Micku
12-16-2014, 08:45 PM
We obviously do consider level of play of the individual player when we talk about the GOAT lists, otherwise Robert Horry would be considered better than Charles Barkley on many GOAT lists. But how much do we or should we consider the level of play?
Players like Barkley and Dirk for example. I've seen authors and posters rank them differently. Some people rank Barkley above Dirk despite Dirk having one ring against him while others consider the ring as the trump card to the comparison. Both have one MVP, so that's a wash. Barkley been All NBA first time five times while Dirk four. Dirk been in the All Stars twelve times while Barkley eleven. The difference is the statistical one and how good they were. You would take Barkley best stats and Dirk best stats and just compare the two, or you could just watch them play to see who played better.
Another example is player like Shaq is constantly ranked below Magic and Bird, but his level of play in his prime is arguably better than both of them or at least around their level. I feel what separates them is the accolades and it's necessary rings, but the MVPs. Bird has three, Magic has three, Shaq only has one. Despite this, I think we all agree that Shaq was probably the best player in the league even when he didn't win MVPs.
Another comparison like Hakeem and Duncan. While I think Hakeem probably had better prime and peak, Duncan has longevity and have more accomplishments.
Of course careers do include accolades, but then should we consider the competition involved. How are the teams? How are the other players? And maybe the individual stats doesn't appeal as much to you as oppose to player impact on the team.
This isn't a new topic, but it is something that's fun to revisit once in a while. So, do how much do you consider the prime/peak play in your ranking or do you consider the rings and MVPs more important?
Players like Barkley and Dirk for example. I've seen authors and posters rank them differently. Some people rank Barkley above Dirk despite Dirk having one ring against him while others consider the ring as the trump card to the comparison. Both have one MVP, so that's a wash. Barkley been All NBA first time five times while Dirk four. Dirk been in the All Stars twelve times while Barkley eleven. The difference is the statistical one and how good they were. You would take Barkley best stats and Dirk best stats and just compare the two, or you could just watch them play to see who played better.
Another example is player like Shaq is constantly ranked below Magic and Bird, but his level of play in his prime is arguably better than both of them or at least around their level. I feel what separates them is the accolades and it's necessary rings, but the MVPs. Bird has three, Magic has three, Shaq only has one. Despite this, I think we all agree that Shaq was probably the best player in the league even when he didn't win MVPs.
Another comparison like Hakeem and Duncan. While I think Hakeem probably had better prime and peak, Duncan has longevity and have more accomplishments.
Of course careers do include accolades, but then should we consider the competition involved. How are the teams? How are the other players? And maybe the individual stats doesn't appeal as much to you as oppose to player impact on the team.
This isn't a new topic, but it is something that's fun to revisit once in a while. So, do how much do you consider the prime/peak play in your ranking or do you consider the rings and MVPs more important?