NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2019-20 Thread

Osmosis Jones · 28-09-2020 10:48pm

Doc must absolutely hate Paul George, goes from cheating on his daughter to shooting him out of a job.

ButtersSuki · 28-09-2020 10:51pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I'm 34 so I grew up idolizing MJ, I actually stopped following basketball for a while during LeBron's early years.
And individually, MJ is better at scoring/defense.

But he wasn't able to elevate his teams the way LeBron has done, consistently, for nearly 2 decades.
MJ's Bulls took 4 years to post a .500 season. By year 4, LeBron's Cavs were in the finals having averaged .577 over the previous 3 seasons.

If you're 34 you really didn't live it at the time to be fair. I'm 47. I was in my early 20s when MJ was peaking, he won his first title when I was 19, you were 6. No disrepect, but I think in my 20s puts me in a better place to remember and evaluate than a than a 6-12 year old; and likewise to compare and contrast the two.

You're so ridiculously selective when it omes to picking stats from your backside to make a LeBron argument. So here's a statline for you: 6 Finals, 6 wins, 0 losses, 6 MVPs, no series longer than 6 games.

ButtersSuki · 28-09-2020 10:51pm

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Doc must absolutely hate Paul George, goes from cheating on his daughter to shooting him out of a job.

:pac:

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 12:22am

ButtersSuki wrote: »

If you're 34 you really didn't live it at the time to be fair. I'm 47. I was in my early 20s when MJ was peaking, he won his first title when I was 19, you were 6. No disrepect, but I think in my 20s puts me in a better place to remember and evaluate than a than a 6-12 year old; and likewise to compare and contrast the two.

You're so ridiculously selective when it omes to picking stats from your backside to make a LeBron argument. So here's a statline for you: 6 Finals, 6 wins, 0 losses, 6 MVPs, no series longer than 6 games.

MJ's competition sucked.

Carcharodon · 29-09-2020 12:29am

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

MJ's competition sucked.

No you didn’t girl !
Lol, quality trolling though

29-09-2020 12:32am

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

MJ's competition sucked.

chips1234 · 29-09-2020 12:35am

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

MJ's competition sucked.

i dunno the monstars were a formidable force and got allllll the calls from the refs.

eagle eye · 29-09-2020 4:00am

K.O.Kiki wrote:

I'm 34 so I grew up idolizing MJ, I actually stopped following basketball for a while during LeBron's early years. And individually, MJ is better at scoring/defense.

You were 11 when MJ retired for the second time from the Bulls. How could you have grown up idolising him?

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 5:20am

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

MJ's competition sucked.

Can’t wait until next year when you say Space Jam 2 is better than the original and therefore LeBron is a better player. :rolleyes:

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 9:03am

eagle eye wrote: »

The guy nobody has mentioned is Steph Curry. He changed the way the game is played, he's been incredible since coming into the league.

And just on the Warriors, they'll be back next year. That no.2 pick in the draft will be dealt away to add the couple of players they need to get back on top unless they feel there's a star there to take..

Why would anyone mention Steph? He's a phenomenal talent and will likely go down as one of the best players of his generation along with phenomenal influence on the game but he's not in the league of the players being discussed here.

Curry didn't change the game per se, his game is the manifestation of how the game was evolving anyway. He was the poster boy of the change and certainly blazed the trail but JJ Redick discussed how Stan Van Gundy was mentioning how the game was evolving analytically back in 2008/09. Steph just showed it's value to the masses.

I love Steph but you can't mention his name here, the best player on the best team yet when it came down to it, he wasnt the best player in the finals. Steph has never been a finals MVP, he certainly sacrificed when KD arrived but Iggie won it before KD arrived. Great but not one the greatest.

On the MJ vs LBJ stuff, largely I think MJ just about nicks it for me. More titles and tbh, the loss to Dallas is a big negative against LBJ for me.
That said, the whole 6 finals, 6 wins stuff is a little :rolleyes: at times.
Its almost as though LBJ making the finals more frequently than MJ but coming up short is a bigger slight on LBJ than MJ losing at an earlier stage. Logically that just simply doesn't compute.

LBJ could pass MJ if he won maybe 3 more titles as the best player but I think this playoffs is showing that it likely will be AD as Batman from next year on.
3 more titles is possible but I think his time as best player on the championship team might end this year.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 11:57am

Predictions:

Heat in 6 for me.

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 12:00pm

eagle eye wrote: »

You were 11 when MJ retired for the second time from the Bulls. How could you have grown up idolising him?

