Jump to content

hobbes2702

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    19015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by hobbes2702

  1. 1 minute ago, shadow_operative said:

    it's not an excuse, it's a fact. youve pointed to the fact he's made the finals a bunch, and i've pointed out the fact that the deck was stacked for him to do so, and that when he finally played the teams in the West he lost more than he won. i don't define losing most of the championships you play in as "having more success than others" in this debate. 

    I define 10 finals trips, 4 rings, as more success and greater than 5 trips, 3 rings. Seems straightforward 

    • Like 1
  2. 2 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

    here's the quote:

    There is no rationale argument for Bird being better than LeBron. None. 

    well, if Larry would routinely beat LBJ in a game of 1 on 1, that's a decent place to start re: "is there any chance that Player A is better than Player B?"

    im not sure why so many are having trouble with the verbiage here. is LeBron a better player than Larry? yeah, he is. his athleticism and strength takes him over the top. do i have him ahead of Larry on my  all-time greatest list? no, i don't, for listed reasons (not great in the Finals, can't shoot FTs, just not a great shooter in general). talent and greatness are two different things. 

    I dunno why you get yourself boiled down into these semantical arguments. Lebron is better than Larry. Lebron is greater than Larry. To attempt to thread some kind of needle around the difference in those two words is just dumb.

  3. 1 minute ago, shadow_operative said:

    sure. be born with the body of a fucking Thenn, grow up in an age of insane medical and technological advancements, and then play GM everywhere you go. 

    you act like i said he suxks when we're talking about two of the top ~5 players ever. if you're going to harp on how many Finals he made it to like it's some crowning achievement, i'm going to point out the fact that he did it in a terrible conference and would never have done the same thing playing in the West. 

    So why didn’t anyone else decide to play GM or play in the East instead of West. You can give all the excuses you want for why he’s been successful but he’s been more successful than others. Which is what we are talking about here.

  4. 1 minute ago, ztejas said:

    Eh. I'm not doing this. I love Larry. He's eye to eye with Duncan for me and obviously I'm biased there. LeBron is cut from a different cloth than those two. 

    I respect your position I just disagree on most of it. 

    Fuck Lebron but he’s the 2nd best ever and this is a ridiculous debate. 

  5. Just now, shadow_operative said:

    he's been there 10 times because he's spend 95% of his career in an absolutely garbage eastern conference while having the best team in the East by a mile, year after year after year. put LeBron in the West during his career and it's not even remotely similar. he doesn't get a prize for dominating a shit conference and then constantly losing against the actually good conference. 

    and again- where even is his legacy without that Ray Allen shot? one of his few wins coming out of the East is 100% because of a Ray Allen shot which followed a bad LeBron miss. the guy is a dominant player,  it he isn't some great champion. 

    Well I’m sure a ton of other players have figured out how to do the same thing right? I mean if just playing in a bad conference is the ticket then a ton of guys should have been to ten finals right?

  6. 8 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

    reminder that i've posted in the very thread that LeBron might be the *best* basketball player ever, *and* that he's on my Mt.Rushmore, two things i did not say about Larry Bird. Still, as far as all-time greatness goes, i'll take Larry's resume and offensive genius over LBJ's roster meddling, GM-playing, still-below-.500-in-the-Finals (even with the Ray Allen shot, which came right after a LeBron brick), still-can't-shoot-FT's self and not bat an eye. he ability to win titles and to shoot the ball in clutch moments matters there. 

    He’s won more titles than Larry and taken his team to the finals more times.

  7. 17 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

    you're not sure why anyone in the world would debate your own personal opinion? lol ok. here's one hint: LeBron isn't a great shooter. pretty important part of basketball. meanwhile Larry is one of the handful of best shooters ever, but because he's white and not a great athlete everyone born after 1985 continues to underrate him despite his basketball genius and 6'10" frame. he's ahead of LBJ on my all time list, and he would eat his lunch 1-on-1. he'd probably shit-talk LeBron into submission while he was doing doing it, too. 

    Ok. You’re entitled to be wrong.

  8. 17 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

    you think LeBron would beat Larry in a game of 1 on 1? if they played 100 times, Bird would win, i dunno, 65-75 times, at least.

    No Way Reaction GIF
     

    1) Just no. Larry is amazing but he isn’t beating Lebron 65-75% of the time. He isn’t beating him 50% of the time.

    2) Who cares who would win 1 on 1? That has zero to do with the topic.

    3) Lebron is the 2nd best player ever. He’s on Rushmore, and he’s ahead of Larry and everyone else not named MJ on the all time ranking. I’m not even really sure why anyone would attempt to debate that.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...