Team success should be discounted for all-time rankings

[Marchesk]

Bare with me here. What emerged from the Robinson/Duncan thread is that if you switch Duncan with Garnett or DRob, they will have similar team success. The same is the case if you switch Magic with Oscar, as the Kareem/Oscar thread demonstrated. And we all know Wilt would have been considered the winner Russell is if he had played for the Celtics. We don't even need to consider Kobe's career with Charlotte, or Lebron if he had stayed on the Cavs.

We also know that Hakeem's playoff success was severely hampered by an injury riddled Sampson and drug abuse by other players on the team (they were in the finals his second season winning two games against the GOAT 86 Celtics squad).

Now let's consider this hypothetical. Seattle doesn't trade Pippen to Chicago in 1987. Jordan plays out his career in Chicago, managing to drag the Bulls to two finals, winning one. He puts up the same sort of playoff numbers, possibly even a little better as he's carrying more of the load. But most playoffs end up being disappointing losses to better teams.

Is Jordan still GOAT?

[buddha]

I agree, and yes Jordan is still the goat, he'd have even more ridiculous stats without Pippen and he'd win atleast 2-3 championships, the east was pretty weak after the Celtics and Pistons were done.

[navy]

Why couldnt the Bulls get a Pippen comparable player?

[TheMarkMadsen]

:roll: :roll:

T Mac > Jordan

too much team success bruh

[TheMarkMadsen]

Why couldnt the Bulls get a Pippen comparable player?

that would have been tough considering Pippen was the 2nd best perimeter player of the 90s

[navy]

:roll: :roll:

T Mac > Jordan

too much team success bruh
What does Tmac have over Jordan?

[Roundball_Rock]

Why couldnt the Bulls get a Pippen comparable player?

They could have but they would have to gut their roster to do so in a trade. Their best trade piece would be Horace Grant. You are not getting a superstar for Grant straight up. The Barkley trade required Phoenix to give up an all-star and two other starters. Moreover, most superstars are not traded. Other than Barkley and Shaq what other superstars have been traded in their prime in the past three decades?

As far as drafting goes, the Bulls would not have had a high enough draft pick to get a superstar after 87', which was the Bulls' last losing season of that era.

The Bulls could not even trade for Jeff Hornacek in 94', a one-time all-star. It is unlikely they could get a player like Pippen via trade.

The Bulls are a team which builds through the draft and then supplements it with a few free agents. Rodman is the only key player acquired via trade (unless you count Pippen but Seattle drafted Pippen on behalf of the Bulls so I don't). Chicago is not like Miami which constantly retools via trades.

[Marchesk]

Imagine Payton/Pippen/Kemp trio. :eek:

That's 3 titles there. Pippen/Payton combine for the best defensive effort anyone has ever seen on Michael in the playoffs when the Bulls/Sonics meet in the 93 finals in this alternate universe.

[Roundball_Rock]

Imagine Payton/Pippen/Kemp trio. :eek:

That's 3 titles there. Pippen/Payton combine for the best defensive effort anyone has ever seen on Michael in the playoffs when the Bulls/Sonics meet in the 93 finals in this alternate universe.

Exactly--and where would people have Pippen all-time then with 3 rings as the best player? :oldlol: As you noted in the OP, players are still the same irrespective of team circumstances. I believe winning should be a factor in all-time rankings but people have taken it too far and resorted to simply ranking similar players based on team success without any regard for the circumstances players were in. KAJ is the best example. All you hear for why he is not GOAT is that he did not have enough team success in the 70's--as if it was KAJ's fault and as if MJ or Wilt or LeBron would have fared better.

[B-hoop]

What ifs are really hard to do because one change impacts on a whole lot of other things. For example, do you think the Celtics would play as well as team with Wilt in place of Russel? Russel is the ultimate team player, Wilt is probably one of the players with the biggest egos in the history of the game. IMO, they wouldn't be as good.

Same thing can be said of Pippen, if he doesn't go to the Bulls and train with Michael, would he be the same player? I mean Kemp wasn't one of the most healthy teammates to have.

[Marchesk]

What ifs are really hard to do because one change impacts on a whole lot of other things.

