When all is said and done the NBA GOAT is..........

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by 4ML:

"They have a guy who's playing basketball at a level that I'm not sure anyone's ever seen before when you consider everything he's doing."

- Steve Kerr on Lebron after game 1 of 2018 finals

Steve Kerr probably was born too late and didn't get to watch Jordan in his prime. Obvi.

This. Plus, he doesn't understand basketball.

As if Kerr is going to say "Meh, ive seen better." What is he supposed to say in this situation?

Kerr can just say - that was an amazing performance. Lebron has been doing it for years and leave it there. He doesn't HAVE TO say he hasn't seen anyone play better.

Agreed with your point...but in fairness, Kerr did say "I'm not sure anyone..."

Yup and I don't belive Lebron is the Goat - not yet at least but it's a legitimate debate for ppl who want to have this debate.

If Steve Kerr is saying Lebron may be playing at a level we have never seen before - then that means a lot.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by 4ML:
"They have a guy who's playing basketball at a level that I'm not sure anyone's ever seen before when you consider everything he's doing."

- Steve Kerr on Lebron after game 1 of 2018 finals

Steve Kerr probably was born too late and didn't get to watch Jordan in his prime. Obvi.

This. Plus, he doesn't understand basketball.

As if Kerr is going to say "Meh, ive seen better." What is he supposed to say in this situation?

Kerr can just say - that was an amazing performance. Lebron has been doing it for years and leave it there. He doesn't HAVE TO say he hasn't seen anyone play better.

Agreed with your point...but in fairness, Kerr did say "I'm not sure anyone..."

Yup and I don't belive Lebron is the Goat - not yet at least but it's a legitimate debate for ppl who want to have this debate.

If Steve Kerr is saying Lebron may be playing at a level we have never seen before - then that means a lot.

I will say this. I am not sure if LeBron is playing at a higher level than anyone we have ever seen before or not. But he is certainly playing at a higher level than HE has ever played at before. And that is saying a lot! How much he has elevated his game in year 15 is astonishing.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Easymoney209:

Originally posted by tjd808185:
Today was a goat like performance in a loss. No matter how this series goes down I'd hold back on the shade. He's obviously outgunned.

I'm not shading him. I'm calling it how I see it. Since this is the goat thread he still hasn't come close to Jordan's accomplishments.

The knock on his teammates is overblown. They aren't great but they aren't terrible.

Let's see how he bounces back from an L.

IMO the there is no debate to begin with, but if LeBron drops 3 of 4 Finals' to the Warriors, he has no business being in a GOAT conversation. He will also have fallen to 3-6 in the Finals, which is pure mediocrity in the realm of greats in their career defining moments.

I believe MJ is the GOAT. However, in no way should Lebron's legacy as a player be diminished if he loses 3 of 4 to the Warriors. Hell, beating them once, especially a team that went 73-9, is a hell of an accomplishment. I just have never been one that measures a GOAT by the number of titles a player has one. I think Willie Mays is the GOAT in baseball and he only won 1 World Series championship.

When you are arguing #1 versus #2, you essentially need to get to the point where you are splitting hairs. And to ignore Finals wins/losses is not something I can get behind. Obviously titles are not the end all, but to not even use them as a factor is not something I will ever agree with. Its a huge factor.

Does this only apply to basketball. What if Bonds had never been on steroids, still put up the crazy numbers, and in the mix for GOAT? Would you say no way because he never won a championship regardless of his many MVPs. What about Willie Mays who many, if not most consider the GOAT in baseball. He won just one time. Should that be weighed heavily and be a "huge factor" as you mention? What about Mike Trout now? Could he never be in this conversation if the Angels management never puts a competitive team around him and he never wins a title either?

These are team sports and a player can only do so much regardless of his greatness if he doesnt have great players around him. Golf or tennis I would agree with you. Give me the number of wins and majors. In a team sport its weighed too heavily in my opinion.

Most of the Zone has never seen Wilt, the Big O or Bill Russel. Wilt left Kansas early and played with the Harlem Globetrotters for a year. For me the name of the game is how many Rings do you have, Ruseell has 11. That's the benchmark.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
Most of the Zone has never seen Wilt, the Big O or Bill Russel. Wilt left Kansas early and played with the Harlem Globetrotters for a year. For me the name of the game is how many Rings do you have, Ruseell has 11. That's the benchmark.

