Can We Please Stop Boiling Down Entire Careers to Ring Counts?

[ralph_i_el]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Repped, completely agree.

Though rings can be an important part of discussing a career, they're only relevant with complete context. Focusing on rings > anything takes away from examining individual skill level to a ridiculous degree.

[MP.Trey]

Agreed. Clearly the only thing worth mentioning is finals winning percentage.

[Pushxx]

Everybody already knows this, but acting like it is the ultimate measure makes it easy to promote agendas.

[SouBeachTalents]

Disagree OP, Horry > Jordan

[UK2K]

Repped, completely agree.

Though rings can be an important part of discussing a career, they're only relevant with complete context. Focusing on rings > anything takes away from examining individual skill level to a ridiculous degree.

Yep, cause you could put MJ on this Sixers team, and they may not win a ring ever.

Then he would be known forevermore as the biggest stat padder in NBA history.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.

well yeah when he has people lauding him as the next best thing since Magic and he hasn't even made a conference finals..

at some point, if you're as good as people say you are (top 3-5 player, best PG since Magic) you think you could lead your stacked team to the WCF

[Dragic4Life]

So can we stop the "2/5" talk?

If you can't do that, don't be hypocritical.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Yep, cause you could put MJ on this Sixers team, and they may not win a ring ever.

Then he would be known forevermore as the biggest stat padder in NBA history.

so lets just disregard what we saw happen and base rankings off of complete hypotheticals

[RightToCensor]

OT: Just made my new Top 10 and I wanted to share.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Larry Bird
7. Magic Johnson
8. Oscar Robinson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Kobe Bryant

Shaq has an All-Time great peak, but his defense was always pedestrian and he underperformed away from Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.

Lebron is the most physically gifted perimeter player in NBA History, but he never reached his full potential. He's still a mid 30% 3PT shooter and a 70% FT shooter, I don't understand how you bill yourself as a King but you choose to rather focus on your appearance than advance your game. What is the difference from Rookie Lebron than 2015 Lebron rather than body mass?

[ralph_i_el]

Disagree OP, Horry > Jordan
Dammit you got me! Lol

Look at all the GOAT level players. Can you say that any of them were drafted into a bad situation? Maybe I'm misremembering my NBA history in this case. Bron was drafted into a bad franchise that couldn't put a great team around him, so he just left, but that's the only one I can think of. Everyone else got help pretty early on in their careers.

So, what about other HoF players who WERE put into shitty situations? Switch Duncan and Garnett's teams and does anyone really believe Duncan is winning a championship in Minny, or KG ISN'T winning multiple rings in SA? You can do this exercise with many all-time greats who don't have the resume to be a "GOAT Candidate"

[Akrazotile]

Kobe falls out of the top 50

[ralph_i_el]

So can we stop the "2/5" talk?

If you can't do that, don't be hypocritical.
The only time I've ever typed "2/5" is this exact moment. I hate LeBron, but making the finals and losing is not a knock against anyone.

[T_L_P]

Disagree OP, Horry > Jordan

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med0jkROsb1rifwxto1_r1_250.gif

Why does this even have to be mentioned? Horry has more rings than Jordan.

[Marchesk]

Why does this even have to be mentioned? Horry has more rings than Jordan.

It's kind of funny, but Horry isn't even a in the HOF. Hondo would be a better comparison, even though he's not on Jordan's level. Still an elite HOFer who was 8/8.

Hondo > MJ because of ring count wouldn't be true either, but at least he's in the freaking ballpark.

[T_L_P]

It's kind of funny, but Horry isn't even a in the HOF. Hondo would be a better comparison, even though he's not on Jordan's level. Still an elite HOFer who was 8/8.

Hondo > MJ because of ring count wouldn't be true either, but at least he's in the freaking ballpark.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med0jkROsb1rifwxto1_r1_250.gif

Again, why is this even being discussed? Hondo has 8 rings, Horry has 7, Jordan has 6.

It's simple math. Even preschoolers could work this out.

[sdot_thadon]

It's always been a silly way to evaluate anything dealing with individuals. I will say though, I feel winning or being successful is a validation of sorts, kinda like winning Mvps and other accolades. It should definitely factor in but not be the biggest factor.

[ralph_i_el]

It's always been a silly way to evaluate anything dealing with individuals. I will say though, I feel winning or being successful is a validation of sorts, kinda like winning Mvps and other accolades. It should definitely factor in but not be the biggest factor.
Oh I agree completely. Winning a championship is a great achievement. It's just not the be all end all.

[IncarceratedBob]

Horry has 0 aRings, he's got purely rRings.

You can't compare Alpha rings to Role Rings.

Alpha Rings = 1 ring
Beta Rings = .5 ring
Role Ring = .25 ring

Not all rings are created equally

[sdot_thadon]

Oh I agree completely. Winning a championship is a great achievement. It's just not the be all end all.
Right. :cheers:


Horry has 0 aRings, he's got purely rRings.

You can't compare Alpha rings to Role Rings.

Alpha Rings = 1 ring
Beta Rings = .5 ring
Role Ring = .25 ring

Not all rings are created equally

Totally agree they aren't equal, not sure about the breakdown of value though. It gets really tricky because you have to factor opposition, quality of teammates, whether or not said teammates are healthy or prime amongst other things. So many factors to rate rings.

[kennethgriffin]

it never was just all about rings

its about comparing ring counts to comparable players


#1 mvp level players to other mvp level players ( kobe/jordan/lebron )

#2 boarderline mvp players to others alike ( pippen/stockton/wade )

#3 midlevel allstar players to others alike ( pau/bosh/manu )
boarderline allstars ( odom/ron harper )

#4 role players ( horry/kerr/fisher )

#5 bums ( adam morrison/ dj mbenga )

[Quickening]

it never was just all about rings

its about comparing ring counts to comparable players


#1 mvp level players to other mvp level players ( kobe/jordan/lebron )

#2 boarderline mvp players to others alike ( pippen/stockton/wade )

#3 midlevel allstar players to others alike ( pau/bosh/manu )
boarderline allstars ( odom/ron harper )

#4 role players ( horry/kerr/fisher )

#5 bums ( adam morrison/ dj mbenga )



Doesn't really make sense... prime Kobe missed the playoffs, and exited first round. So if he would have been on a similar level team throughout his career and not gifted the most dominant player ever, he would be seen as a chris paul calibre player? Dat logic :facepalm

[BasedTom]

Let's say that Nash won a ring doing the same thing Kidd did in 2011. (much MUCH less than his prime, and within a couple of years from being completely done)

Would that drastically change his legacy? If Karl Malone won a ring on the lakers, would he have a higher standing?

[tpols]

Let's say that Nash won a ring doing the same thing Kidd did in 2011. (much MUCH less than his prime, and within a couple of years from being completely done)

Would that drastically change his legacy? If Karl Malone won a ring on the lakers, would he have a higher standing?

It is said that in order to get a true alpha ring one must play like an alpha during the season in question.


Kobe 3:19

[Bless Mathews]

In bball rings have to have more value in judging careers.

Foot ball a player is 1 out of 22.

Bball a player is 1 out of 5.

Can handle the ball EVERY possession and therefore have MUCH greater impact on WINNING.

Rings have to mean more then they do in bball.

How you gonna be a great if you can't dominate and lead your team to wins when there's only 4 other players??????

Bball you play offense and defense. Always on the floor.

Ultimate goal is winning.

If you don't get rings, you can't be considered better than someone that does.

Period.

Fucc a stat line.

[LeJohn Janes]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.
:applause:

I actually think the whole 'comparison culture' that surrounds the NBA is way over the top.

The game and rules have changed that much over the years that comparison is pretty much pointless. It's the same with most sports.

[Quickening]

In bball rings have to have more value in judging careers.

Foot ball a player is 1 out of 22.

Bball a player is 1 out of 5.