For sure. If there is a branching universe, those what ifs do play out. We just need the tech to spy in on certain ones.


For example, do you think the Celtics would play as well as team with Wilt in place of Russel? Russel is the ultimate team player, Wilt is probably one of the players with the biggest egos in the history of the game. IMO, they wouldn't be as good.

I don't know either. Wilt did well with the right coaches. He was on two of the greatest teams ever and played a Russell-like role exceptionally well.

Would Russell have been the pen-ultimate team player if they switched places? Is Russell making the Warriors better than Wilt did?


Same thing can be said of Pippen, if he doesn't go to the Bulls and train with Michael, would he be the same player? I mean Kemp wasn't one of the most healthy teammates to have.

There is that. I'm sure Jordan must have had an important impact on Pippen's development, but GMs thought Pippen was going to be good when he entered the league.

I guess it's impossible to say. It's also impossible to say what the Bulls would have done without Pippen.

[tpols]

What ifs are really hard to do because one change impacts on a whole lot of other things. For example, do you think the Celtics would play as well as team with Wilt in place of Russel? Russel is the ultimate team player, Wilt is probably one of the players with the biggest egos in the history of the game. IMO, they wouldn't be as good.

Same thing can be said of Pippen, if he doesn't go to the Bulls and train with Michael, would he be the same player? I mean Kemp wasn't one of the most healthy teammates to have.
Exactly.. intangibles. Silly to assume wilts ego would dissolve if on the Celtics. He might've disrupted team chemistry while Russell improved the teammates of whatever team he was on. Pippen may not have developed the same competitive edge about him if not for Jordan.. still could've been great but not as great. Can't discount team circumstances because they are partially or heavily a result often of their leader. Not in all cases but in many.

[Roundball_Rock]

We can never know what would happen with precision in these alternate scenarios. All we can do is make educated guesses based on the available evidence. What Marchesk has said is reasonable based on the available evidence. For example, the Celtics barely won against Wilt despite Wilt carrying inferior rosters relative to Boston. It is reasonable to think they would win with Wilt.

[1987_Lakers]

I agree to an extant, if you have a crappy supporting cast around you like Kobe did in 06 & 07 I wont hold it against you.

At the same time the main objective in basketball is to win, sure sometimes you don't have the teammates, but when you do it is a must to win if you want to be considered an all-time great.

Wilt for example by the mid 60's all the way through his retirement had championship caliber teams, he won 2 titles in that span, that might seem fine, but it isn't when you are in a 8-10 league and constantly losing to Russell. That in a way hurt his legacy and rightfully so.

[SouBeachTalents]

I agree to an extant, if you have a crappy supporting cast around you like Kobe did in 06 & 07 I wont hold it against you.

At the same time the main objective in basketball is to win, sure sometimes you don't have the teammates, but when you do it is a must to win if you want to be considered an all-time great.

Wilt for example by the mid 60's all the way through his retirement had championship caliber teams, he won 2 titles in that span, that might seem fine, but it isn't when you are in a 8-10 league and constantly losing to Russell. That in a way hurt his legacy and rightfully so.

As does having your career ppg average go from 30 in the regular season, to 23 in the postseason, to 19 in the Finals

[tpols]

We can never know what would happen with precision in these alternate scenarios. All we can do is make educated guesses based on the available evidence. What Marchesk has said is reasonable based on the available evidence. For example, the Celtics barely won against Wilt despite Wilt carrying inferior rosters relative to Boston. It is reasonable to think they would win with Wilt.
I think the general rule of thumb is guys who are extremely physically dominant can't see the game in the same way as guys who aren't. Wilt is so overpowering and dominant his whole life, he can't empathize with teammates and see the game from their level. It was only when injuries slowed him down that he started to develop a crazy passing game and focus on things that matter outside his own individual dominance. Guys like Russell, Bird, could rub off on their teammates better. They don't have quite the same physical advantages of their peers so they are forced to compensate with a bird's eye view type of play where they have to see everything.. not just themselves.

Even mj can be included there.. I know the argument will be 'but mj was the most athletic guard ever!' Yea but without his skill level he wouldn't be a top ten goat. And the work ethic that derived that skill set is something that is seen by teAmmates and serves as motivation for them.

