards winning at all, since the Nuggets lost.

No one said that fool...

Joker was great, probably the best player on the floor on either team... but in Game 4 he sure as hell didn't "move the needle toward winning" more than AD because the Nuggets lost, and second-place doesn't get you in the GOAT discussion.

Winning isn't the only criteria, but it is and always has been the first thing looked at when considering players for GOAT status. WINNING... not "impact on winning in a losing cause" you dope. If that were the case Jerry West would be Top 5 on everyone's list. Oscar too perhaps.

Put simply: LeBron has not won "enough" to warrant GOAT status, and his impact on winning "in a losing cause" doesn't offset his lack of hardware BECAUSE the reason James doesn't have more Rings is because of James himself... but that's a discussion for another day.

Step up your game, bush.

[Bush4Ever.]

"You only move the needle towards winning, in seasons where you win a championship. Oh by the way, Jordan's 1988 season is the best ever, even though they got humiliated in the second round of the playoffs."

-Literally TDK