There was the following sentence in the article titled, “Vegas. Rove attack ads seal victory for Hillary” appearing in May 10 New Yorker magazine:
“The oddsmaker’s only concern, he added, was that Rove’s involvement in the race will dry up all interest in betting on Republican candidates for 2016: “Right now I’m offering Marco Rubio at ninety thousand to one and I ain’t getting a bite.”
While acknowledging that “there’s no sure thing” in the world of gambling, Mr. Klugian said that for professional gamblers, betting against Karl Rove is “as good as it gets.” “He’s the LeBron James of losing,” he said.”
I understand this is simply a metaphoric joke, and I understand clearly what the oddmaker means.
But “the LeBron James of losing” sounds somewhat farfetching just as saying “the Babe Ruth of losing” and “the Great Alexander of losing” instead of "Darius III of losing"?
Doesn’t this contradiction – ‘the ever-victorious of losing’ - matter?
Does the expression, someone like “the LeBron James of losing,” sound natural and reasonable to native English speakers, simply from the view point of rhetoric and logic?