Tim Duncan

[GGGG]

Now, for fighter, you keep going back to bringing a team back from the brink.  I defined it as playing tough (i.e. physical toughness, playing through pain).  I find very very little evidence that Lebron is physically tough.

That's just plain old silly.

So now you are wrong, absurd AND silly.  Congrats.

[forgetful]

That's just plain old silly.

So now you are wrong, absurd AND silly.  Congrats.

Since I'm the one that said Bird was more of a fighter, I believe I'm the only one that can define what I meant.

And MU82, this is what I meant.  I haven't been going with back and forth with you, because you never told me I was wrong (except in the fighter term, which I clarified my meaning with the definition I was working from and you accepted that people can define it differently).  You've approached this discussion respectfully.

The Sultan though insists that his opinion is correct, and everyone else is wrong, absurd and silly.  That I have issue with and was supporting my stance against.

I'm with Bagpipes though in saying you can't compare stats/stars from different eras (which I've said from the beginning), we can each just pick our own favorites based on our own opinions.

[GGGG]

Since I'm the one that said Bird was more of a fighter, I believe I'm the only one that can define what I meant.

If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.

The Sultan though insists that his opinion is correct, and everyone else is wrong, absurd and silly.  That I have issue with and was supporting my stance against.

You can also claim the earth is flat.  You would be wrong then too.

[forgetful]

If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.


You can also claim the earth is flat.  You would be wrong then too.

Yeah, I'm done with this.  I stated my opinions, I provided links to justify why comparing stats across eras is ill-advised, you've only insisted that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is wrong, absurd and silly...

The only thing silly, was my continuing a discussion with an individual that insists that those that disagree with their opinion are wrong.

[Galway Eagle]

If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.

He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits

[MU82]

He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits

All righty then. A handful of clips "proves" your point.

The funny thing about all of this is that I really liked watching Bird and appreciated the hell out of everything he brought to basketball, and I'm NOT a LeBron apologist or his biggest fan or anything. I'm just a relatively objective observer.

I believe we've exhausted all arguments about LeBron v Larry in this Tim Duncan thread!

[Galway Eagle]

All righty then. A handful of clips "proves" your point.

The funny thing about all of this is that I really liked watching Bird and appreciated the hell out of everything he brought to basketball, and I'm NOT a LeBron apologist or his biggest fan or anything. I'm just a relatively objective observer.

I believe we've exhausted all arguments about LeBron v Larry in this Tim Duncan thread!

I could post more but figured itd make the page take forever to load. I used to hate lebron when i was younger but id call it a begrudging respect now. Hes a phenomenal player in this era but he's not "tough" because modern basketball is not "tough". That being said I agree its beaten to death

[MU82]

I could post more but figured itd make the page take forever to load

You win, BB, and forgetful, too.

LeBron is a wuss and Larry was Clint Eastwood (pre-empty chair).

I'm out!

[GGGG]

He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits

If you think that indicates a lack of toughness, you really don't understand toughness when it comes to basketball.

[GGGG]

Hes a phenomenal player in this era but he's not "tough" because modern basketball is not "tough".

That's simply false.  I have watched NBA basketball for years.  It has been more physical at times, but not as overly so as many would lead you to believe.  But that didn't make it more "tough." 

[Galway Eagle]

That's simply false.  I have watched NBA basketball for years.  It has been more physical at times, but not as overly so as many would lead you to believe.  But that didn't make it more "tough."

If you think that indicates a lack of toughness, you really don't understand toughness when it comes to basketball.

Then we have a disagreement about what makes an athlete tough. I rate Hockey players, fighters, lacrosse players, rugby players, football players as exponentially tougher than soccer and basketball players. I do so because of the physicality of the sport. Thus if we are talking about an era where basketball was tremendously more physical, I'd rate that player as tougher than the player who takes advantage of refs buying his acting.  If you disagree and focus more on the mentally resilient side to define toughness that's cool, it doesn't make you right or me wrong it makes our definitions different. 

[GGGG]

Yeah, I'm done with this.  I stated my opinions, I provided links to justify why comparing stats across eras is ill-advised,

NO.  That is NOT what the article said.  The article implied comparing SHOOTERS, specifically three point shooters, was difficult.

For sh*ts and giggles, I calculated what Larry Bird's EFG% had he took the same number of 3 pointers today as Lebron does.  (Basically taking 2.1 extra 3 pointers instead of two pointers and applying the same shooting percentage to both.)  It comes out to be the exact same EFG%.

It's because that although Bird was a better 3 point shooter, he wasn't THAT much better.  And Lebron is a much better two point shooter which by and large makes up for the difference in three point shooting. 

