There's A Difference Between The GOAT And YOUR GOAT

[fifth column]

Low quality posting by you yet again...

LeBron had his team in contention earlier in his career than Mike did; had his team in contention more often than Mike did; his biggest moment is considered by many to be THE greatest individual play ever seen; and the only reason he doesn't have more rings, or more than Mike------>

Is because there was no Steph Curry in Mike's era. Or Kevin Durant. Or Kawhi Leonard. Or Nikola Jokic. Or Giannis Antetokuonmpo. No competing dynasties like the Warriors when Mike started winning because Mike played for the Warriors...

breh I think it’s in your best interest to give up on this, I don’t even know if you are sober while typing up this. L explaining away Mike’s greatness is not the move

 

[broller]

The 6-0 record indicates 100% u fckin’ moron…..sorry to hit a nerve. Get ‘Brons d!ck outta your mouth before typing b!tch. By your crack head logic the only conclusion is the 6-1 player has a FACTUALLY better conference finals record, no FINALS record. Reading is fundamental bruh. Go to sleep, you have middle school in the AM

You fukkin idiot. You don't start playing in the finals, so 6-0 in the finals, unless you played only 6 seasons doesn't indicate 100% you buffoon.

You must be casual as fukk because apparently you think the season starts in June.

Move from me you fukkin CAC.

 

[Ces1ne?]

You fukkin idiot. You don't start playing in the finals, so 6-0 in the finals, unless you played only 6 seasons doesn't indicate 100% you buffoon.

You must be casual as fukk because apparently you think the season starts in June.

Move from me you fukkin CAC.

Still not making sense, now u look like the b!tch u are with your ‘bron loving Stan dapping u up. Calling me a CAC. Everyone knows this already, don’t dap fish bc you’re a special-ed retard in this thread. Plus this CAC will fck u up

 

[fifth column]

You fukkin idiot. You don't start playing in the finals, so 6-0 in the finals, unless you played only 6 seasons doesn't indicate 100% you buffoon.

You must be casual as fukk because apparently you think the season starts in June.

Move from me you fukkin CAC.

Actually 6-0 in the finals does indicate 100% finals record. The regular season has a record and so does the rounds in the playoffs. Getting to the finals and losing is not better than winning every time you get there.

 

[broller]

Actually 6-0 in the finals does indicate 100% finals record. The regular season has a record and so does the rounds in the playoffs. Getting to the finals and losing is not better than winning every time you get there.

I didn't say 6-0 in the finals doesn't indicate a 100% finals record.

Getting to the finals and losing is better than getting to the conference finals (or semis, or quarters) and losing.

 

[Ces1ne?]

I didn't say 6-0 in the finals doesn't indicate a 100% finals record.

Getting to the finals and losing is better than getting to the conference finals (or semis, or quarters) and losing.

See I got u in your feelings with that neg…..I remember my first beer too bruh

 

[fifth column]

I didn't say 6-0 in the finals doesn't indicate a 100% finals record.

Getting to the finals and losing is better than getting to the conference finals (or semis, or quarters) and losing.

Getting to the finals counts towards your finals record and is not comparable with conf finals etc..

It’s worse to lose in the finals especially multiple times cause it shows that your team was good enough to get there but you weren’t good enough to close the deal.

 

[broller]

Getting to the finals counts towards your finals record and is not comparable with conf finals etc..

It’s worse to lose in the finals especially multiple times cause it shows that your team was good enough to get there but you weren’t good enough to close the deal.

That's not a good argument. So if you were good enough to get to the conference finals but lose there, does that not show you were good enough to get there, but not good enough to win?

 

[fifth column]

That's not a good argument. So if you were good enough to get to the conference finals but lose there, does that not show you were good enough to get there, but not good enough to win?

If you lose in the conf finals then your team didn’t have a chance to win a chip. If your team get to the title game then you get to showcase how great you are if you can close and if not then the loss goes on your title record.

 

[broller]

If you lose in the conf finals then your team didn’t have a chance to win a chip. If your team get to the title game then you get to showcase how great you are if you can close and if not then the loss goes on your title record.

Why can't a great player close out the conference final and show how great they are?

Any argument you make for why it's bad to lose in the finals, one can make for why it's bad to lose in the conference finals.

My premise is this: it's always better to win than it is to lose.

 

[Trojan 24]

You fukkin idiot. You don't start playing in the finals, so 6-0 in the finals, unless you played only 6 seasons doesn't indicate 100% you buffoon.

You must be casual as fukk because apparently you think the season starts in June.

Move from me you fukkin CAC.

MJ - 6/15
Bron - 3.5/20

Can you run the lytics on that one for me friend?

 

[fifth column]

Why can't a great player close out the conference final and show how great they are?

Any argument you make for why it's bad to lose in the finals, one can make for why it's bad to lose in the conference finals.

My premise is this: it's always better to win than it is to lose.

A team that lose in the conf finals wasn’t good enough to contend for a title so doesn’t matter what a great player does. Lakers from last year and the 2022 Mavs are examples of teams that made it to the conf finals but weren’t good enough to contend. Nobody knocking Luka or Bron for losing those conf finals. If your team get to the finals then they have a chance to win the chip so if you are the best then you have to close more than you lose.

 

[broller]

A team that lose in the conf finals wasn’t good enough to contend for a title so doesn’t matter what a great player does. Lakers from last year and the 2022 Mavs are examples of teams that made it to the conf finals but weren’t good enough to contend. Nobody knocking Luka or Bron for losing those conf finals. If your team get to the finals then they have a chance to win the chip so if you are the best then you have to close more than you lose.

That's still doesn't show that it's better to lose than it is to win the conference championship.

 

[broller]

MJ - 6/15
Bron - 3.5/20

Can you run the lytics on that one for me friend?

When did I say 4/20 is better than 6/15, smart guy?

 

[T.he I.nformant]

Yay another MJ vs LeBron thread

You better settle the fukk in

You know people in The Booth still doing Nas v. Jay threads till this day

Talking damn near 25 years

This shyt just getting started