thiste
06-15-2007, 07:23 AM
It's funny to go back and read some of those articles written before the finals in the light of what actually happened.
It has probably been posted before, didn't find it upon checking though.
Plain and simple, LeBron has no equal
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10212799.shtml
June 5, 2007
By Gregg Doyel
CBS SportsLine.com National Columnist
I've given myself 900 words to write CBS SportsLine.com colleague Mike Freeman into oblivion, but all I really need is one sentence:
In Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, LeBron James had 20 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists -- and he looked awful doing it.
There's your sentence. There's my argument. There's Freeman's impossible hurdle to overcome.
Freeman's trying to argue that LeBron James is not the best player in basketball. Can you imagine? James plays poorly, looks tired and ragged, and still puts up 20 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists. On a bad day. In the conference finals.
If there's anyone in the world who can play poorly in a game of that magnitude and still put up a 20-14-8 as James did Saturday to the Detroit Pistons, show me. While you're looking, consider what James does when he plays well. In the three previous games he averaged 35 points, 8.3 rebounds and 9.0 assists.
James is so clearly the best basketball player in the world, the only argument up for discussion is whether he's the best basketball player ever.
But there's Freeman, trying to argue that LeBron James isn't the best. Worse than that, Freeman would have you believe the best player is ... drumroll ... Tim Duncan.
Forget the drum roll. How about a rim shot?
Duncan's not the best player in the NBA, LeBron James is. And if LeBron James isn't -- if you insist that a 22-year-old without an NBA title is ineligible for the honor -- then the best player in the game would have to be Kobe Bryant.
Before we go any further, can we please define our terms? By "best player in the NBA," I mean just that: the best player. Most talented. Best. Period.
Not the most likeable player. Not the most selfless player. Not the guy who represents his city or his league better than anyone else. And not the guy with the most rings on his fingers, because Robert Horry has more NBA championship rings than Tim Duncan, and I don't hear anyone calling Big Shot Bob the best player in the game.
And nobody give Freeman that idea. Good grief.
Tim Duncan puts up nice numbers. He averages 20 points and 10 rebounds, and he shoots a good percentage from the floor. His team wins championships and he stays out of headlines off the floor. Tim Duncan is a great player, a Hall of Fame player. Probably one of the top 50 NBA players of all time.
But better than LeBron James?
Please. LeBron James is historically good. All that hype? It's not hype. It's reality.
You saw what James did to Detroit in the last four games of the Eastern Conference finals. You saw what he did, specifically, in Game 5 -- one of the top postseason performances ever, in any sport, any era. James scored 48 points, which is nice, but he scored his team's last 25 points of regulation, overtime and double overtime. Which is impossible. James went one-on-five with the Pistons, and James won.
I'd call it Jordan-esque, but Jordan never did anything like that.
Is James better than Jordan? Possibly, though I understand the argument that says LeBron can't be compared to Michael Six Rings until LeBron has won a handful of NBA titles.
I don't understand the argument that Tim Duncan is better than James.
They play different positions, so statistics are only useful up to a point. But that point is on LeBron's side of the ledger, no? This season Duncan averaged 20 points, 10.6 rebounds and 3.4 assists. That's very good. James averaged 25.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 6.0 assists. That's better. And furthermore, I'd argue that you could plug James into Duncan's spot on the Spurs -- stick him on the low block and leave him there, if you were so inclined -- and he'd put up 20-and-11.
Could you plug Duncan into James' spot on the Cavs and expect to get a 26-7-6? Of course not.
In the playoffs James is averaging 25.8 ppg, 8.3 rpg and 8.2 apg. In other words, he scores like Vince Carter but does the other stuff like Jason Kidd. James gets compared to Jordan because Jordan is recognized as the best ever, but the player who best fits the LeBron archetype is Oscar Robertson, a triple-double threat and scoring machine.
Duncan? Whatever position you want to say he plays, you can find someone from his era who has played it better. If he's a center, he's no Shaquille O'Neal. If he's a power forward, he's no Kevin Garnett. He's probably better than Dirk Nowitzki, but I'd listen to arguments to the contrary.
Better than LeBron James? I won't listen to that, because that would imply Duncan is the best player in the world. The last time Duncan was the best player in the world was 2002. He had a monster season, averaging 25.5 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg and 2.5 blocks. His yips on free throws hadn't kicked in yet, resulting in 79.9 percent shooting from the line.
So I'll give you that: Duncan was the best player in the game in 2002.