[GGGG]

Then we have a disagreement about what makes an athlete tough. I rate Hockey players, fighters, lacrosse players, rugby players, football players as exponentially tougher than soccer and basketball players. I do so because of the physicality of the sport.

That's because IMO you focus too much on that aspect.  Probably because of your boxing background.

[Galway Eagle]

That's because IMO you focus too much on that aspect.  Probably because of your boxing background.

I played Lacrosse for 8 years and Gaelic Hurling for 4 years but nobody ever brings that up 

But more seriously yes you are probably right, I rate tough sports as those that relate to the definition "strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough or careless handling." best. In my opinion every sport has the same amount of mental adversity however the physicality of a sport creates more adverse conditions which would then make it, by definition, tougher.

[forgetful]

NO.  That is NOT what the article said.  The article implied comparing SHOOTERS, specifically three point shooters, was difficult.

For sh*ts and giggles, I calculated what Larry Bird's EFG% had he took the same number of 3 pointers today as Lebron does.  (Basically taking 2.1 extra 3 pointers instead of two pointers and applying the same shooting percentage to both.)  It comes out to be the exact same EFG%.

It's because that although Bird was a better 3 point shooter, he wasn't THAT much better.  And Lebron is a much better two point shooter which by and large makes up for the difference in three point shooting.

I can't believe you sucked me back in.  The article stated that Bird is an obvious top 10 shooter of the past 40 years and that we can't evaluate him compared to current players because of how the game changed.  And...that the game changed because of BIRD!!!

Even with him changing that part of the game.  Bird is on the record as saying "When I played, I never did practice 3-pt shots"...it wasn't part of the game.  His stats are all just on pure ability, no practice, as compared to players today shooting 1000 3's a day.  You can't compare across eras using stats!!!!!

By elementary logic, since the statistics that you are using to compare the players heavily rely on the shooting statistics that are not comparable, because of different style of play, then the statistics are also not reliable comparisons. 

This is why I said you can't compare players across eras based on statistics.  Not to mention that we have 6 expansion teams that dilute the overall talent pool, leading to higher usage by stars on teams, and higher stats by those stars.  This is further amplified by setting the average PER to 15 each year, and your reliance on ast%, rb% etc. 

As for toughness.  You can go on the internet and see Bird listed on all kinds of toughest of all time lists.  You will not see Lebron on those for a reason and not because "I'm biased".

You are welcome to have as many words on this as you wish and have the last words.  I just got sucked in by the fallacy of your statements.

[GGGG]

I can't believe you sucked me back in.  The article stated that Bird is an obvious top 10 shooter of the past 40 years and that we can't evaluate him compared to current players because of how the game changed.  And...that the game changed because of BIRD!!!

Even with him changing that part of the game.  Bird is on the record as saying "When I played, I never did practice 3-pt shots"...it wasn't part of the game.  His stats are all just on pure ability, no practice, as compared to players today shooting 1000 3's a day.  You can't compare across eras using stats!!!!!

By elementary logic, since the statistics that you are using to compare the players heavily rely on the shooting statistics that are not comparable, because of different style of play, then the statistics are also not reliable comparisons. 

This is why I said you can't compare players across eras based on statistics.  Not to mention that we have 6 expansion teams that dilute the overall talent pool, leading to higher usage by stars on teams, and higher stats by those stars.  This is further amplified by setting the average PER to 15 each year, and your reliance on ast%, rb% etc. 

As for toughness.  You can go on the internet and see Bird listed on all kinds of toughest of all time lists.  You will not see Lebron on those for a reason and not because "I'm biased".

You are welcome to have as many words on this as you wish and have the last words.  I just got sucked in by the fallacy of your statements.

No. You're still wrong. You apparently have trouble with either logic or the basic English language.

[drewm88]

In all fairness if you google lebron flopping vs Larry bird flopping, lebrons video is much longer. If you google Larry bird fight vs lebron fight it's pretty funny

Here's lebrons

https://youtu.be/SWTfVAkzpSE

Here's Larrys

https://youtu.be/t1e7CTQ7V4A

Far be it for me to say what defines tough but I'd say as far as forgetfulness definition goes it's pretty obvious that Larry tussling with everybody on Detroit is tougher than lebron freaking out that harden almost kicking him in the nuts. But hey that's just my opinion.

The league has a lot more flopping and a lot less fighting now vs. then. Not a fair comp.

[brewcity77]

So let me get this straight...when statistics favor Larry they are worth using, when they favor Lebron, they are generationally biased and should be discarded? That's one of the most grasping at straws lines of debate I've ever seen.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[real chili 83]

ND sucks.