[Marchesk]

Even mj can be included there.. I know the argument will be 'but mj was the most athletic guard ever!' Yea but without his skill level he wouldn't be a top ten goat. And the work ethic that derived that skill set is something that is seen by teAmmates and serves as motivation for them.

There were questions about MJ as a teammate before the Bulls were winning titles. Whether that's fair or not, it was being brought up. Also, he was being compared against Magic and Bird, but their situations were hardly the same.

[Pointguard]

I thought Pippen was traded for Kemp in some sophisticated way??? Jordan wins four or five with Kemp tho, no???

But I agree with you Marchesk. Team success gets way too much credit in the rankings. Tmac and KG are examples of guys with great primes but teams could not turn the corner because of poor organizations. Barkley and Malone didn't have a lot of support.

[Marchesk]

I thought Pippen was traded for Kemp in some sophisticated way??? Jordan wins four or five with Kemp tho, no???

That's a different scenario. Seattle traded Pippen to the Bulls in the 87 draft. I was going with them keeping him and still drafting Kemp later.

Maybe Chicago tries to get an all-star to go with Jordan if they never had Pippen? I'm guessing MJ would have gotten real frustrated at some point and put pressure on management.

[DatAsh]

Bare with me here. What emerged from the Robinson/Duncan thread is that if you switch Duncan with Garnett or DRob, they will have similar team success. The same is the case if you switch Magic with Oscar, as the Kareem/Oscar thread demonstrated. And we all know Wilt would have been considered the winner Russell is if he had played for the Celtics. We don't even need to consider Kobe's career with Charlotte, or Lebron if he had stayed on the Cavs.

We also know that Hakeem's playoff success was severely hampered by an injury riddled Sampson and drug abuse by other players on the team (they were in the finals his second season winning two games against the GOAT 86 Celtics squad).

Now let's consider this hypothetical. Seattle doesn't trade Pippen to Chicago in 1987. Jordan plays out his career in Chicago, managing to drag the Bulls to two finals, winning one. He puts up the same sort of playoff numbers, possibly even a little better as he's carrying more of the load. But most playoffs end up being disappointing losses to better teams.

Is Jordan still GOAT?

Disagree.

Winning is the point of the game. The best basketball player is the player that gives the average playoff team the best chance to win over time. Team success is one of the best tools we have to try and measure a player's contribution to winning games - especially for guys like Duncan, whose impact goes way beyond his stats.

Without team success we'd just be ranking players based on their stats. Don't get me wrong, stats do a great job of measuring a player's ability to perform a given role, but they're not so great at determining a players worth given no other context. In fact, players seeking to maximize their ranking under such judgement would actively avoid playing any sort of winning basketball. You're far better off playing no defense, and doing everything you can to freeze your teammates out of the offense; shooting 30+ times a game would be a good thing.

Player A
28-30 ppg, 6-8 rpg, 2-4 apg, 51-54 TS%
Adds 20-25 wins to terrible(15 wins or less) teams, 15-20 or so to bad teams, 5-10 to average teams, 0-5 to good teams, and -5-0 wins on the best teams in the league.

Player B
6 ppg, 16-18 rpg, 2-4 apg, 56-60 TS%
Adds 10-15 wins wherever he goes, including the best teams in the league.

Player B is the better player, but ignoring team success, there's just no way to see that. If anything, team success if given far too little credit in ranking players beyond about the top 15 or so guys. Case in point, I bet 95% of people would choose player A over player B, regardless of the team; then they'd wonder why they lost in the playoffs to the team that grabbed player B.

Team success is a very difficult thing to account for in player rankings, arguably the most difficult, but ignoring it altogether is about the worst thing you can do. The problem is that people ignore context - often intentionally, and say things like 5 > 2 as if championships have any sort of weight in and of themselves.

[Marchesk]

That's a really good post, but ...


Player B is the better player, but ignoring team success, there's just no way to see that. If anything, team success if given far too little credit in ranking players beyond about the top 15 or so guys. Case in point, I bet 95% of people would choose player A over player B, regardless of the team; then they'd wonder why they lost in the playoffs to the team that grabbed player B.

