BuzzerBeater Forums

Really this thread should be retitled "heroball vs correct ball"

Just so I understand... Your argument is, that because more talent is international/playing for international olympic teams, that Lebron is clearly better than anyone in that era? That makes no sense! Don't get me wrong, I would agree he is quite possibly the best athlete of most any NBA player ever. But if you want to argue he is better than Kobe, or especially someone like MJ, you need a better reason than "other olympic teams are better than they used to be."

Guess what, Kobe still plays in the NBA too. And until this year where he is clearly declining, you can't definitively say Lebron was a better player than him, and he was easily one of the best players even during the time you claim the league is far better. If I were watching track and field, or purely athletic competitions, there is no question that current players would dominate. To play basketball, I would take the dream team in the 90s over today's counterpart any day.

Last edited by Double B at 4/1/2013 9:37:20 AM

Comparing generations is silly. But I will say that the depth and competitiveness of the NBA has gone way down. The players may be physically better, but the quality of basketball sucks. There are like four teams with a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything. The rest are just along for the ride. The NBA is awful right now.

Every season there are only 4 teams with a legitimate shot at winning the title. Revisionist history at its finest there.

Also the point of the foreign Olympians was to show the evolution in less then 20 years. Since witnessing it in the US, its hard to notice.

1 on 1, Lebron destroys Kobe. Lebron would smother him, were as Kobe, would look for someone else to guard him.

Only four teams have a shot at winning a title period. I compare it to MLB, or NFL. I couldn't pick out four teams and guarantee one of them would win the title, even at midseason. I could do it in basketball. There isn't enough top notch talent to go around the entire league, which leaves us with four awesome teams, and everyone else.

Really? You don't think the NFL or baseball is the same way? Last season the division winners were, the Patriots, didn't see that coming, Ravens, shocker there (not really), Texans (again no surprise), Packers (wow another none surprise), Falcons (wait for it, another none shocker), and the 49ers (biggest surprise of them all). Most people had the 49ers in the Superbowl, ding ding ding, they were. The Ravens made it and, no one was really at all surprised. So sorry, there isn't that much more parody. Do you want me to go into baseball, how many seasons were the Yankees the favorites, and were they in the World series. What about the Tigers and Giants. It really isn't any different then the NBA, there are just more players on the field, increase the chances for variety. But it still goes by the same principles, the best players win.

Every season, there are only a handful of legitimate title contenders, it doesn't matter the sport.

Lol I disagree completely. Lets take another look at those division winners.

Patriots, no surprise.

Ravens: Been battling with the Steelers for almost a decade now. Had an up and down year, and really went into the playoffs as an underdog. Not necessarily a surprise, but definitely not a given.

Texans: Pretty much prove my point. A team outside the traditional powers that spent much of the season as the top seed in the AFC, and had a good a chance as anyone in the playoffs.

Packers: Not a surprise, but the Bears spent much of the season ahead of them

Falcons: The only reason this isn't a surprise is because the Saints had internal issues.

49ers: yeah not much of a surprise.

You also left off the Broncos and the Redskins as division winners.

No one would have been surprised to see the Pats, Ravens, Texans, Packers, Falcons, 49ers, or Broncos in the Super Bowl. Thats 7 teams right there. Not counting the Colts or Seahawks, who got real close to being in the hunt.

As far as baseball, I wont get into specifics, but you're so far off its not even funny. Haven't had a repeat World Series Winner since the 2000 Yankees. In that 13 year span, 10 different teams have won titles, and 15 different teams have been to the World Series.

The Texans, prove your point? Many prognosticators had them in the Superbowl. Who was going to win the division, the Jags, the Titans, surely no one had the Colts winning the division. The Texans, very much prove my point.

And Baseball, you have to got to be kidding me, for the last decade, it was the Yankees, and whoever else wanted to spend like them. So yeah, I'm not that far off, plus its baseball, who cares.

We are gonna have to agree to disagree :) The Yankees won three titles in a row with mostly homegrown talent from 1998-2000. Since then they have gone on the big spending spree that everyone associates with the Yankees. Since then, they have exactly one title. Fewer than the Cardinals (not known for spending), the Red Sox (before they started spending), and the Giants (definitely not known as spenders).

Your not saying, who actually wins the title, you said how many teams could be considered, to win a championship. Yes you would have to include the Yanks, even though they only won 1 in a while.

Thats true. But they are one of quite a few. This season for instance. I could make a case for 10 teams as possible legitimate World Series candidates