Have been banned from the other thread by an apparently sensitive snowflake (ironically after dozens of pages of political discussion from others) so I'll stick my thoughts on the NBA Playoffs here from now on. We needed a new thread anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
Well I think everyone knew the West was more difficult in many of those years. Unless you're somebody that's counting his Finals appearances rather than his titles (and I don't know anybody who makes a habit of doing that), it hasn't really changed his legacy any. Once there, he still generally won the titles he was supposed to against lesser teams (the 2011 Dallas loss being the exception) and lost the titles he was supposed to against better teams (the 2016 Warriors win being the exception).
All of that basketball over the past two decades with little break may even be what is contributing to his body finally failing him now.
Going to 8 straight Finals and 10 total is part of his legacy and damn impressive just like Brady's SB's appearances\wins are. I still believe though if he was in the West he would still have won 3-5 rings just wouldn't have made the Finals as much. Which one could argue instead of being 4-6 in the Finals maybe he would be 4-2 and might be a better for his "legacy".
Totally agree about the all the bb he has played, father time is undefeated. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Going to 8 straight Finals and 10 total is part of his legacy and damn impressive just like Brady's SB's appearances\wins are. I still believe though if he was in the West he would still have won 3-5 rings just wouldn't have made the Finals as much. Which one could argue instead of being 4-6 in the Finals maybe he would be 4-2 and might be a better for his "legacy".
Totally agree about the all the bb he has played, father time is undefeated.
Considering that's the ridiculous argument I've seen here thrown around most of all to diminish him, I would suggest playing in the West wouldn't have hurt his legacy much at all. [Reply]
Anyone else feel the reason for LeBrons character flaws are due to frustrations with never escaping MJs shadow? I feel like I've watched the Moby Dick scenario play out in his life. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
Considering that's the ridiculous argument I've seen here thrown around most of all to diminish him, I would suggest playing in the West wouldn't have hurt his legacy much at all.
I think you are looking at this wrong, I would argue it would make his "legacy" much better. Generally, when people are looking at sports players legacies it ultimately comes down to championships and wins and the deciding factor is that you won more than you lost in the most important game of the sport, especially in team sports.
So if he was in the West and played much tougher competition but didn't get to the Finals as much but still had a Kobe\Duncan like record, 5-2, 5-1, 4-2 in the finals that is much better than being 3-6 and playing the sisters of the poor most of the time and coasting. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
I think you are looking at this wrong, I would argue it would make his "legacy" much better. Generally, when people are looking at sports players legacies it ultimately comes down to championships and wins and the deciding factor is that you won more than you lost in the most important game of the sport, especially in team sports.
So if he was in the West and played much tougher competition but didn't get to the Finals as much but still had a Kobe\Duncan like record, 5-2, 5-1, 4-2 in the finals that is much better than being 3-6 and playing the sisters of the poor most of the time and coasting. :-)
Agreed. Such a weird thing that making less finals would have looked better but there's truth in it. Making half as many finals would still be dominant and he'd end up with a much better record. It's all optics but his legacy takes a hit because he was too successful, which is weird to think about. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Agreed. Such a weird thing that making less finals would have looked better but there's truth in it. Making half as many finals would still be dominant and he'd end up with a much better record. It's all optics but his legacy takes a hit because he was too successful, which is weird to think about.
yep and if you think about it if he was in the West and made the Finals you could make the argument he might be even undefeated because the East was that bad. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Would be a great time to trade LeBron and build for the future, but I'm sure he has a no trade clause and would throw a literal hissy fit.
This seems like an especially bad decision. Build for the future? A healthy LeBron and AD give you a shot at a championship in any year until LeBron ceases to be the best player in the world (he was last season and he was this year until the ankle injury). Given the Lakers weren't relevant for a decade before they got them, there's no telling when they'd be relevant again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
I think you are looking at this wrong, I would argue it would make his "legacy" much better.
Oh I agreed with that idea. When it come to discussions over legacy, perception can be reality.
What I disagree with is the premise entirely. Losing in the Finals is not worse than losing in the 1st round even if some MJ fans would have you believe that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
yep and if you think about it if he was in the West and made the Finals you could make the argument he might be even undefeated because the East was that bad. :-)
Yeah, that's tough. He obviously wanted to remain in the JV conference all those years though to get all the easy trips to the finals and get as many titles as possible. It's a double edged sword for sure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
This seems like an especially bad decision. Build for the future? A healthy LeBron and AD give you a shot at a championship in any year until LeBron ceases to be the best player in the world (he was last season and he was this year until the ankle injury). Given the Lakers weren't relevant for a decade before they got them, there's no telling when they'd be relevant again.
The Lakers would be relevant, I just don't think a 38 year old Lebron James in 2022 would be enough to even get to the title game. If they can pair LeBron + AD and some other superstar and LeBron plays more of a third man type of role then maybe but they are in no position to do that based on their cap situation AFAIK.
What is the oldest guy to ever really contribute on a team that won the championship? Probably Kareem Abdul Jabbar at age 39 or Tim Duncan at 37, and that was a different NBA where they could be a plodding back to the basket guy at that point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
Oh I agreed with that idea. When it come to discussions over legacy, perception can be reality.
What I disagree with is the premise entirely. Losing in the Finals is not worse than losing in the 1st round even if some MJ fans would have you believe that.
I would say it really doesn't matter where\when you lose.
Mahomes said it best yesterday
Originally Posted by :
“To me, records don’t mean anything unless you’re winning that last game at the end of the season,” Mahomes said Thursday.