Player B is better on better teams, but Player A is better on worse teams. And Player B would not be the player you'd want if your contending team was lacking a go to scorer. You would rather have Player A in that scenario.


Team success is one of the best tools we have to try and measure a player's contribution to winning games - especially for guys like Duncan, whose impact goes way beyond his stats.

The problem here is that we don't have Duncan on other teams to see how much it is his contribution, and how much it is the entire Spurs organization. I'm sure it's both, but we don't know how much.


Team success is a very difficult thing to account for in player rankings, arguably the most difficult, but ignoring it altogether is about the worst thing you can do.

Well yes. I was being a bit facetious. ISH (and they're hardly alone among sports fans) is obsessed with ring totals. But there is a whole lot of contingency at play. Should Oscar be penalized for not having a contending team in the 60s? He didn't have the fortune of getting drafted by the Celtics. There's a thousand scenarios like that. The thing is that Magic is where he is because of team success, and Oscar is where he is because of the lack of it. We rank Bird and Magic so highly because of how consistently good their teams were, but they sure did have some good teammates and coaches.

I'm not going to try and claim that Alex English or Dominique are in Bird's class, but put them on the Celtics and see how their careers turn out. Drexler's response to Magic and MJ going on about rings during the Dream Team was something akin to, "give me Scottie and then do a ring count".

[NZStreetBaller]

If we are going to discard team success then kareem destroys everyone.

More point then anyone in history. And more mvps:bowdown:

[SugarHill]

Russel drops out of the top 50

[Timmy D for MVP]

The discussion of GOAT should always encompass a great balance between individual success and team success.

Team success is important in matters like debating between two all time legends. But of course the nature of that success is important to note.

But there is an aspect to basketball, and really it's the only team sport where this is true, where a truly great player can influence a game so much that his team accumulates success.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Russel drops out of the top 50
:oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

If we are going to discard team success then kareem destroys everyone.

More point then anyone in history. And more mvps:bowdown:

KAJ is a very strange case. Individually he arguably had the most success, he clearly has the GOAT longevity, his peak was as good as anyone's and he had very good team success. 6 rings, 10 Finals, 14 conference finals. Yet because he was the best player for only 3-4 of those rings that is deemed as "not enough" and that basically is the only reason you hear for Kareem not being the GOAT. This is an example of an inordinate emphasis on winning. Kareem is the same player if his Bucks win game 7 in 74'.


I thought Pippen was traded for Kemp in some sophisticated way??? Jordan wins four or five with Kemp tho, no???

No, Pippen was traded for Olden Polynice. Pippen and Kemp were almost traded in 95' and that may be what you were thinking of (MJ, retired at the time, thought Seattle would get the better of the deal and privately advised his friend George Karl to do it because he thought it would make Seattle champs).

Kemp came out of high school. He was not an all-star caliber player until 93'--so yes MJ would win with him but hardly 4-5 rings.

The thing about getting a superstar is you have to give up a lot. Just look at the Knicks trade for Carmelo a few years ago. Denver actually improved after the trade because of the quantity of several solid players overcame the quality of one superstar. Chicago would have had to trade for a Pippen-caliber player. It would not have been able to get one via the draft because they would not be in the lottery and free agency then was not what it is now. Superstars, excepting Shaq, did not leave teams via free agency back in the 90's. Chicago could not even pull off trading for Jeff Hornacek in 94'--a one-time all-star SG.


As does having your career ppg average go from 30 in the regular season, to 23 in the postseason, to 19 in the Finals

Those numbers are misleading, though, because of his varying roles. He had his greatest team success when he was not asked to score 40-50 a night. Moreover, he had to face the GOAT defender for a good percentage of his series. He could not pad his stats against role players like other legends because the league was so small every starter was good.

[kshutts1]

A lot of the people whose lists I weigh more heavily don't care too much about titles, MVPs, win and loss record...

There's just too much noise. It all matters, don't get me wrong. But there's too much noise to use any team-oriented "stat" as a large factor of grading an individual.

Edit: Leaving out record, etc, is particularly difficult with past generations. I saw TMac play. I know he's better than Richard Hamilton or Manu or Bosh. But it's more difficult with older players.