Can handle the ball EVERY possession and therefore have MUCH greater impact on WINNING.

Rings have to mean more then they do in bball.

How you gonna be a great if you can't dominate and lead your team to wins when there's only 4 other players??????

Bball you play offense and defense. Always on the floor.

Ultimate goal is winning.

If you don't get rings, you can't be considered better than someone that does.

Period.

Fucc a stat line.

1 out of 5... you ever heard of bench player you beta. This isnt fcking tennis, basketball is a team sport.

[ArbitraryWater]

It is said that in order to get a true alpha ring one must play like an alpha during the season in question.


Kobe 3:19

Kobe 3:19 huh? Well, paragraph 3:19 says, Pal, you can't touch me.

[ralph_i_el]

In bball rings have to have more value in judging careers.

Foot ball a player is 1 out of 22.

Bball a player is 1 out of 5.

Can handle the ball EVERY possession and therefore have MUCH greater impact on WINNING.

Rings have to mean more then they do in bball.

How you gonna be a great if you can't dominate and lead your team to wins when there's only 4 other players??????

Bball you play offense and defense. Always on the floor.

Ultimate goal is winning.

If you don't get rings, you can't be considered better than someone that does.

Period.

Fucc a stat line.

Yeah a single player has more impact in BBall than in any other sport. The opponents best player also has more impact than a football player. So?

A couple weak players also hurt you a lot more in basketball. Especially in this era with more freedom to double team.

[Bless Mathews]

1 out of 5... you ever heard of bench player you beta. This isnt fcking tennis, basketball is a team sport.

On the floor you fuccin imbecile.

So when there's 5 seconds left and player x has ball in hand, down by one, he gotta play against the bench,???

GTFO.

[ralph_i_el]

Doesn't really make sense... prime Kobe missed the playoffs, and exited first round. So if he would have been on a similar level team throughout his career and not gifted the most dominant player ever, he would be seen as a chris paul calibre player? Dat logic :facepalm
Yes

[Bless Mathews]

Yeah a single player has more impact in BBall than in any other sport. The opponents best player also has more impact than a football player. So?

A couple weak players also hurt you a lot more in basketball. Especially in this era with more freedom to double team.

It's the same on other team that "could have a couple weak players"

Smh.

Bottom line, bball your one out of 5 and play offense and defense.

A "great" player should and can will his team to WIN.

PERIOD.

fucc a stat line.

[Quickening]

On the floor you fuccin imbecile.

So when there's 5 seconds left and player x has ball in hand, down by one, he gotta play against the bench,???

GTFO.

Yes you're right, bench players don't make a difference...having great depth makes no difference whatsoever in basketball, it isn't like they're used frequently every game :facepalm

Kobe misses playoffs with poor team around him, wins championships with stacked team... Lebron spends first 7 years of his career on chitty team, wins no championships.Goes Miami 4 straight finals and 2 championships. But yes teams make no difference. You fcking retard


Yes

And that shows how ridiculous the ranking of players is when being drafted to a stacked franchise can literally elevate you from been ranked a top 100 player ever, to a top 5 player ever, even if you play no better individually throughout your career.

[tpols]

It's the same on other team that "could have a couple weak players"

Smh.

Bottom line, bball your one out of 5 and play offense and defense.

A "great" player should and can will his team to WIN.

PERIOD.

fucc a stat line.

:lol

[joe]

Winning is important though. When I play pick up ball, I have a friend that doesnt care whether he wins or loses- he just wants to play well individually. I dont respect that mentality- I like players who want to win. The same in the NBA. If Garnett wanted to win, he should have voiced his opinion to the Minnesota front office, or straight up left. That was his choice, and in my opinion, he deserves to be judged negatively for it. You can praise his loyalty, but he wasnt putting winning first evidently.

Look at Kobe. He flipped on the Lakers management every time they werent doing all they could to build a championship team. Look at Lebron, he left his home state to get a title worthy team. Jordan was in constant battles with management, forcing them to mold a good team around him.

Are you saying Iverson shouldnt be judged for his lack of rings? One of my favorite players ever, but there is a reason he didnt win a ring. He was hard to build around, shot a lot, needed a bunch of defensive specialists around him. That is part of his legacy, in my opinion.

And yes, people on this website are retarded. This forum has some of the lowest bball IQ I have ever witnessed. Dont put me in the same category with them, talking about 2/5 and Horry>Jordan. But rings matter to me, they are a huge factor.

[Bless Mathews]

Yes you're right, bench players don't make a difference...having great depth makes no difference whatsoever in basketball, it isn't like they're used frequently every game :facepalm

Kobe misses playoffs with poor team around him, wins championships with stacked team... Lebron spends first 7 years of his career on chitty team, wins no championships.Goes Miami 4 straight finals and 2 championships. But yes teams make no difference. You fcking retard



And that shows how ridiculous the ranking of players is when being drafted to a stacked franchise can literally elevate you from been ranked a top 100 player ever, to a top 5 player ever, even if you play no better individually throughout your career.

Watch your fingers fucc boy.

Of course teams are more stacked than others better bench blah blah blah.

It's like that in EVERY SPORT fucc tard.

Stay focused milk boy

When the game is played, are there not only 5 players on the floor? Do they not play boaf offense and defense?

Have MUCH greater impact for their TEAM THAN ANY OTHER SPORT.

Period.

Therefore, judging rings in bball has MOST importance than any other sport.

GTFO clown.

[ralph_i_el]

Kobe misses playoffs with poor team around him, wins championships with stacked team... Lebron spends first 7 years of his career on chitty team, wins no championships.Goes Miami 4 straight finals and 2 championships. But yes teams make no difference. You fcking retard



And that shows how ridiculous the ranking of players is when being drafted to a stacked franchise can literally elevate you from been ranked a top 100 player ever, to a top 5 player ever, even if you play no better individually throughout your career.
Exactly

[ralph_i_el]

A "great" player should and can will his team to WIN.


except there are always multiple "great" players in the league at the same time and they all play on teams of different quality. There is only one trophy to go around every year. Somebody loses.

[Bless Mathews]

Winning is important though. When I play pick up ball, I have a friend that doesnt care whether he wins or loses- he just wants to play well individually. I dont respect that mentality- I like players who want to win. The same in the NBA. If Garnett wanted to win, he should have voiced his opinion to the Minnesota front office, or straight up left. That was his choice, and in my opinion, he deserves to be judged negatively for it. You can praise his loyalty, but he wasnt putting winning first evidently.

Look at Kobe. He flipped on the Lakers management every time they werent doing all they could to build a championship team. Look at Lebron, he left his home state to get a title worthy team. Jordan was in constant battles with management, forcing them to mold a good team
around him.

Are you saying Iverson shouldnt be judged for his lack of rings? One of my favorite players ever, but there is a reason he didnt win a ring. He was hard to build around, shot a lot, needed a bunch of defensive specialists around him. That is part of his legacy, in my opinion.

And yes, people on this website are retarded. This forum has some of the lowest bball IQ I have ever witnessed. Dont put me in the same category with them, talking about 2/5 and Horry>Jordan. But rings matter to me, they are a huge factor.

People aren't serious when they type horry > Jordan.

And of course there is a balance.

Iverson is fOnky. One of goat guards.

He's not gonna be seen worse than a Sam cassell because cassell won rings.

But when discussing "all time" and or "goAt " status, of a "leader" "alpha" player, rings HAVE to be taken into CONSIDERATION.

What IF iverson won two rings?

His all time status would definitely be MUCH MUCH higher on the list.

[ralph_i_el]

Winning is important though. When I play pick up ball, I have a friend that doesnt care whether he wins or loses- he just wants to play well individually. I dont respect that mentality- I like players who want to win. The same in the NBA. If Garnett wanted to win, he should have voiced his opinion to the Minnesota front office, or straight up left. That was his choice, and in my opinion, he deserves to be judged negatively for it. You can praise his loyalty, but he wasnt putting winning first evidently.

