0%, 0%, 33%, 50%, 40% vs. 100%, 100%, 100%, 75%, 60%, 66%, 71%

[WeGetRing2012]

Player A: A Player who never had over a 50% success rate in the Finals
Player B: A Player who never had below a 60% success rate in the Finals.

[NumberSix]

Player A: A Player who never had over a 50% success rate in the Finals
Player B: A Player who never had below a 60% success rate in the Finals.
Whichever player is better.

[riseagainst]

so simple, player B.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'll take Wilt over Derek Fisher.

[Trollsmasher]

LeBron

Kobe sucks

[Smook A.]

Neither cause I don't know which player is better.



Its like asking if Derek Fisher is better than Tracy McGrady

A dude with a bunch of playoff success vs A guy who's only made it out of the 1st round once.

[NumberSix]

Durant is 0%.

Tony Parker is 80%. 4 rings and a FMVP.


You tell me who's better.

[K Xerxes]

Do people even give a shit about context anymore or what?

[NumberSix]

Do people even give a shit about context anymore or what?
Context only applies when it suits your own agenda.

[Straight_Ballin]

Player A: A Player who never had over a 50% success rate in the Finals
Player B: A Player who never had below a 60% success rate in the Finals.

No one cares about players who did not have a 100% success rate in the finals with at least 3 finals appearances under their belt unless they were not around to witness it first hand, thus having to resort to players who lack perfection like player A and B in your example.

[215Philly]

Durant is 0%.

Tony Parker is 80%. 4 rings and a FMVP.


You tell me who's better.
Damn :applause:

[WeGetRing2012]

Neither cause I don't know which player is better.



Its like asking if Derek Fisher is better than Tracy McGrady

A dude with a bunch of playoff success vs A guy who's only made it out of the 1st round once.

Derek Fisher please. Give me a player who is good with their role & succeeds. Not one who can't deliver what's expected of him.

[Bernkastel]

The one who has more rings.