Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
Why is mostly losing and having weak teams regardless of cast considered better than mostly winning titles and having dominant teams??
Why is 1/4 with AD or Love and 2/4 with Wade considered better than 6/6 with Pippen?
Lebron failed drastically in 2010 so he started teaming up with opposing franchise players thereafter....... And still mostly got destroyed after doing this.
How is this anywhere near GOAT?.. How does having more bad losses than anyone in history qualify someone for GOAT?... How is the biggest loser in NBA history in the goat conversation??I don't understand Lebron's goat case at all
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
Why is it good to beat a dead horse?
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
[QUOTE=Wardell Curry;14894961]Why is it good to beat a dead horse?[/QUOTE]
It's already dead and 200,000 posts later haven't converted a single fan lol.
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
FYI comp argument fails for the same reason it failed for Kobe, Duncan and Curry, who played in the modern era and not the "garbage 90s"
in addition to it failing because Jordan faced long-standing organic juggernauts every year because that's the way it worked back then - everyone stayed on the same team and developed maximum chemistry.
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
.
Thread Cliffs
It's better to mostly lose (1/4 with AD, Love or Wade) instead of mostly win (6/10 with Pippen, or 6 in 7 yrs)
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
How can you be banned for so long only to come back with the same material? Get a life.
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14894984]How can you be banned for so long only to come back with the same material? Get a life.[/QUOTE]
Jordan won at twice the rate of Lebron (40% vs 20%) but more importantly, he had stretches where he mostly won titles and had unbeatable teams, while Lebron never did with any cast.
So Lebron is praised for mostly losing and being extremely beatable with every cast that he ever had, and this is considered better than Jordan mostly winning and being unbeatable with just Pippen. iI's looney tunes.
Lebron lost many times in his prime and in every way - upset losses, sweep losses, numerous losses with 2 all-star teammates, record losses... worst-ever Finals records.. many losses with preseason favorites and 1 or 2 seeds... he's simply the biggest loser of all-time
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14894984]How can you be banned for so long only to come back with the same material? Get a life.[/QUOTE]
There's alot of accounts here that are permanently banned, so you have to wonder why he keeps getting let back in unless he's on the payroll.
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
All of LeBron's rings were incredible and better than any of those lil 90s Mikey mouse rings.
What was Jordan's best ring?
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
[QUOTE=ELITEpower23;14895072]All of LeBron's rings were incredible and better than any of those lil 90s Mikey mouse rings.
What was Jordan's best ring?[/QUOTE]
I am not sure, but I think beating old Karl Malone was the best one.
Re: Why is it better to mostly lose and have weak teams regardless of cast?
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14895065]There's alot of accounts here that are permanently banned, so you have to wonder why he keeps getting let back in [b]unless he's on the payroll.[/b][/QUOTE]
Said this a while back... slow times calls for 3ball threads.
