LeBron James bemoans ring culture in NBA: 'It's never enough'

[liam]

Says the guy who keeps changing teams to chase rings. LOL

 


https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45538297/lebron-james-bemoans-ring-culture-nba-never-enough

[Who]

"Trying to nitpick an individual because he was not able to win a team game or a team match -- or whatever the case may be -- I don't know where it started, but it's a long conversation, especially when it comes to me individually," James said on his "Mind the Game" podcast with Steve Nash.

"It's so weird. It's never enough."

Wilt and B Russell?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

[Goldstar88]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

[Moranis]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

[mobilija]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

[Moranis]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

Or it means he dragged lesser teams further than he should have and then gets discredited when the better team actually wins.  I'm pretty sure that is the point he was making.

[slightly biased bias fan]

This lack of self awareness is becoming more common with NBA legends because of the insane amount of money they earn from an early age.

Essentially removing themselves from every day people and living in this privileged bubble.

I could almost guarantee that 18 year old LeBron would be disgusted how 39 year old LeBron put a target on his sons back by using his influence to get Bronny undeservedly drafted. That is the behaviour of generationally wealthy family, not a kid from the projects of Akron.

[Goldstar88]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

Or it means he dragged lesser teams further than he should have and then gets discredited when the better team actually wins.  I'm pretty sure that is the point he was making.

Other than his first Finals appearance, LeBron had HOFers playing with him. Swept twice, two gentlemen sweeps as well. That would never happen with Michael or Larry for that matter. Different breeds.

[Moranis]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

Or it means he dragged lesser teams further than he should have and then gets discredited when the better team actually wins.  I'm pretty sure that is the point he was making.

Other than his first Finals appearance, LeBron had HOFers playing with him. Swept twice, two gentlemen sweeps as well. That would never happen with Michael or Larry for that matter. Different breeds.

Sure and so did the teams he was playing.  There is a reason Lebron has been the favorite in only 3 of his 10 Finals appearances.  Underdog 7 times. 

[Goldstar88]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

Or it means he dragged lesser teams further than he should have and then gets discredited when the better team actually wins.  I'm pretty sure that is the point he was making.

Other than his first Finals appearance, LeBron had HOFers playing with him. Swept twice, two gentlemen sweeps as well. That would never happen with Michael or Larry for that matter. Different breeds.

Sure and so did the teams he was playing.  There is a reason Lebron has been the favorite in only 3 of his 10 Finals appearances.  Underdog 7 times.

Yep. He?s not a killer and not as good as Michael.

[Moranis]

What's never enough? Who is saying they aren't great players?

This is a subtle shift or bait-and-switch with the actual argumentation. It's a straw man. No one said Steve Nash wasn't great. Or Allen Iverson. Or Charles Barkley. No one says Lebron James isn't great.

But when considering the pantheon of players, the tiebreaker for two relatively equal players in production will always be did you help your team win the most important games.

There's no doubt that some players have greater advantages playing with better teammates and better organizations, but a lot of that culture is impacted by the best player. Lebron's teams, for example, have historically had pretty meh culture, which leads to a lack of confidence in teammates, which leads to a worst supporting cast.

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

Exactly. Yes, it is a team game, but let?s not pretend like this is baseball or football. You?re 4-6 in the Finals, LeBron.

His team was also favored only 3 times in the Finals.  Against Dallas and San Antonio in Miami and the Lakers title.  Every other year at the start of the Finals his opponent was the favored team.

So?.he was unsuccessful on paper and in games.

Or it means he dragged lesser teams further than he should have and then gets discredited when the better team actually wins.  I'm pretty sure that is the point he was making.

Other than his first Finals appearance, LeBron had HOFers playing with him. Swept twice, two gentlemen sweeps as well. That would never happen with Michael or Larry for that matter. Different breeds.

Sure and so did the teams he was playing.  There is a reason Lebron has been the favorite in only 3 of his 10 Finals appearances.  Underdog 7 times.

Yep. He?s not a killer and not as good as Michael.

Or his teams weren't as good.  The one real knock is the Dallas series.  Lebron clearly played poorly in that series. Not aggressive, didn't shoot well or enough.  Outside of that, Lebron has been undeniably awesome in the Finals.  Lebron isn't 4-6 because he has played poorly, he is 4-6 because the teams he played were simply deeper better teams than his own team.  That is like blaming Jordan for losing in 6 to Shaq and Penny despite Jordan averaging 31/6.5/4 in the series.  Or losing to the Pistons in 5 while going for 27/9/4.5. Or losing to the Pistons in 6 with 30/5.5/6.5.  Or losing to the Pistons in 7 with a "terrible" 32/7/6.  Or you know going 0-6 against Bird's Celtics in the playoffs and winning just 1 playoff game without Pippen on his team.  Basketball is a team game. 

[tenn_smoothie]

This is just Lebron justifying his super-max salary and unwillingness to sign a reduced contract that would enable his team to acquire needed help around he and Doncic. Don't start with the, "You wouldn't turn down millions of dollars" argument. Yes I would if I were already a billionaire, I would sign a vet-minimum deal tomorrow and tell the Lakers front office to get to work putting a championship roster around me.

Lebron's ego is always #1 for him. Everything else is secondary, even titles.

[bdm860]

This is just Lebron trying to reframe the conversation in a way that makes him look like the GOAT.

This is what I think too.

This is Jordan #1 with 6 rings, and LeBron #2 with 4, because what else can it be? I doubt there's any list from the experts that doesn't have LeBron top 5 all time, or even  top 2.

ESPN put Jordan #1 and LeBron #2 in 2022. The Athletic had the same.



But really though, when has the NBA title criteria ever led to a wrong answer when it comes to greatness?

Whose being held out of the all time great conversation because they haven't won a title? Or who is wrongfully in there because of titles?

Disclaimer, I think very few rational experts blindly consider total number of championships and nothing else, like Bill Russell isn't on top of everyone's list despite having the most, and guys like Steph Curry and Shaq generally don't get placed above Bird and Wilt despite having more rings than them.

And with any list of all time greats, you're usually into the teens before you get a guy without a ring or even without multiple rings.

Guys like Barkley, Malone, Elgin Baylor, Chris Paul, etc. are still recognized as all time greats, just not in the 1-15 range, and more in the 15-30 range.

So when has the ring criteria actually failed?

[Smartacus]

Ring Culture exposes LeBron?s greatest weakness which is killer instinct. LeBron is one of the all time greats but his peak isn?t as high as Jordan and possibly others because what he does on the court is not as valuable as putting a game away by your self.

LeBron always falls back on the ?Basketball is a team game? mindset but what he fails to mention is that it?s also an individual game. As much as the game is about 5 like minded individuals flowing through offensive and defensive sets as a cohesive unit, it?s also about those 5 players imposing their will and dominating their matchup. In all of his finals runs, the only time you could really point to LeBron destroying a team by himself was when the switch flipped in his head against the Celtics while he was on the Heat. That was the one time where he just put a team away by himself and was one of the most destructive forces on the court in history.

The rest of his career he floated through the playoffs trying to pass, shoot, and handle only within the flow of the game and his team concept. He was either incapable or unwilling to elevate his personal performance to break his matchups wide open and more often than not his teams lost.

LeBron is the king of longevity and has no equal when it comes to amassing stats, but Jordan elevating himself time and time again over his shorter career, defeating every team the era could throw against him is more impressive. Stats are free but winning takes sacrifice, and it was a tax that Jordan was capable of paying that LeBron wasn?t.

Ring Culture is the tie breaker at the top and the GOAT debate is settled by who was able to win when it mattered most.

Jordan >>> Lebron