Look at Kobe. He flipped on the Lakers management every time they werent doing all they could to build a championship team. Look at Lebron, he left his home state to get a title worthy team. Jordan was in constant battles with management, forcing them to mold a good team around him.

Are you saying Iverson shouldnt be judged for his lack of rings? One of my favorite players ever, but there is a reason he didnt win a ring. He was hard to build around, shot a lot, needed a bunch of defensive specialists around him. That is part of his legacy, in my opinion.

And yes, people on this website are retarded. This forum has some of the lowest bball IQ I have ever witnessed. Dont put me in the same category with them, talking about 2/5 and Horry>Jordan. But rings matter to me, they are a huge factor.

KG did that...remember how he left a won a ring as soon as he had a great team:facepalm ?

Iverson did have a chance to play with Melo though, and he may have won a ring if he 1. Cared about practice and staying in shape and 2. didn't get blackballed from the league for being a dick.

Iverson is an interesting case because, while he was great, he's overrated and didn't dedicate himself to playing good, winning ball.



I'm not saying championships don't matter....I'm just saying that you have to examine the context of a players career, and realize how much luck is necessary to win a championship, which is a team accomplishment anyways.

[Bless Mathews]

except there are always multiple "great" players in the league at the same time and they all play on teams of different quality. There is only one trophy to go around every year. Somebody loses.

Of course.

But if you go 10-15 seasons and don't get one, how great were they really?

[joe]

KG did that...remember how he left a won a ring as soon as he had a great team:facepalm ?

Iverson did have a chance to play with Melo though, and he may have won a ring if he 1. Cared about practice and staying in shape and 2. didn't get blackballed from the league for being a dick.

Iverson is an interesting case because, while he was good, he's overrated and didn't dedicate himself to playing good, winning ball.

Let me be more clear. People say that KG would have won X amount of titles had he played with a better team. He would have won just as much as Duncan, etc. To me, a star player is responsible for that. You cant just blame the team you are drafted to. They have you for what, 5 years max before you get to choose your team? And as a star you also have the freedom to pressure the front office into building a winning team.

Garnett is a great player, he proved it for years in Minnie and definitely in Boston. I am just saying, I do take rings into account, and the amount of rings into account. One ring is nice, but he isn't comparable to Duncan, and I think the ring disparity is a huge factor in realizing who is the greater player.

[HOoopCityJones]

Only idiots think ring count is all there is to measuring a player's career , there's something call a body of work and all accomplishments should be taken into consideration.

The problem with ISH is everyone thinks all you have to do is throw a hypothetical on something and you can disapprove how great a player was or how much their impact meant nothing because of Player X or Y. That's how dumb shit like Horry > Jordan gets legs.

[3ball]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput


You're ignorant just for saying this

[3ball]

A "great" player should and can will his team to WIN.

PERIOD.


:applause:

Dirk says hi.

[3ball]

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball


:roll: This from a guy who has never PLAYED basketball in his life :roll:
.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

You're ignorant just for saying this

What if it's true though? :confusedshrug:

[ralph_i_el]

Let me be more clear. People say that KG would have won X amount of titles had he played with a better team. He would have won just as much as Duncan, etc. To me, a star player is responsible for that. You cant just blame the team you are drafted to. They have you for what, 5 years max before you get to choose your team? And as a star you also have the freedom to pressure the front office into building a winning team.

Garnett is a great player, he proved it for years in Minnie and definitely in Boston. I am just saying, I do take rings into account, and the amount of rings into account. One ring is nice, but he isn't comparable to Duncan, and I think the ring disparity is a huge factor in realizing who is the greater player.

5 years before you can pick your own team, but that's with staying on the rookie pay scale for your 5th season (qualifying offer), and then your own team has your Bird Rights, so they can sign you over the cap, plus they can over more money.

So if you're drafted by a team that has, idk, David Robinson or Shaq on it, you get those 5 years on a stacked team, then get to resign with that team on a deal that let's them go over the cap (so stacked teams can stay stacked). If you want to leave, you actually have to go to a team that has cap space (which means they probably don't have a great roster)

The Bird Rule is actually bullshit IMO.

[Big Cheese]

rings are more about the situation you are in than individual greatness.

[joe]

5 years before you can pick your own team, but that's with staying on the rookie pay scale for your 5th season (qualifying offer), and then your own team has your Bird Rights, so they can sign you over the cap, plus they can over more money.

So if you're drafted by a team that has, idk, David Robinson or Shaq on it, you get those 5 years on a stacked team, then get to resign with that team on a deal that let's them go over the cap (so stacked teams can stay stacked). If you want to leave, you actually have to go to a team that has cap space (which means they probably don't have a great roster)

The Bird Rule is actually bullshit IMO.

Prioritizing winning is a thing, though. Harden chose to leave the Thunder because he wanted the max. Now, maybe he wins a title with the Rockets and that is well and good. But we all know his best chance at a title was taking less money with the Thunder.

I don't blame anyone for getting their money. That is the reality of human nature and the world we live in. But if your priority is getting that extra however many million from your home team, and your team sucks, that is on you. I am not going to give you a pass when I judge you as a player.

When you are out on the court, haven't you ever beaten the more talented team because your team wanted it more? The other team is joking around, taking bad shots, playing arrogantly. And you fight for it and you take the win, because you were going for the win. Just because the team you beat has more talent does not mean they deserve to be ranked as better than you. How you play, what motivates you, what drives you... all matters.

The difference is, we would be thought of as overcompetitive for wanting to win so badly. But for an NBA player, it is kind of necessary.

[3ball]

can we please stop boiling down entire careers to ring count


I agree... Forget rings, let's just go by stats.

In which case, MJ and Wilt are GOAT..

Or if we just go by rings, it's MJ and Russell.

Maybe we should just go by Finals MVP's?... In which case, it's MJ.

looks like there's only one guy that's fulfills every criteria... :confusedshrug:

[joe]

rings are more about the situation you are in than individual greatness.

Create your own situation. Nobody forced Melo to re-sign with the Knicks. Nobody forced Ben Gordon to sign with the Bobcats. Harden chased the max contract and likely lowered his chances to win a title.

Ginobli, Parker, Duncan, took less money. Lebron went to a franchise that was serious about winning and knew how to do it. Jordan freaked out on the front office whenever they added weak players, or weren't taking winning seriously. Kobe demanded a trade when the Lakers were screwing around.

Then you have Nash, guy fought hard as hell for a title and never got one. It is sad, but does it matter? Of course it does. He couldn't win. That affects his ranking.

[3ball]

Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win, their chances of winning more than once are slim, no matter how well they play.


Huh?

If they have enough support to win but they still don't win, then they are to blame.. Why make excuses for them if you concede that they have "enough support to win"?

And overall, there is obviously a strong correlation with superior performance and winning championships:

For example, if Player A averages 36 PPG, 8 APG, and 53% in the Finals and Player B averages 24 PPG, 6 APG and 46%, Player A is more likely to win more rings.. A lot more likely.

[Quickening]

Huh?

If they have enough support to win but they still don't win, then they are to blame.. Why make excuses for them if you concede that they have "enough support to win"?

And overall, there is obviously a strong correlation with superior performance and winning championships:

For example, if Player A averages 36 PPG, 8 APG, and 53% in the Finals and Player B averages 24 PPG, 6 APG and 46%, Player A is more likely to win more rings.. A lot more likely.

Jordan didn't win anything in his peak, the late 80s... he won all his rings when he was a lesser player in the 90s but with a more stacked roster, and less stacked competition.

MJ could have easily gone his career with no rings if he his cast had stayed mediocre and the competition stayed stacked like the 80s, would that have made him a lesser player?

[Chadwin]

rings are more about the situation you are in than individual greatness.