Wilt and Russell played against a bunch of YMCA white guys

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
Most of the Zone has never seen Wilt, the Big O or Bill Russel. Wilt left Kansas early and played with the Harlem Globetrotters for a year. For me the name of the game is how many Rings do you have, Ruseell has 11. That's the benchmark.

I think its a ridiculous benchmark for GOAT to be honest. Celtics that Russell played with that are in the Hall of Fame... John Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, and Bill Sharman. The league also had around 8 total teams as opposed to 30 now with much less competition. There was also no free agency which allowed a team like the Celtics to stay together for many years.

There is NO way that a player today could ever win 11 rings. So, it makes it a bad benchmark for GOAT

Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Originally posted by IT21:
Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Russel also had around 7-8 HOF on those teams

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by IT21:

Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Russel also had around 7-8 HOF on those teams

Bill Russell never averaged 20ppg and shot below 45% from the field for his career. While Wilt had seasons of averaging 50ppg and 45ppg and shot 54% from the field for his career.

But, ppl think Bill Russell was better because he won more chips in a team sport lol

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by IT21:

Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Russel also had around 7-8 HOF on those teams

Bill Russell never averaged 20ppg and shot below 45% from the field for his career. While Wilt had seasons of averaging 50ppg and 45ppg and shot 54% from the field for his career.

But, ppl think Bill Russell was better because he won more chips in a team sport lol

I wonder how many teams were in the league then? I heard in the 50s there were only 8 teams in the league and the 60s they started to expand. Almost like saying the Yankees won half of all the World Series but many were 70 years ago when MLB hadn't yet expanded.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by IT21:
Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Russel also had around 7-8 HOF on those teams

Bill Russell never averaged 20ppg and shot below 45% from the field for his career. While Wilt had seasons of averaging 50ppg and 45ppg and shot 54% from the field for his career.

But, ppl think Bill Russell was better because he won more chips in a team sport lol

That is my point. You should not use titles won in a team sport to determine GOAT or greatness of an individual player. Was Bill better than Wilt? Hell no. Was Mantle better than Mays? Um... not a chance.

Originally posted by mitpdub:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by IT21:
Bill Russell winning 11 finals with an average of 8 teams in the league is less impressive than making it to 8 consecutive finals with 30 teams in the league

Win a series and you're in the finals lol. Making it to today's semifinals = a ring

Russel also had around 7-8 HOF on those teams

Bill Russell never averaged 20ppg and shot below 45% from the field for his career. While Wilt had seasons of averaging 50ppg and 45ppg and shot 54% from the field for his career.

But, ppl think Bill Russell was better because he won more chips in a team sport lol

I wonder how many teams were in the league then? I heard in the 50s there were only 8 teams in the league and the 60s they started to expand. Almost like saying the Yankees won half of all the World Series but many were 70 years ago when MLB hadn't yet expanded.

Most of Russell's career was in a league consisting of 8 teams. Even when it expanded to 10 it was almost a given to make the playoffs as 8 of the 10 teams qualified. It wasnt until his LAST year that the NBA expanded to 14 teams.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

That is my point. You should not use titles won in a team sport to determine GOAT or greatness of an individual player. Was Bill better than Wilt? Hell no. Was Mantle better than Mays? Um... not a chance.

People can b about the talent around LBJ but he's twice maneuvered himself to the team he felt would rack him up as many titles as possible. Next year will be round 3 of that crap. At some point he's got to deliver. Not that he hasn't delivered at all just not to goat level.

I'd say the difference with MJ and Bill is 6/6 Finals MVP's. Was anyone ever better than MJ in one of those series? Hell no there too which is something LBJ can't say.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:

Most of the Zone has never seen Wilt, the Big O or Bill Russel. Wilt left Kansas early and played with the Harlem Globetrotters for a year. For me the name of the game is how many Rings do you have, Ruseell has 11. That's the benchmark.

So Yogi Berra is the greatest baseball player of all time, then? 10 World Series championships. Lol ridiculous.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by RishikeshA:

Most of the Zone has never seen Wilt, the Big O or Bill Russel. Wilt left Kansas early and played with the Harlem Globetrotters for a year. For me the name of the game is how many Rings do you have, Ruseell has 11. That's the benchmark.

So Yogi Berra is the greatest baseball player of all time, then? 10 World Series championships. Lol ridiculous.

Exactly. You can't compare eras equally. Many of those championships Russell won was when there was less than 10 teams in the league. And the competition was far inferior than what we see today. Russell's game could probably translate into today's game. Not a lot of the guys he played with and against would, though. Stick him on a team today and he's not carrying them to 11 titles.