• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

FUCK YOU LEBRON

RJKarl said:
The teams WEREN't that balanced. Russ had MORE HOFers on his teams EVERY time.

But don't let FACTS get in your way.
Click to expand...

All I did was present FACTS. If not, please show me what was factually incorrect. Most important fact - four game 7s. My inference, and not a fact, is that to be at a 7th game, there is a level of parity between the teams. Even the underdog has proven they can beat the favorite, as they have 3 times. This is when winners win (see the Bruins last night against the heavily favored Canucks) and losers lose. If you are "the best" you find a way to win game 7s. I don't think that's a ground-breaking perspective.
 
yeah, the idea that it was wilt and a bunch of loser scrubs is crap
 
DeacHead said:
All I did was present FACTS. If not, please show me what was factually incorrect. Most important fact - four game 7s. My inference, and not a fact, is that to be at a 7th game, there is a level of parity between the teams. Even the underdog has proven they can beat the favorite, as they have 3 times. This is when winners win (see the Bruins last night against the heavily favored Canucks) and losers lose. If you are "the best" you find a way to win game 7s. I don't think that's a ground-breaking perspective.
Click to expand...

If you have the better team and home court, you are favored to win Game 7s.
 
The Canucks weren't heavily favored at all. They were like -130 last night.

I really want RJ to read the Book of Basketball section on Wilt v. Russell and post a rebuttal.
 
stonzm9 said:
The Canucks weren't heavily favored at all. They were like -130 last night.

I really want RJ to read the Book of Basketball section on Wilt v. Russell and post a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to be able to look for what the odds were at the beginning of the finals here at work. At the start of the finals, the concensus was Vancouver in around 6 games. They absolutley were the prohibitive favorites when it was tied 0-0. When it got to 3-3, Vancouver's flaws had been exposed (disappearance of Sedins, Luongo's psychosis, injuries to defensemen) and I'm sure the odds were not nearly as favorable to Vancouver as when it was 0-0.
 
Just like I said earlier on this thread LeBron is like Wilt in that they are both obsessed with themselves and cannot realize their full potential based on their talents in a team sport. Unless LeBron can somehow overcome that he's headed for more rough seas ahead. On the other hand, he may just be satisfied with being the king of NBA publicity but not an NBA champion. It seems to be good enough for the people around him.

LeBron so far has no championships. Wilt eventually won two,



which is the same number that Bill Russell won as a coach. :)
 
stonzm9 said:
I really want RJ to read the Book of Basketball section on Wilt v. Russell and post a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

No way rj is going to read a book from an arrogant, self-indulgent, egotistical asshole like Simmons.
 
RJKarl said:
Simmons is a Celtics fans.
Click to expand...

Annoyingly so and often biased, but his Russell-Wilt breakdown is well researched and supported.

Disregarding his opinion completely on the issue would be similar to disregarding anyone on these boards making the case that Duncan is a better power forward than Karl Malone.
 
The amazing thing about Simmons is how many times he can contradict himslef in one book and still get people to buy his arguments.
 
deacphan said:
The amazing thing about Simmons is how many times he can contradict himslef in one book and still get people to buy his arguments.
Click to expand...

examples? i read TBOB (albeit pretty slowly) and don't remember any glaring contradictions. i don't doubt that there are some, though. a lot of times simmons' arguments are based on premises that he deems factual that are really just his opinion.

i thought the russ v wilt chapter was a lot more objective than that. also had good input from contemporaries. very eye-opening for someone who didn't see either of them play.
 
bmoneydeac said:
examples? i read TBOB (albeit pretty slowly) and don't remember any glaring contradictions. i don't doubt that there are some, though. a lot of times simmons' arguments are based on premises that he deems factual that are really just his opinion.

i thought the russ v wilt chapter was a lot more objective than that. also had good input from contemporaries. very eye-opening for someone who didn't see either of them play.
Click to expand...

Don't remember. One of the biggest things was his use of his opinion as fact. The other was the garbage about the best players sacrificing for the team or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top