Most of the time I would agree, but then I think of 94 Hakeem.

after 94 Hakeem, no excuses for any star player

[ralph_i_el]

Prioritizing winning is a thing, though. Harden chose to leave the Thunder because he wanted the max. Now, maybe he wins a title with the Rockets and that is well and good. But we all know his best chance at a title was taking less money with the Thunder.

I don't blame anyone for getting their money. That is the reality of human nature and the world we live in. But if your priority is getting that extra however many million from your home team, and your team sucks, that is on you. I am not going to give you a pass when I judge you as a player.

When you are out on the court, haven't you ever beaten the more talented team because your team wanted it more? The other team is joking around, taking bad shots, playing arrogantly. And you fight for it and you take the win, because you were going for the win. Just because the team you beat has more talent does not mean they deserve to be ranked as better than you. How you play, what motivates you, what drives you... all matters.

The difference is, we would be thought of as overcompetitive for wanting to win so badly. But for an NBA player, it is kind of necessary.

Harden wouldn't have gotten credit for the Thunders rings anyways....

I'm just saying, for every top-10 player there are a few guys who were at the same level, but never were in the right place at the right time. Like it or not, everyone in your average top-10 list had a charmed career in terms of the talent around them.

[ralph_i_el]

:roll: This from a guy who has never PLAYED basketball in his life :roll:
.

Sorry for quitting bball to play a sport I was really really good at. I made an Olympic Development team for water polo. America is divided into 13 "zones" for water polo, and each zone gets 13 players in each age group. I made one of those squads. Water polo and handball are the two sports closest to basketball in terms of strategy. I guarantee I was better at wpolo than you ever were at BBall.

Can't find a pick-up water polo game where I live, so I play BBall at the rec center twice a week, and shoot at least 100 shots ~5 days a week. **** off.
PROOFhttp://i.imgur.com/mkx9S9d.jpg[/

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Sorry for quitting bball to play a sport I was really really good at. I made an Olympic Development team for water polo. America is divided into 13 "zones" for water polo, and each zone gets 13 players in each age group. I made one of those squads. Water polo and handball are the two sports closest to basketball in terms of strategy. I guarantee I was better at wpolo than you ever were at BBall.

Can't find a pick-up water polo game where I live, so I play BBall at the rec center twice a week, and shoot at least 100 shots ~5 days a week. **** off.

The appropriate response to 3ball 9/10 times.

[Bless Mathews]

:applause:

Dirk says hi.


Huh?

Dirk is a great player and he got a ring.

??????!!

[Bless Mathews]

Jordan didn't win anything in his peak, the late 80s... he won all his rings when he was a lesser player in the 90s but with a more stacked roster, and less stacked competition.

MJ could have easily gone his career with no rings if he his cast had stayed mediocre and the competition stayed stacked like the 80s, would that have made him a lesser player?

Jordan's was not late 80's

It was far into mid 90's. He never really didn't have a non peak

His game kept expanding. His jumper. Turn around. All developed to Unstopable in 90's
Wtf you even typin about?

[Quickening]

Jordan's was not late 80's

It was far into mid 90's. He never really didn't have a non peak

Wtf you even typin about?

Uwotm8? Jordan was already being heralded as the GOAT, before he won any titles... he was a shadow of his 80s, early 90s self when he won his last 3 titles, and yet people think titles are the be all and end all.

You retard.

[Bless Mathews]

Uwotm8? Jordan was already being heralded as the GOAT, before he won any titles... he was a shadow of his 80s, early 90s self when he won his last 3 titles, and yet people think titles are the be all and end all.

You retard.


Lol.

Yea cus leading the league in scoring 6 straight years in 90's isn't good?

And his game developed more. Much better overall player.

Stop stat whoring.

Get off the innanent. Your moms needs to send me some more ass pics.

[Quickening]

Lol.

Yea cus leading the league in scoring 6 straight years in 90's isn't good?

And his game developed more. Much better overall player.

Stop stat whoring.

Get off the innanent. Your moms needs to send me some more ass pics.

Mentions stats, then says stop stat whoring, retards gonna retard

[3ball]

when he was a lesser player in the 90s


1990-1993 was the absolute peak of MJ's powers.. anyone watching at the time knows this.. you have no idea how dumb (and young) this makes you look that you would venture to say otherwise - you've been exposed.





but with a more stacked roster


Exact same roster in 1989 as 1991 - it's just that MJ had built Pippen up so he wouldn't choke anymore like he did in Game 7 of 1990 ECF, where Pippen admitted to (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) costing the Bulls a trip to the Finals.





and less stacked competition.


the 80's was the most competitive the league has ever been - there is no other era that can match it... But the 90's comes WAY closer to the 80's than today's game (i.e. Shaq/Penny are WAY better than Hibbert/George... Zo/Hardaway too).

Also, every player and coach says the 90's were tough, physical and brutal, whereas it's widely known that today's defenses are spaced-out and soft.

But the easiest way to measure the championship caliber of Jordan's competition is to count how many teams with Finals experience Jordan defeated in the playoffs: in 13 seasons, MJ defeated 6 teams with Finals experience (Detroit, Portland, Utah, New York, Orlando, Lakers), compared to only 3 for Lebron (Spurs, Boston, Detroit) in his 12 seasons.

It's the same thing with MJ's stats - his stats were SO GOAT, that he could literally spot Lebron two years of garbage stats as a Wizard and still have better stats in the all the categories, most notably (PER, WS/48)... and Lebron still has several more years of statistical decline left that will widen the existing gap.

[Im Still Ballin]

1990-1993 was the absolute peak of MJ's powers.. anyone watching at the time knows this.. you have no idea how dumb (and young) this makes you look that you would venture to say otherwise - you've been exposed.



Exact same roster in 1989 as 1991 - it's just that MJ had built Pippen up so he wouldn't choke anymore like he did in Game 7 of 1990 ECF, where Pippen admitted to (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367910) costing the Bulls a trip to the Finals.



the 80's was the most competitive the league has ever been - there is no other era that can match it... But the 90's comes WAY closer to the 80's than today's game (i.e. Shaq/Penny are WAY better than Hibbert/George... Zo/Hardaway too).

Also, every player and coach says the 90's were tough, physical and brutal, whereas it's widely known that today's defenses are spaced-out and soft.

But the easiest way to measure the championship caliber of Jordan's competition is to count how many teams with Finals experience Jordan defeated in the playoffs: there are 5 teams with Finals experience that Jordan defeated in the playoffs, compared to only 3 for Lebron (Spurs, Boston, Detroit)... Jordan doesn't even need the Pacers or Lakers to best Lebron in this area (or any legacy-saving shots either).

It's the same thing with MJ's stats - his stats were SO GOAT, that he could literally spot Lebron two years as a Wizard and still have better stats in the main categories (PER, WS/48)... and Lebron still has several more years of statistical decline left that will widen the existing gap.
Jordan played in eras of weak defenses that are comparitvely weaker to the modern era that allows zones. Illegal defense eras had defenses hands tied behind their backs,

Physicality is in-fact, NOT good defense. Physicality is rash, erratic and overstated. Good defense is communication, teamwork, spacing and angles. The 90's are often cited as a great defensive era with towering shotblockers at the center position in the likes of Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo... Defense is WAY more than blocks and steals, it is why when you compare the advanced statistics of the 90's to the 2000's and 2010's, it is inferior defensively.

Examples of "Physical, yet poor 90's defense"
http://giant.gfycat.com/PoshBleakIvorygull.gif
-Notice the offensive freedom, and ease to drive to the hoop? Notice the late shotblock attempt which would be called a chest to chest poster on physical defense?
http://giant.gfycat.com/ImaginaryDevotedHoneybee.gif
-Notice the lack of spacial awareness? The ease of drive to the hoop? The late shotblock attempt which would then interpretted as 'physical'?