But only because LeBron was 17.
:lmao
It has probably been posted before, didn't find it upon checking though.
Plain and simple, LeBron has no equal
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10212799.shtml
June 5, 2007
By Gregg Doyel
CBS SportsLine.com National Columnist
I've given myself 900 words to write CBS SportsLine.com colleague Mike Freeman into oblivion, but all I really need is one sentence:
In Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, LeBron James had 20 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists -- and he looked awful doing it.
There's your sentence. There's my argument. There's Freeman's impossible hurdle to overcome.
Freeman's trying to argue that LeBron James is not the best player in basketball. Can you imagine? James plays poorly, looks tired and ragged, and still puts up 20 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists. On a bad day. In the conference finals.
If there's anyone in the world who can play poorly in a game of that magnitude and still put up a 20-14-8 as James did Saturday to the Detroit Pistons, show me. While you're looking, consider what James does when he plays well. In the three previous games he averaged 35 points, 8.3 rebounds and 9.0 assists.
James is so clearly the best basketball player in the world, the only argument up for discussion is whether he's the best basketball player ever.
But there's Freeman, trying to argue that LeBron James isn't the best. Worse than that, Freeman would have you believe the best player is ... drumroll ... Tim Duncan.
Forget the drum roll. How about a rim shot?
Duncan's not the best player in the NBA, LeBron James is. And if LeBron James isn't -- if you insist that a 22-year-old without an NBA title is ineligible for the honor -- then the best player in the game would have to be Kobe Bryant.
Before we go any further, can we please define our terms? By "best player in the NBA," I mean just that: the best player. Most talented. Best. Period.
Not the most likeable player. Not the most selfless player. Not the guy who represents his city or his league better than anyone else. And not the guy with the most rings on his fingers, because Robert Horry has more NBA championship rings than Tim Duncan, and I don't hear anyone calling Big Shot Bob the best player in the game.
And nobody give Freeman that idea. Good grief.
Tim Duncan puts up nice numbers. He averages 20 points and 10 rebounds, and he shoots a good percentage from the floor. His team wins championships and he stays out of headlines off the floor. Tim Duncan is a great player, a Hall of Fame player. Probably one of the top 50 NBA players of all time.
But better than LeBron James?
Please. LeBron James is historically good. All that hype? It's not hype. It's reality.
You saw what James did to Detroit in the last four games of the Eastern Conference finals. You saw what he did, specifically, in Game 5 -- one of the top postseason performances ever, in any sport, any era. James scored 48 points, which is nice, but he scored his team's last 25 points of regulation, overtime and double overtime. Which is impossible. James went one-on-five with the Pistons, and James won.
I'd call it Jordan-esque, but Jordan never did anything like that.
Is James better than Jordan? Possibly, though I understand the argument that says LeBron can't be compared to Michael Six Rings until LeBron has won a handful of NBA titles.
I don't understand the argument that Tim Duncan is better than James.
They play different positions, so statistics are only useful up to a point. But that point is on LeBron's side of the ledger, no? This season Duncan averaged 20 points, 10.6 rebounds and 3.4 assists. That's very good. James averaged 25.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 6.0 assists. That's better. And furthermore, I'd argue that you could plug James into Duncan's spot on the Spurs -- stick him on the low block and leave him there, if you were so inclined -- and he'd put up 20-and-11.
Could you plug Duncan into James' spot on the Cavs and expect to get a 26-7-6? Of course not.
In the playoffs James is averaging 25.8 ppg, 8.3 rpg and 8.2 apg. In other words, he scores like Vince Carter but does the other stuff like Jason Kidd. James gets compared to Jordan because Jordan is recognized as the best ever, but the player who best fits the LeBron archetype is Oscar Robertson, a triple-double threat and scoring machine.
Duncan? Whatever position you want to say he plays, you can find someone from his era who has played it better. If he's a center, he's no Shaquille O'Neal. If he's a power forward, he's no Kevin Garnett. He's probably better than Dirk Nowitzki, but I'd listen to arguments to the contrary.
Better than LeBron James? I won't listen to that, because that would imply Duncan is the best player in the world. The last time Duncan was the best player in the world was 2002. He had a monster season, averaging 25.5 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg and 2.5 blocks. His yips on free throws hadn't kicked in yet, resulting in 79.9 percent shooting from the line.
So I'll give you that: Duncan was the best player in the game in 2002.
But only because LeBron was 17.
:lmao