Basketball was big in Germany, I had an MJ jersey at age 7/8 & one of his biographies at 9/10.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 12:03pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Basketball was big in Germany, I had an MJ jersey at age 7/8 & one of his biographies at 9/10.

Cool story bro.

So now you're saying aged 7-10 you're in a position to recall and critically analyze an NBA player? Ok.

He had no competition yesterday though, remember? :rolleyes:

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 12:03pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Predictions:

Heat in 6 for me.

12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

Lakers in 5 or 6 imo

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 12:04pm

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

Lakers in 5 or 6 imo

12/1? Where did you see that? I'm serious.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 12:05pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

12/1? Where did you see that? I'm serious.

Skybet via oddschecker. Where else would anyone check the odds of anything?

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 12:10pm

Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 12:16pm

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.

Not a huge gambler, and when I do it tends to be through my Paddy Power account. Thanks for the heads up though.

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 2:07pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Cool story bro.

So now you're saying aged 7-10 you're in a position to recall and critically analyze an NBA player? Ok.

He had no competition yesterday though, remember? :rolleyes:

MJ won during the expansion era, which diluted the NBA's overall talent pool.
Most of the teams he faced in the Finals weren't great TBH. '91 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics. Compare that to LeBron: peak Spurs (x3), peak Warriors (x4). I think you just remember the failure against the '11 Mavs.
92-93 Bulls had 57 wins, 93-94 Bulls (without MJ) had 55 wins. That was a great team even without MJ. Meanwhile LeBron's Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19 without him (2009-10 -> 2010-11). Then when he returned, he took them from 33 wins -> 53 Wins & the Finals.
Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.

My main point being, MJ was the best individual player, but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 2:08pm

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

Skybet actually offering another nice market. LBJ to average a triple double is 5/1 with no reference to result. That's a cracking offer.

LeBron is the only player to ever average a triple-double in the Finals FYI.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 2:16pm

[QUOTE=K.O.Kiki;114765091

My main point being, MJ was the best individual player, but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.[/QUOTE]

Great. We agree. End of discussion.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 2:16pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

[*]Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.
[/LIST]

Great. I'm sure he loves having more silver medals.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 2:17pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

LeBron is the only player to ever average a triple-double in the Finals FYI.

I know hence why I think the probability of him doing it again likely exceeds 16.7%

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 2:23pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Great. I'm sure he loves having more silver medals.

I have no interest in getting too deep into a MJ/LBJ debate but the whole point of LBJ's finals record as some type of ammunition to be used against him is just flawed to me. Making NBA finals is a difficult task yet he never seems to be given credit for getting there, only criticised that he didn't win once there.
It's strange given Kareem has a 50% record in finals but you never get the impression his inability to win every time is some failure on his part.

Just interesting how the narrative for LBJ is undoubtedly different.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 2:25pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

MJ won during the expansion era, which diluted the NBA's overall talent pool.

Most of the teams he faced in the Finals weren't great TBH. '91 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics. Compare that to LeBron: peak Spurs (x3), peak Warriors (x4). I think you just remember the failure against the '11 Mavs.

92-93 Bulls had 57 wins, 93-94 Bulls (without MJ) had 55 wins. That was a great team even without MJ. Meanwhile LeBron's Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19 without him (2009-10 -> 2010-11). Then when he returned, he took them from 33 wins -> 53 Wins & the Finals.

Yeah, MJ got to 6 Finals & was undefeated. But my perspective is, his teams are 6/15 for Finals appearances. LeBron is 10/17.

My main point being, MJ was the best individual player, but he didn't elevate his team mates the way LeBron does.

Furthermore:

You think the League isn't top-heavy now?

You think had Jordan not gone away for 3 years his record wouldn't be better?

I don't recall Chicago winning 3 Drafts in 4 years during Jordan's peak.

You don't think the game has changed at all since the 80s and 90s in ways that help Lebon?

Also, when Lebron left Cleveland, they purposely tanked. They got rid of anything resembling talent, it wasn't like the 2009-10 roster was the same as the 2009-10 bar LeBron.Chicago played. There is a difference - but surely you remember all of this from you know, when you were idolizing him as a 7 year old?

I also like your deep analysis of teams from when you were 4 and 5 years of age. You really were ahead of the game dude.

Trust me, I remember ALL of LeBron's failures, not just 2011. He game up big in Game 6 2013 alright when Ray Allen bailed him out of jail. Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 2:34pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).

Is that it though? What other failures?

There aren't that many examples of games/series/championships where he failed to win when he should have had an edge.

Outside of the Dallas series, it's fair to say that he was simply outgunned by far stronger teams unless I'm missing something?