Now for some examples of good defense
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-KIom4maMFs/STc0_Mq5DlI/AAAAAAAAOrY/zT3MdULists/s1600/2-3%2BZone.jpg
-Notice the complete lack of attention for the two Lakers on either wings, the intentional coverage of floor space to deny ball dribble penetration... Effective scheme to stop a superstar, to beat it one would need to have the adequate floor spacing via shooters, and effective passing/offball movement

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lebronceleb2.gif
-Notice the shading of the ball defender, and lane protection, complete disregard for the Miami wing players... This subtle zoning forces Lebron to take a midrange jumper when in previous eras where zones were outlawed via the Illegal Defenses rule schemes, the shading defenders would have to be covering their men unless they wished to get a violation of Illegal defense. Lebron would be able to drive to the hoop alot easier under ID rules.

[Quickening]

1990-1993 was the absolute peak of MJ's powers.. anyone watching at the time knows this.. you have no idea how dumb (and young) this makes you look that you would venture to say otherwise - you've been exposed.


MJ was better in the late 80s, you're a typical example of someone who lets championships cloud their judgement, exact type of person this thread is aimed at :applause:

Oh and everyone knows the 90s era was by far the weakest in modern day basketball

[ralph_i_el]

Jordan played in eras of weak defenses that are comparitvely weaker to the modern era that allows zones. Illegal defense eras had defenses hands tied behind their backs,

Physicality is in-fact, NOT good defense. Physicality is rash, erratic and overstated. Good defense is communication, teamwork, spacing and angles. The 90's are often cited as a great defensive era with towering shotblockers at the center position in the likes of Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo... Defense is WAY more than blocks and steals, it is why when you compare the advanced statistics of the 90's to the 2000's and 2010's, it is inferior defensively.

Examples of "Physical, yet poor 90's defense"
http://giant.gfycat.com/PoshBleakIvorygull.gif
-Notice the offensive freedom, and ease to drive to the hoop? Notice the late shotblock attempt which would be called a chest to chest poster on physical defense?
http://giant.gfycat.com/ImaginaryDevotedHoneybee.gif
-Notice the lack of spacial awareness? The ease of drive to the hoop? The late shotblock attempt which would then interpretted as 'physical'?

Now for some examples of good defense
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-KIom4maMFs/STc0_Mq5DlI/AAAAAAAAOrY/zT3MdULists/s1600/2-3%2BZone.jpg
-Notice the complete lack of attention for the two Lakers on either wings, the intentional coverage of floor space to deny ball dribble penetration... Effective scheme to stop a superstar, to beat it one would need to have the adequate floor spacing via shooters, and effective passing/offball movement

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lebronceleb2.gif
-Notice the shading of the ball defender, and lane protection, complete disregard for the Miami wing players... This subtle zoning forces Lebron to take a midrange jumper when in previous eras where zones were outlawed via the Illegal Defenses rule schemes, the shading defenders would have to be covering their men unless they wished to get a violation of Illegal defense. Lebron would be able to drive to the hoop alot easier under ID rules.


Future repped:applause: Lol @ 3Ball comparing Shaq/Penny to Hibbert/George....Shaq/Penny (at 22/23 years old lol) beat MJ....Lebron beat Hibbert/George

[3ball]

in 2001, zones were permitted


But in 2005, the NBA introduced a new defensive 3 seconds rule, which banned zones INSIDE the paint.

After the rule change, zones were only allowed outside the paint.. INSIDE the paint, the new defensive 3 seconds rule took over - this rule forced defenders to stay within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of their man at all times, or vacate the paint - this is the very definition of man-to-man defense.

Furthermore, it's a VERY STRICT brand of man-to-man: a man's arm is only 3 feet long and the paint is 16 x 19 feet, so paint defenders must stand right next to their man at all times, even when both players are inside the paint.

Previous era paint defenders were allowed this armslength provision too, but they could also stay in the lane if their man was OUT of armslength reach - the defender's man could be anywhere inside the paint and up to 3 feet outside the lane on either side, as stipulated in rule Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines:

2b. "When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area."

Rule 2b allowed paint defenders to stand far away from their man - this is definition of zone defense.. Indeed, zone defense was allowed in the paint in previous eras.. Otoh, today's game requires man-to-man defense in the paint, as stipulated by the armslength provision (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) in the defensive 3 seconds rule.





Illegal defense also did not allow the doubling of an off-ball player


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/573113292e852dcb8f5fe242c53e3982.gif

Why would anyone need to double-team an off-ball player in the no-spacing environment shown above?... That would be like telling a girl with double FF's that she needs an enhancement.

Defenders didn't have to help as much in previous eras - with no spacing, they were already there... that's the DEFINITION of no-spacing.





Illegal defense also did not allow the doubling of an off-ball player


Not only is the double-teaming of off-ball players not applicable to no-spacing environments where defenders are already in close proximity, but soft double-teaming of off-ball players occurs automatically in the paint area anyway, due to legal paint-camping.

Under the current rules, if an offensive player was standing on the left block, his defender must stand right next to him (within "armslength", as stipulated by today's defensive 3 seconds rule).. Accordingly, if a different offensive player is posting up on the RIGHT block, the left block defender can't move off his man further than armslength to help.. Ideally, the left block defender should stand right under the rim halfway in between both blocks - but he can't because that's 8 feet away and out of armslength of his man on the left block.

However, in a previous era, since the offensive player on the left block is within 3 feet of either side of the paint, the left block defender can paint-camp anywhere inside the paint, as stipulated in Rule 2b of the Illegal Defense Guidelines.. Therefore, the left block defender would be able to paint-camp right under the rim, halfway in between both blocks, and in optimal position to help on both post players and penetrators - with their paint presence, paint-campers automatically and perpetually provide this type of soft-double team help.





There also was no 5 second back to the basket rule that exists now (AKA the Kevin Johnson rule).


It's a well-documented, statistical fact that 1-on-1 results in lower percentage shot attempts than any other type of offense.. So letting a guy dribble the ball for 10 seconds until he can take his man is a low percentage shot - like, if Lebron had to do that every play, his percentage would go DOWN, not up.

There used to be two or three guys that did this, but it was never a successful style - the NBA certainly didn't ban it because it was having success - they banned it because they thought it looked too boring to casual fans.. They replaced it with rules that made penetration easier (hand-check ban) and cleared the paint (defensive 3 seconds) - consequently, high quality shots are more available than ever before, so the tougher 1-on-1 shots aren't pursued as much.





http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/911d3cac30b219754c53b4b156428f49.gif

- Notice the single coverage, open paint


INDEED!!!!!!!!!.... :biggums:





today's game allows strong zones (floods)


http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2015/0107/Klay-New-03.gif


Today's defensive 3 seconds rule and spacing forces bigs to defend in a flood and shading-type fashion, which means they must come AWAY from the hoop and defend a guard off-the-dribble, as Pau is seen trying to do above.

This is a major disadvantage for the big man - today's game forces bigs to trade in their strength and advantage of taking on smaller defenders AT the rim (paint-camping), for a major disadvantage of contesting quicker players on the perimeter (today's floods and shading).

And clearly, the stats prove that today's floods and shading haven't made scoring or penetration more difficult.. Teams score more today than in the mid-90's and it's a statistical fact that most plays in today's game are dribble-penetration plays - dribble-penetration occurs more than ever before due to the hand-check ban (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) coupled with wider, spacing-enhanced driving lanes.

[kennethgriffin]

Doesn't really make sense... prime Kobe missed the playoffs, and exited first round. So if he would have been on a similar level team throughout his career and not gifted the most dominant player ever, he would be seen as a chris paul calibre player? Dat logic :facepalm

doesn't really make sense... primes are more than just 2 seasons.

and if we're going based on best statitistics as someones prime.

michaels bests were 1987,1988,1989
lebrons were 2008,2009,2010
kobes was 2006,2007,2008




why is it when kobe dials it back to play more of a team game. hes past his prime. but when jordan and lebron do it theyre entering their prime?


double standard?






















rat poison/ether/take a lap and another L

[Bless Mathews]

MJ was better in the late 80s, you're a typical example of someone who lets championships cloud their judgement, exact type of person this thread is aimed at :applause:

Oh and everyone knows the 90s era was by far the weakest in modern day basketball

Your a 22 year old at best.

