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

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

The invitation to debate MJ/LeBron head-head with TDK is open to you too, meatball... anytime you feel man enough.

You won't of course, because you know you'll get squashed like a bug.

Run along now.

We've done it a million times TDK. And with Russell. It's always pointless because you are incapable of intellectual honesty. You get buried over and over again but never recognize it.

By the way, I don't believe LeBron is GOAT. He's got a case, as do Russell, Janbar and MJ.

But he's nowhere near as low as you try to portray him because of you're ridiculous MJ insecurities.

Let me educate you on a simple concept:

You simply canNOT say there is a case for Russell (and base it on Defense and Winning), then turn around and claim LeFraud also has a case (when he hasn't played Defense in 10 years, and has a horrific record with respect to Winning) UNLESS you're selectively cherry-picking criteria based on who the player is INSTEAD of establishing a set of GOAT criteria up front, and measuring every player based on the SAME criteria.

When you figure that out you'll understand why Jordan is (still) the undisputed GOAT... because he checks off ALL the boxes and no other player does (although Jabbar comes the closest, which is why he's #2 all-time behind MJ).

That's hard-core truth right there, meatball.

You proved my point without even realizing it. That's how unaware you are TDK.

[thedangerouskitchen]

We've done it a million times TDK. And with Russell. It's always pointless because you are incapable of intellectual honesty. You get buried over and over again but never recognize it.

By the way, I don't believe LeBron is GOAT. He's got a case, as do Russell, Janbar and MJ.

But he's nowhere near as low as you try to portray him because of you're ridiculous MJ insecurities.

Let me educate you on a simple concept:

You simply canNOT say there is a case for Russell (and base it on Defense and Winning), then turn around and claim LeFraud also has a case (when he hasn't played Defense in 10 years, and has a horrific record with respect to Winning) UNLESS you're selectively cherry-picking criteria based on who the player is INSTEAD of establishing a set of GOAT criteria up front, and measuring every player based on the SAME criteria.

When you figure that out you'll understand why Jordan is (still) the undisputed GOAT... because he checks off ALL the boxes and no other player does (although Jabbar comes the closest, which is why he's #2 all-time behind MJ).

That's hard-core truth right there, meatball.

You proved my point without even realizing it. That's how unaware you are TDK.

Psssst: This isn't Pschology 101, meatball. On the contrary, it's a message board that focuses its "sports" discussion largely on hoops. As such you made a statement and I ripped it to shreds, easily... and all you can do in response is deflect and criticize.

No wonder you and bush are afraid to have a legit debate. You have nothing, and you know it.



Run along...

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Let me educate you on a simple concept:

You simply canNOT say there is a case for Russell (and base it on Defense and Winning), then turn around and claim LeFraud also has a case (when he hasn't played Defense in 10 years, and has a horrific record with respect to Winning) UNLESS you're selectively cherry-picking criteria based on who the player is INSTEAD of establishing a set of GOAT criteria up front, and measuring every player based on the SAME criteria.

When you figure that out you'll understand why Jordan is (still) the undisputed GOAT... because he checks off ALL the boxes and no other player does (although Jabbar comes the closest, which is why he's #2 all-time behind MJ).

That's hard-core truth right there, meatball.

You proved my point without even realizing it. That's how unaware you are TDK.

Psssst: This isn't Pschology 101, meatball. On the contrary, it's a message board that focuses its "sports" discussion largely on hoops. As such you made a statement and I ripped it to shreds, easily... and all you can do in response is deflect and criticize.

No wonder you and bush are afraid to have a legit debate. You have nothing, and you know it.



Run along...

Au contraire. Your weirdness, obsessiveness and complete lack of self awareness is much more interesting than rehashing what's been rehashed dozens of times with you failing to acknowledge anything that doesn't confirm to your view of the world.

[thedangerouskitchen]

You proved my point without even realizing it. That's how unaware you are TDK.

Psssst: This isn't Pschology 101, meatball. On the contrary, it's a message board that focuses its "sports" discussion largely on hoops. As such you made a statement and I ripped it to shreds, easily... and all you can do in response is deflect and criticize.

No wonder you and bush are afraid to have a legit debate. You have nothing, and you know it.



Run along...

Au contraire. Your weirdness, obsessiveness and complete lack of self awareness is much more interesting than rehashing what's been rehashed dozens of times with you failing to acknowledge anything that doesn't confirm to your view of the world.

Regardless of your worthless opinion, only an idiot would claim Player A is in the GOAT discussion because of Winning and Defense, then turn around and say Player B is also in the GOAT discussion when his Defense is garbage (for half his career) and his Winning pedigree is laughable.

You must have consistent criteria (for all players) if you want to be taken seriously, meatball. You can't pick-and-choose cherry-picked criteria for one guy, then ignore that same criteria when it comes to another guy.

Run along...

[Bush4Ever.]

The "criteria" is overall impact towards winning.

The exact form of that impact can be anything.

It can one-sided offense (Magic, Curry), two-way dominance of some kind (Duncan, Dream, KG), or very rarely one-sided defense (Russell).

It ain't that complicated to understand.

lmao

[thedangerouskitchen]

The "criteria" is overall impact towards winning.

If that's the case then LeBron should immediately be disqualifed from any GOAT discussion because he hasn't won enough to be considered.