I suppose the question is, is there any championship where LBJ has lost -outside of Dallas- where you feel MJ would have won with a similar strength roster against an equally strong opponent? Personally, I can't recall any tbh.

chips1234 · 29-09-2020 4:39pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Predictions:

Heat in 6 for me.

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

12/1 about for that. Seems quite short to me.

Lakers in 5 or 6 imo

lakers in 5, g1 g2 for lakers g3 heat g4 g5 lakers, AD for MVP.

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 4:51pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Furthermore:

You think the League isn't top-heavy now?

You think had Jordan not gone away for 3 years his record wouldn't be better?

I don't recall Chicago winning 3 Drafts in 4 years during Jordan's peak.

You don't think the game has changed at all since the 80s and 90s in ways that help Lebon?

Also, when Lebron left Cleveland, they purposely tanked. They got rid of anything resembling talent, it wasn't like the 2009-10 roster was the same as the 2009-10 bar LeBron.Chicago played. There is a difference - but surely you remember all of this from you know, when you were idolizing him as a 7 year old?

I also like your deep analysis of teams from when you were 4 and 5 years of age. You really were ahead of the game dude.

Trust me, I remember ALL of LeBron's failures, not just 2011. He game up big in Game 6 2013 alright when Ray Allen bailed him out of jail. Or do you forget the monster briks he threw up in the preceeding plays to that? I assume not. One of which was described by the commentary team of analysts at the time as "the worst crunch time 3 pointer in Finasl history" (or words to that effect).

https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Michael-Jordan-Versus-LeBron-James

The statistics show one thing clearly, LeBron steps up in the clutch far more strongly than Jordan did.
[...]
In conclusion, LeBron is much more clutch than Jordan. When the two smelled blood and had a chance to eliminate their opponents, LeBron wins 2.7% more often. When their backs are against the wall, LeBron wins 16.7% more often. Jordan only improved slightly in a few categories when facing elimination. LeBron improved in almost every single category and improved incredibly when facing elimination. To say LeBron doesn't play better and more clutch in crunch time situations is absurd. LeBron James has also hit more buzzer beaters than Jordan, and more go-ahead shots with five seconds to go in the game. His field goal percentage on these shots is also higher than Jordan's. You can see the statistics and video evidence of each of their made shots below.

You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.

Coneygree · 29-09-2020 5:09pm

LeBron has been incredible but he's had the luxury of being able to coast his way through things a little, especially with Davis really going off. I wonder will he be able to go insane like he did in 2018. You'd wonder how much even LeBron has left in him after all of these years. I've never been too interested in GOAT debates, but LeBron's longevity and consistency is on another level given the era he has played in. His athleticism is still so impressive.

Hard to see past the Lakers although I felt the Bucks would handle Miami handily enough before Game 1 so you never know. Given Covid, Kobe, and the LeBron-Davis duo it might be one of the most memorable chips ever.

K.O.Kiki · 29-09-2020 6:22pm

Another great "hypotheticals" series.

eagle eye · 29-09-2020 6:43pm

K.O.Kiki wrote:

You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.

Neither do facts.
Fact is LeBron has three titles, two in a team with Chris Bosch and Dwayne Wade. I won't mention anybody else on that roster but it was an awesome roster both years.
We'll give him much more credit for the Cavs one with only one other superstar on the team.
If you put MJ in the Heat teams they win the titles.
If you put LeBron in the Bulls teams they maybe win two out of the six.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 6:58pm

eagle eye wrote: »

If you put LeBron in the Bulls teams they maybe win two out of the six.

Skill sets are different so perhaps an exact swap may result in not quite as many wins but for arguments we'll assume you mean teams of equal quality.

Can you expand on how you might arrive at that conclusion? As someone who takes MJ 100% of the time, I'm even curious as that statement seems a little outrageous to me.

eagle eye · 29-09-2020 7:15pm

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

Skill sets are different so perhaps an exact swap may result in not quite as many wins but for arguments we'll assume you mean teams of equal quality.

No I'm saying if you put MJ with Bosch and Wade they win those titles.
I'm saying you put LeBron in the Bulls team they maybe win two of the six.
I'm saying you put MJ in nearly any team that's won an NBA title instead of the star player and they still win.
Not so with LeBron.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 29-09-2020 7:42pm

eagle eye wrote: »

No I'm saying if you put MJ with Bosch and Wade they win those titles.
I'm saying you put LeBron in the Bulls team they maybe win two of the six.
I'm saying you put MJ in nearly any team that's won an NBA title instead of the star player and they still win.
Not so with LeBron.