That googled Jordan's stats and looked at his numbers.

Jordan was NOT at his peak in 80's.

His game was more one dimensional.

Stop being an idiot.

His jumper , turn around , pull up j was not even close to what it was in 80's.

Just stop fucc boy.

[gts]

When you examine a players career you look at it in it's entirety, not just the numbers, not just the accolades not just the accomplishments.. ring counts are part of the picture but not all of the picture


you have to look at it all, that's why we know Horry isn't better than Jordan, because we see the whole thing...

problem is here on ISH there's too many fanboys that pick and choose when to look at the whole picture...

[Bless Mathews]

3bAll murkin clowns

[nathanjizzle]

water polo:roll: how much competition is there in water polo :roll: foreal, out of 1000 people, maybe 3 might play water polo. :lol

"i play pickup, i shoot x amount of shots a week"

:lol youre a joke. you must live in a very white suburban neighborhood. im thinking utah, idaho, or a northeast state

[Quickening]

Your a 22 year old at best.

That googled Jordan's stats and looked at his numbers.

Jordan was NOT at his peak in 80's.

His game was more one dimensional.

Stop being an idiot.

His jumper , turn around , pull up j was not even close to what it was in 80's.

Just stop fucc boy.

So he became a better player in the early 90s rather than the late 80s, yet his fg%, TS%, 3 point%, ft%, assists, rebound and ppg were on average all better in the late 80s than any 3 year stretch of the 90s.

Bu...bu.. but he won championships so he must have been a better player :lol :roll: :applause:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

water polo:roll: how much competition is there in water polo :roll: foreal, out of 1000 people, maybe 3 might play water polo. :lol

"i play pickup, i shoot x amount of shots a week"

:lol youre a joke. you must live in a very white suburban neighborhood. im thinking utah, idaho, or a northeast state

Are you serious? Water polo is competitive as hell, and it's a pretty brutal sport to play. Cheap shots galore, from what I've heard, and you've gotta manage to be physical while in the water.

Nothing wrong with pickup either, stop being such a purposefully ignorant ****.

[Bless Mathews]

So he became a better player in the early 90s rather than the late 80s, yet his fg%, TS%, 3 point%, ft%, assists, rebound and ppg were on average all better in the late 80s than any 3 year stretch of the 90s.

Bu...bu.. but he won championships so he must have been a better player :lol :roll: :applause:

Stat whore.

For the 5th fuccin time...

HIS GAME DEVELOPED. HE HAD MORE OPTIONS IN HIS ARESENAL.

THATS WHY FUCC TARD.

READ MUUFUCCA. READ!!!!!

[ralph_i_el]

water polo:roll: how much competition is there in water polo :roll: foreal, out of 1000 people, maybe 3 might play water polo. :lol

"i play pickup, i shoot x amount of shots a week"

:lol youre a joke. you must live in a very white suburban neighborhood. im thinking utah, idaho, or a northeast state
I'm a Wizards fan from Utah :rolleyes: don't be a ****tard.

Water polo is the toughest team sport. Ive had my nose broken twice, once requiring serious surgery, ive had concussions, black eyes, gashes from guys who clip their nails into points. I headbutted a kid in the face (his dad was actually a college coach who was recruiting me, and he said his kid deserved it). I held someone underwater till he almost drowned. I broke two fingers punching a guy in the head. Etc etc..... Picture the NBA in the 90's, and it's about half as brutal as your average high school wpolo league

I traveled up and down the east coast almost every weekend in high school. I spent summers in California training with some of the best clubs. I was all-conference in college.

Yeah less people play water polo for the same reason less people play lacrosse. It's not for you poor folk.

[knicksman]

Stop making excuses for bran. The real reason why hes not a winner because hes a stat first win second type of guy. And you can tell it from his stats and skillset. Win first guys focus first on whats important in winning-tough shot creation. While stat first goes for passing which is the least important skill for a scorer. So its not a surprise hes 2/5 with the most stacked team of all time.

[ILLsmak]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.

I agree, but I also understand the nature of things. It wouldn't even be fair if it was a single player sport. When two people of similar talent go against each other, luck is involved on a pretty high level. That's something nobody wants to talk about. One crazy break can determine an outcome.

When you account for 9 other people and 3 refs, it's even harder. Still, most people assume when everything else is equal, winning is what matters. However, (as I have said a million times... and let me say it again) I look at how players respond in circumstances. How do they play with their back against the wall? What is the most impressive thing they've done? Consistency is overrated to me, I want to be amazed. That's why I think Dirk is a great talent. Top 10... no, but that run blew my mind. Even tho I saw it coming after the first series he went ape shit.

Edit: AT physical but inferior D (or whatever was said), the thing is... you can come up with many clips of players in today's NBA WIDE OPEN. Or getting drives where nobody comes in, too. Even if you get a full head of steam and are bumped 4 feet from the basket, it's a make-able shot. Jussayin.

-Smak

[knicksman]

The better you are at the toughest job(shot creation) in basketball, the greater the chance of winning. So its not a surprise that kobe is 5/7 and jordan is 6/6 while a player who can only score during blowouts or non clutch situations is 2/5

[ralph_i_el]

Stop making excuses for bran. The real reason why hes not a winner because hes a stat first win second type of guy. And you can tell it from his stats and skillset. Win first guys focus first on whats important in winning-tough shot creation. While stat first goes for passing which is the least important skill for a scorer. So its not a surprise hes 2/5 with the most stacked team of all time.

:rolleyes: cool thanks bud. Your input is appreciated.

Obviously creating easy shots is much more important than creating bad shots. That's why the best offensive squads in the league are shooting the most corner 3's and shots at the rim.

Quit making me defend Bron. I don't like him. I'm just not an idiot. He's obviously a great scorer. You can't keep him away from the rim. He's evolved into an excellent catch and shoot player. Extremely efficient post game. He's just not aestheticly pleasing.

[knicksman]

:rolleyes: cool thanks bud. Your input is appreciated.

Obviously creating easy shots is much more important than creating bad shots. That's why the best offensive squads in the league are shooting the most corner 3's and shots at the rim.

Quit making me defend Bron. I don't like him. I'm just not an idiot. He's obviously a great scorer. You can't keep him away from the rim. He's evolved into an excellent catch and shoot player. Extremely efficient post game. He's just not aestheticly pleasing.

yet teams with half court players wins most of the time

[AussieG]

But it's the only way a simplified mind knows how to rate players? How else can you rate them??

Sasha Vujacic is clearly better than Dirk. He has more rings!

Playoff experience does count though.. you never really know what players are made of until they make the playoffs. But rings aren't everything.

[tpols]

But it's the only way a simplified mind knows how to rate players? How else can you rate them??

Sasha Vujacic is clearly better than Dirk. He has more rings!

Playoff experience does count though.. you never really know what players are made of until they make the playoffs. But rings aren't everything.

Damn.. youre taking an extremist Robert Horry level look at this smh.

If, for example, you are anointed a top 3 pure PG of all time like chris paul.. based on per records.. and you NEVER WIN SHIT.. you deserve flack.

Chris paul has had good teams.. David west 20/10 and tyson chandler and Peja and Blake and deandre are great help.. not even getting out the second round??

Winning matter

Fucc a statline.

[Bless Mathews]

Damn.. youre taking an extremist Robert Horry level look at this smh.

If, for example, you are anointed a top 3 pure PG of all time like chris paul.. based on per records.. and you NEVER WIN SHIT.. you deserve flack.

Chris paul has had good teams.. David west 20/10 and tyson chandler and Peja and Blake and deandre are great help.. not even getting out the second round??