Pretty simple.

Next.

[Bush4Ever.]

If that's the case then LeBron should immediately be disqualifed from any GOAT discussion.
Next.

The baseline for you on this is "don't win a single playoff series in five seasons without a top 30 player all-time".

There is NOTHING you can say for Jordan to talk down to Lebron about on winning, since 100 percent of Jordan's winning was due to environmental factors (two or three all-star talents combined with a GOAT-tier coach).

Russell can talk down to Lebron on that front. Jordan cannot.

Jordan can't even talk down to Trae Young on that front. What would he even say?

"I know you did better than me without a top 30 player all-time but but but....my front office did a legendarily great job and yours is a dog so uh uh uh...that means I'm better than you at winning"

What? lol

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

If that's the case then LeBron should immediately be disqualifed from any GOAT discussion.
Next.

The baseline for you on this is "don't win a single playoff series in five seasons without a top 30 player all-time".

There is NOTHING you can say for Jordan to talk down to Lebron about on winning, since 100 percent of Jordan's winning was due to environmental factors (two or three all-star talents combined with a GOAT-tier coach).

Russell can talk down to Lebron on that front. Jordan cannot.

Jordan can't even talk down to Trae Young on that front. What would he even say?

"I know you did better than me without a top 30 player all-time but but but....my front office did a legendarily great job and yours is a dog so uh uh uh...that means I'm better than you at winning"

What? lol

The second part of winning a championship, outside of the quality of your team, is the quality of the opposition.

We've had this discussion before and you give more credit to the teams they defeated than I do. I think the paths to the 6 titles, on a relative basis, were easy. There were no great, worthy rivals.

[Bush4Ever.]

The fact that the Jazz won 62/64 regular season games with Malone/Stockton ages 33-35 (old and bordering on ancient in those days) and got to the Finals (relatively easily too), while generally winning in the low-mid 50s with younger/prime/better versions of Stockton and Malone speaks to how weak that time period was.

Or even the Bulls themselves. Winning 62 games/year during the first threepeat and 68 games/year during the second threepeat with Jordan and Pippen clearly downgraded a tier, more banged up, etc...

You can only beat who is in front of you, and it's not Jordan's fault he played when he played, but I count his first threepeat titles as one title each, but his second threepeat as only a half title each, which technically gives him 4.5 rings.

After the in-season tournament this year, Lebron has five rings, which is what makes the "muh rings" argument so asinine now...adjusting for quality of ring...Lebron actually has more rings than Jordan (5 vs. 4.5).

[Da Stars.]

Pillow fight.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Pillow fight.

Not really. A pillow fight, despite its name, is fair with pretty clear rules and objectives. It is, in a sense, 'honest'.

There is nothing honest in arguing with TDK. His cognitive biases are so off the charts that no piece of evidence, for or against an argument, is weighed as it should be. It is wildly misinterpreted to fit his narrative. What i find truly fascinating, is that he seems oblivious to the fact he does it.

[thedangerouskitchen]

If that's the case then LeBron should immediately be disqualifed from any GOAT discussion.
Next.

The baseline for you on this is "don't win a single playoff series in five seasons without a top 30 player all-time".

There is NOTHING you can say for Jordan to talk down to Lebron about on winning, since 100 percent of Jordan's winning was due to environmental factors (two or three all-star talents combined with a GOAT-tier coach).

Russell can talk down to Lebron on that front. Jordan cannot.

Jordan can't even talk down to Trae Young on that front. What would he even say?

"I know you did better than me without a top 30 player all-time but but but....my front office did a legendarily great job and yours is a dog so uh uh uh...that means I'm better than you at winning"

What? lol

You would have a point if LeFraud was able to win withOut a "minimum" of two (2) other HOF Teammates, or Russell without 4-7 other HOF teammates.

Too easy. Next...

[Bush4Ever.]

You would have a point if LeFraud was able to win withOut a "minimum" of two (2) other HOF Teammates, or Russell without 4-7 other HOF teammates.

Too easy. Next...

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!

[thedangerouskitchen]

The fact that the Jazz won 62/64 regular season games with Malone/Stockton ages 33-35 (old and bordering on ancient in those days) and got to the Finals (relatively easily too), while generally winning in the low-mid 50s with younger/prime/better versions of Stockton and Malone speaks to how weak that time period was.

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

[Bush4Ever.]

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!

[Bush4Ever.]

Would 12 year old Kobe, Eddie Jones, and Nick Van Exel even make a modern roster?

12 year old Kobe obviously wouldn't, but maybe Jones/Van Exel can be mid-tier rotation players? Jones could defend and wasn't a hopeless three-point shooter, so maybe he could be like the 8th or 9th guy on a good team, situational roleplayer type.

rotflmao!

[thedangerouskitchen]

You would have a point if LeFraud was able to win withOut a "minimum" of two (2) other HOF Teammates, or Russell without 4-7 other HOF teammates.

Too easy. Next...

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.

[Bush4Ever.]

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!

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

You would have a point if LeFraud was able to win withOut a "minimum" of two (2) other HOF Teammates, or Russell without 4-7 other HOF teammates.

Too easy. Next...

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.

[thedangerouskitchen]

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 2000-02).

But but but, the Jazz were weak.

hurr durr...