Yeah to be honest, I still find it an outrageous statement. It feels like the type of thing Skip Bayless might say to incite a hot take chat on YouTube.
All you're saying -although I dont agree- is that Jordan had a skillset which was more auspicious for the Heat than the skillset LBJ would have brought to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily mean one player is better than the other. That's an easy argument to counter with zero effort.

On your latter point which I think is even more wrong. If anything almost any NBA analyst/HOF would agree almost unanimously that LBJ has a more malleable skillset.

Does that in itself not lend to an ability to slot into a roster more easily than MJ?

FWIW I wont be responding again. Little bit disappointed that I've responded this much tbh.

LuckyLloyd · 29-09-2020 7:47pm

chips1234 wrote: »

lakers in 5, g1 g2 for lakers g3 heat g4 g5 lakers, AD for MVP.

Bam is no joke...will be some effort from AD to end up MVP.

chips1234 · 29-09-2020 7:53pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Bam is no joke...will be some effort from AD to end up MVP.

i never said he was a joke, he has had a great playoffs much like all of the heat, but stopping AD is a whole different challenge for him and its by far the most important match up for this series.

ButtersSuki · 29-09-2020 11:04pm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Michael-Jordan-Versus-LeBron-James

You can give me your old-man "I saw everything" spiel - stats don't lie.

Solid argument there alright, I’m guessing you weren’t captain of the debating team at school?

You do realize the way the fans is played in 2020 is radically different from how it was in 1991, right? Or did you not notice that when you were studying the game intently and idolizing Jordan when you were 5?

:rolleyes:

eagle eye · 30-09-2020 12:14am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

Yeah to be honest, I still find it an outrageous statement. It feels like the type of thing Skip Bayless might say to incite a hot take chat on YouTube. All you're saying -although I dont agree- is that Jordan had a skillset which was more auspicious for the Heat than the skillset LBJ would have brought to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily mean one player is better than the other. That's an easy argument to counter with zero effort.

It's highly insulting to like my post to a Skip Bayless windup.

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

On your latter point which I think is even more wrong. If anything almost any NBA analyst/HOF would agree almost unanimously that LBJ has a more malleable skillset.

Defense and scoring at the level Michael Jordan did it is unbeatable. You can be better than Jordan in other areas but you still won't be anywhere close to his level.

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

Does that in itself not lend to an ability to slot into a roster more easily than MJ?

No, Jordan does his thing to such a high level he makes it easy for those around him.

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

FWIW I wont be responding again. Little bit disappointed that I've responded this much tbh.

Good.

Carcharodon · 30-09-2020 12:37am

Did I not say Jordan V LeBron debates never end well, cant we just agree they have been the best players of their generation

xgronkjabv6pcl · 30-09-2020 5:47am

Carcharodon wrote: »

Did I not say Jordan V LeBron debates never end well, cant we just agree they have been the best players of their generation

Nobody ever enters these conversations with the intention of changing their mind. Anyone entering it has already decided who they feel is the better player.

If you can accept that anyone discussing it is effectively drawing a red line which the other party can't convince them to depart from then you can simply view it as two sides delivering points and showing a knowledge of the subject.

You don't have to agree with them but one side might show an objectively more well rounded knowledge of the topic.

Obviously that doesn't happen all the time and it's a topic which can plummet quite quickly but reading/watching the right people discussing it can be interesting no matter who is your own personal preference.

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 8:22am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

Nobody ever enters these conversations with the intention of changing their mind. Anyone entering it has already decided who they feel is the better player.

If you can accept that anyone discussing it is effectively drawing a red line which the other party can't convince them to depart from then you can simply view it as two sides delivering points and showing a knowledge of the subject.

You don't have to agree with them but one side might show an objectively more well rounded knowledge of the topic.

Obviously that doesn't happen all the time and it's a topic which can plummet quite quickly but reading/watching the right people discussing it can be interesting no matter who is your own personal preference.

Especially 4-10 year olds, they are known for their critical analysis, objective reasoning and logical and esp. for their accurate recall of events from the time
they were children 29- 22 years later.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 30-09-2020 8:31am

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Especially 4-10 year olds, they are known for their critical analysis, objective reasoning and logical and esp. for their accurate recall of events from the time
they were children 29- 22 years later.

I think the back and forth between you guys on who saw what when they were a given age makes the conversation seem as though it's being had by those currently between the ages of 4-10.

It's fair to say in the current era that far more archival basketball is available to the younger generation than what someone 50+ could have consumed in real time.

I certainly dont feel age is something that adds much weight to a person's argument given what is available today. It's not much of a counter point for me. That's just my opinion.