Winning matter

Fucc a statline.


http://m.quickmeme.com/img/25/258f5d9cc1a2381e56d006d11e60e87b64b1a1e00d0d3f3fa2 cb2476a53db098.jpg

[AussieG]

Winning matters. You can't rate a player if he puts up empty stats on losing teams his whole career. But winning a ring is more about having a complete team, than being an MVP player or not.

Too many people forget that NBA is about teams, teams win championships (and coaches). It's not just about having good players but it's also about the weakest links.

It's not just about one player. Not even Jordan could win rings without Jackson and Pippen, and the role players who could knock down there threes. If the role players don't knock down their threes, everything falls apart.

What's that got to do with Jordan being a GOAT or not? Teams work together, it's never just about one player. It's just that having a great player like Jordan makes it easier. Especially in the clutch.

But individual players are more marketable and bring in the cash.

[ralph_i_el]

yet teams with half court players wins most of the time
Ummm yeah? So LeBron isn't a great half court player anymore? Is it 2006 again? Is Bush still president? Have you heard that new Gnarls Barkley song?:facepalm

[nathanjizzle]

I'm a Wizards fan from Utah :rolleyes: don't be a ****tard.

Water polo is the toughest team sport. Ive had my nose broken twice, once requiring serious surgery, ive had concussions, black eyes, gashes from guys who clip their nails into points. I headbutted a kid in the face (his dad was actually a college coach who was recruiting me, and he said his kid deserved it). I held someone underwater till he almost drowned. I broke two fingers punching a guy in the head. Etc etc..... Picture the NBA in the 90's, and it's about half as brutal as your average high school wpolo league

I traveled up and down the east coast almost every weekend in high school. I spent summers in California training with some of the best clubs. I was all-conference in college.

Yeah less people play water polo for the same reason less people play lacrosse. It's not for you poor folk.

im not reading any of this lame shits.

[ralph_i_el]

Damn.. youre taking an extremist Robert Horry level look at this smh.

If, for example, you are anointed a top 3 pure PG of all time like chris paul.. based on per records.. and you NEVER WIN SHIT.. you deserve flack.

Chris paul has had good teams.. David west 20/10 and tyson chandler and Peja and Blake and deandre are great help.. not even getting out the second round??

Winning matter

Fucc a statline.
CP3 had a few years of decent teams in NO, but when your 2nd and 3rd best players are David West and Tyson Chandler, you aren't really in a position to win a championship. He has the squad to do it now though.

[knicksman]

Winning matters. You can't rate a player if he puts up empty stats on losing teams his whole career. But winning a ring is more about having a complete team, than being an MVP player or not.

Too many people forget that NBA is about teams, teams win championships (and coaches). It's not just about having good players but it's also about the weakest links.

It's not just about one player. Not even Jordan could win rings without Jackson and Pippen, and the role players who could knock down there threes. If the role players don't knock down their threes, everything falls apart.

What's that got to do with Jordan being a GOAT or not? Teams work together, it's never just about one player. It's just that having a great player like Jordan makes it easier. Especially in the clutch.

But individual players are more marketable and bring in the cash.

Jordan listened to phil, a nobody at that time, and changed his approach from a statpadder to a winner. Meanwhile bran still cant let go of his stats thus 2/5

[knicksman]

Ummm yeah? So LeBron isn't a great half court player anymore? Is it 2006 again? Is Bush still president? Have you heard that new Gnarls Barkley song?:facepalm

Have you seen the recent finals? Looks like youre just another stat nerd. As long as he has stats, it means hes a great scorer. LOL

[24-Inch_Chrome]

im not reading any of this lame shits.

I'm not surprised, it looked like there were some big words in there.

[ralph_i_el]

im not reading any of this lame shits.
Well if you went to Chicago Public schools, I'd be surprised if you COULD.

[ralph_i_el]

Have you seen the recent finals? Looks like youre just another stat nerd. As long as he has stats, it means hes a great scorer. LOL

The Heat got whooped by the spurs, so Bron isn't great in the half court? :facepalm

The dude that literally ran an offense that made the finals 4 straight times and won twice....in the playoffs....where allegedly you have to be great in the half court to win (which I agree with). 6'8" with the skills to beat teams up off the PnR, insane court vision, insane finishing ability, great post up game.

Basketball is more than ISO scoring. That style is steadily falling out of favor, sorry bro.

[PsychoBe]

boiled down: 5 > 2

[knicksman]

The Heat got whooped by the spurs, so Bron isn't great in the half court? :facepalm

The dude that literally ran an offense that made the finals 4 straight times and won twice....in the playoffs....where allegedly you have to be great in the half court to win (which I agree with). 6'8" with the skills to beat teams up off the PnR, insane court vision, insane finishing ability, great post up game.

Basketball is more than ISO scoring. That style is steadily falling out of favor, sorry bro.

The heat got whooped because bran only scores during garbage time. Hes a no show when the game is close. It happened in 2013 and it happened again in 2014.

And thats the problem. He rans the offense to get his stats and be excused when they lose. He doesnt have a winner mentality. The winners dont care about stats and wants to play off the ball instead because they knew scoring is tough when you have to do other things. Thats what separates bran from winners. Winners provide the most important/hardest skill to the table which is tough shot creation, while bran provides redundant skills that can be supplied easily by other players aka passing, defense, rebounding. So the winners only need role players to win while bran needs superstars but still only manage 2/5. This teammate excuse is laughable at best. Magic won with old ass kareem scoring only 15ppg.

[ralph_i_el]

The heat got whooped because bran only scores during garbage time. Hes a no show when the game is close. It happened in 2013 and it happened again in 2014.

And thats the problem. He rans the offense to get his stats and be excused when they lose. He doesnt have a winner mentality. The winners dont care about stats and wants to play off the ball instead because they knew scoring is tough when you have to do other things. Thats what separates bran from winners. Winners provide the most important/hardest skill to the table which is tough shot creation, while bran provides redundant skills that can be supplied easily by other players aka passing, defense, rebounding. So the winners only need role players to win while bran needs superstars but still only manage 2/5. This teammate excuse is laughable at best. Magic won with old ass kareem scoring only 15ppg.
He doesn't care about winning...so he led his team to 4 straight finals and 2 wins?

Pretty crazy that he doesn't even care about winning and he's still been that successful lol.

[34-24 Footwork]

From this point on, Lebron HAS to learn how to play traditionally as an off ball SF in order to win. That "Bran drive n kick" sh!t won't work against elite teams or teams with an athletic physical wing defender. He has to adapt more of a swingman role like Bonzi Wells (not sure if the children on this forum even know who he is), Paul Pierce, Paul George and etc. Curling off screens, cutting, posting up and creating havoc in a variety of ways.

Kyrie HAS to have the ball in his hands. He's far too creative, crafty and a better isolation player than Bran.

[knicksman]

He doesn't care about winning...so he led his team to 4 straight finals and 2 wins?

Pretty crazy that he doesn't even care about winning and he's still been that successful lol.

His 4 MVPs would be useless without rings bro. But meh excuses are for betas.

[Kblaze8855]

Might as well ask if people can stop being ****ing idiots. The answer on this subject and all others is no....people can't stop being complete ****ing idiots.

The idea that anyone is as good as a dozen people and 3 coaches combine to be for a month isn't even worth discussing.

If it isn't prefaced with a "greatest.....not best at basketball" you can safely slide the guy arguing it onto the pay no mind list and treat them as white noise.

[coin24]

He doesn't care about winning...so he led his team to 4 straight finals and 2 wins?

Pretty crazy that he doesn't even care about winning and he's still been that successful lol.


Anyone who watched those series knows it was only by a miracle they won in 2013 and the thunder got raped so badly by the refs in 2012 it wasnt funny:oldlol:

And come on, the 2014 finals the heat got destroyed. Bran only scored in garbage time against the spurs bench to pad his stats.