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 10:08am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

I think the back and forth between you guys on who saw what when they were a given age makes the conversation seem as though it's being had by those currently between the ages of 4-10.

It's fair to say in the current era that far more archival basketball is available to the younger generation than what someone 50+ could have consumed in real time.

I certainly dont feel age is something that adds much weight to a person's argument given what is available today. It's not much of a counter point for me. That's just my opinion.

Ah, I wasn’t the one who brought age into it.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 30-09-2020 10:17am

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ah, I wasn’t the one who brought age into it.

I'm not saying you were but you did continue to use as a counter argument to Kiki.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Kareem (as usual) so incredibly under-rated. The passage of time really blurs memories as we switch to recency bias. Sad really.

There's a little bit in irony in that in light of the above.

Based on you being 47, he played pro basketball 5 years before you were born and until you turned 15, largely peaking before you turned 12.

You can hardly argue the case of how much he is forgotten if you never really had the opportunity to witness it yourself?

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 10:25am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

I'm not saying you were but you did continue to use as a counter argument to Kiki.

There's a little bit in irony in that in light of the above.

Based on you being 47, he played pro basketball 5 years before you were born and until you turned 15, largely peaking before you turned 12.

You can hardly argue the case of how much he is forgotten if you never really had the opportunity to witness it yourself?

Except that I'd wager I've read more basketball-related books, and watched documentaries, footage, and actual games than anyone on this forum...........

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 10:26am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

I'm not saying you were but you did continue to use as a counter argument to Kiki.

The only logical way to counter that argument was to tease it out, surely you can see that? Aprt from ridiculing it, which actually may have been more appropriate in this case, considering we're taking about ages 4-10.

xgronkjabv6pcl · 30-09-2020 10:33am

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Except that I'd wager I've read more basketball-related books, and watched documentaries, footage, and actual games than anyone on this forum...........

You can't know that. I could tell you I'm 48 and I've read more basketball-related books, and watched documentaries, footage, and actual games than anyone on this forum. That is quite literally proof of nothing.

My point is that the points raised regarding age imo is largely moot. I don't doubt you know enough about basketball and Kareem to make your claim even though you never likely saw much of him live.

IMO, you should afford Kiki the same and not use age as something to dismiss his points. Even though, I'd be completely in agreement with you and EagleEye regarding the debate, if someone who didn't know basketball read the last few pages, it is objectively true that Kiki made the best argument for LBJ over MJ.

eagle eye · 30-09-2020 10:58am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote:

You can hardly argue the case of how much he is forgotten if you never really had the opportunity to witness it yourself?

Well I brought up the age thing. The guy was basically saying he got to see him play most of his career but he was a child at the time.
I also said I didn't see enough of Kareem Abdul-Jabar's career to truly have an opinion on him. I'm 51 btw.
I was very young when John Giles played soccer, when Mike Gibson played Rugby, when Bjorn Borg played tennis, Roger Staubach and Walter Payton in American football, Reggie Jackson in baseball and the late great Muhammad Ali.
I couldn't honestly give you a fair judgement on the careers of any of them outside Ali as I've watched every fight he ever had multiple times.
I don't hang on to memories either and think that guys from just one era are the greatest. No doubt Roger Federer is the GOAT tennis player and Serena Williams the GOAT female tennis player for me, no doubt that Bolt is the GOAT athlete, Tom Brady the GOAT quarterback. Federer is still playing, Williams and Brady too, Bolt is only retired.
Michael Jordan is not only the GOAT of the NBA, he's the GOAT in any sport ever.

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 11:07am

Walter Hissing Sandpaper wrote: »

You can't know that. I could tell you I'm 48 and I've read more basketball-related books, and watched documentaries, footage, and actual games than anyone on this forum. That is quite literally proof of nothing.

My point is that the points raised regarding age imo is largely moot. I don't doubt you know enough about basketball and Kareem to make your claim even though you never likely saw much of him live.

IMO, you should afford Kiki the same and not use age as something to dismiss his points. Even though, I'd be completely in agreement with you and EagleEye regarding the debate, if someone who didn't know basketball read the last few pages, it is objectively true that Kiki made the best argument for LBJ over MJ.

Sure you could, but I'm not lying about what I've done. I've seen Jordan play in the flesh. And LeBron. Multiple times. And many, many of the other greats.

re. the above in bold, it's not objectively true, it's completely subjective.

ButtersSuki · 30-09-2020 11:09am

Carcharodon wrote: »

Did I not say Jordan V LeBron debates never end well, cant we just agree they have been the best players of their generation

You're absolutely right on both counts.

NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2019-20 Thread

Comments