[knicksman]

Anyone who watched those series knows it was only by a miracle they won in 2013 and the thunder got raped so badly by the refs in 2012 it wasnt funny:oldlol:

And come on, the 2014 finals the heat got destroyed. Bran only scored in garbage time against the spurs bench to pad his stats.

dont tell them that bro. These idiots only watch box scores and think bran is great. Its clear from day 1 that stern is on a mission to give bran his first ring in 2012

[ralph_i_el]

I'm done defending LeBron. I hate LeBron. I watched every game of those finals, I know what happened. You all are just beyond delusional about this guy in some ways though:facepalm

I'm a box score watcher? Have I brought up ONE stat?

[Big Cheese]

I'm done defending LeBron. I hate LeBron. I watched every game of those finals, I know what happened. You all are just beyond delusional about this guy in some ways though:facepalm

I'm a box score watcher? Have I brought up ONE stat?

dude they are idiotic trolls I cant believe you are actually responding to them...

you are arguing with someone whose half of his posts are about lebron's ***** size...

[J Shuttlesworth]

dude they are idiotic trolls I cant believe you are actually responding to them...

you are arguing with someone whose half of his posts are about lebron's ***** size...
:lol can't believe someone tried to converse with knicksman

Ralph, this is who you are talking to:

http://i.imgur.com/vNx8OU3.png
http://i.imgur.com/lkDPg6y.png

[nathanjizzle]

Can some of you guys share your greatest memory of dirk?

[knicksman]

Can some of you guys share your greatest memory of dirk?

beating the team that rose couldnt:confusedshrug:

[Prime_Shaq]

Can some of you guys share your greatest memory of dirk?
One of the greatest foreign player of all-time. Had one of the best individual playoff runs of all-time. Has one of the most consistent regular season performance over the last decade.

Let's look at his championship run
Round 1: Takes down a strong Portland team that was considered favourite against the Mavs
Round 2: SWEEPS the defending champs Lakers. Absolute domination.
WCF: Dirk destroyed the Thunder, no one on the Thunder could lay a finger on Dirk.
Finals: Took down the newly formed Miami Big 3. Miami had 3 of the 4 best players on court everytime and Mavs defeated them 4-2.

Mediocre career :lol

[J Shuttlesworth]

One of the greatest foreign player of all-time. Had one of the best individual playoff runs of all-time. Has one of the most consistent regular season performance over the last decade.

Let's look at his championship run
Round 1: Takes down a strong Portland team that was considered favourite against the Mavs
Round 2: SWEEPS the defending champs Lakers. Absolute domination.
WCF: Dirk destroyed the Thunder, no one on the Thunder could lay a finger on Dirk.
Finals: Took down the newly formed Miami Big 3. Miami had 3 of the 4 best players on court everytime and Mavs defeated them 4-2.

Mediocre career :lol
Here's the thing though...

Let's say LeBron plays up to his standards in 2011... or hell even just slightly below his standards still as 2nd to Wade. Let's say Dirk is still clutch as **** and the best player in the series, but the heat win.

Suddenly Nowitzki is "ringless" despite putting on the exact same performance. Just goes to show how stupid everything boiling down to ring count is.

[BlakFrankWhite]

But this is the only reason Kobe's relevant

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Here's the thing though...

Let's say LeBron plays up to his standards in 2011... or hell even just slightly below his standards still as 2nd to Wade. Let's say Dirk is still clutch as **** and the best player in the series, but the heat win.

Suddenly Nowitzki is "ringless" despite putting on the exact same performance. Just goes to show how stupid everything boiling down to ring count is.
People that use logic and perspective don't succumb to this idiocy.

Dirk was historic with or without a ring; LeBron played like the world's biggest b*tch in 2011 with or without a ring (oh and LeBron's play actually cost his team a title).

[sdot_thadon]

People that use logic and perspective don't succumb to this idiocy.

Dirk was historic with or without a ring; LeBron played like the world's biggest b*tch in 2011 with or without a ring (oh and LeBron's play actually cost his team a title).
This. Problem with that line of thinking is a ray Allen brick changes the perspective on 2013? When something as small as a single moment can decide perception that's not a good formula at all.

[Hey Yo]

People that use logic and perspective don't succumb to this idiocy.

Dirk was historic with or without a ring; LeBron played like the world's biggest b*tch in 2011 with or without a ring (oh and LeBron's play actually cost his team a title).
Avg. 18-7-7 and was the Heats leading scorer in 2 games, plus had a trip-double in another.

Not too bad when you're all of a sudden asked take a backseat for the sake of Wade.

[20Four]

LeBRONZE would be a bench player in the 80's deal with it....

http://i.imgur.com/zr84brV.gif

and he is still 2/5 and will always be a ZETA bitch

[Lebron23]

Avg. 18-7-7 and was the Heats leading scorer in 2 games, plus had a trip-double in another.

Not too bad when you're all of a sudden asked take a backseat for the sake of Wade.



LeBron needs to be the best player of the Heat in order for them to win. And he did won a back to back title at age 28.

[Lebron23]

LeBRONZE would be a bench player in the 80's deal with it....

http://i.imgur.com/zr84brV.gif

and he is still 2/5 and will always be a ZETA bitch


Why are you such a jerk off??

[Hey Yo]

This message is hidden because 20Four is a (attention whore stupid**** who never talks basketball) is on your ignore list.

[Prime_Shaq]

Here's the thing though...

Let's say LeBron plays up to his standards in 2011... or hell even just slightly below his standards still as 2nd to Wade. Let's say Dirk is still clutch as **** and the best player in the series, but the heat win.

Suddenly Nowitzki is "ringless" despite putting on the exact same performance. Just goes to show how stupid everything boiling down to ring count is.
Well yeah true enough but I'm just responding to the guy who called Dirk's career mediocre. I sure as hell feel that ring count has to be used in the right context.

[20Four]

This message is hidden because 20Four is a (attention whore stupid**** who never talks basketball) is on your ignore list.
http://i.imgur.com/J1j862w.gif

[ralph_i_el]

:lol can't believe someone tried to converse with knicksman

Ralph, this is who you are talking to:

http://i.imgur.com/vNx8OU3.png
http://i.imgur.com/lkDPg6y.png
:facepalm well I guess I got trolled.

What's the point of trolling? I never understood how people can derive pleasure from being willfully ignorant and combative. Is it because they don't ever have any legitimate insight worthy of garnering attention? I know that sometimes it's just folks on alt accounts messing with their enemies, but I'd like a chance to meet a legitimate troll in real life. I'm sure I would walk a way from the experience feeling nothing but pity...

[3ball]

Are you serious? Water polo is competitive as hell, and it's a pretty brutal sport to play. Cheap shots galore, from what I've heard, and you've gotta manage to be physical while in the water.

Nothing wrong with pickup either, stop being such a purposefully ignorant ****.
it's not ignorant - the pool of water polo players is a tiny fraction of the pool of hoopsters.

plus, water polo is for rich boy douchbags in frats like those SAE kids.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's ISH.

Most won't be logical. It is what it is.

[Dr.J4ever]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.

Nah, rings are the ultimate stat, but as with everything you have to put it in context.

Is Robert Horry a better player than Barkley 'cause he won titles and Barkley had none? No, because context matters. Barkley was the flagship of several playoff contending teams and Horry was a supplementary player for title teams. So those facts matter.

Ultimately, the best players are the players who help your team win the ultimate prize. However, the players that have most influenced the winning teams are the best players of all.

[Bless Mathews]

Might as well ask if people can stop being ****ing idiots. The answer on this subject and all others is no....people can't stop being complete ****ing idiots.

The idea that anyone is as good as a dozen people and 3 coaches combine to be for a month isn't even worth discussing.

If it isn't prefaced with a "greatest.....not best at basketball" you can safely slide the guy arguing it onto the pay no mind list and treat them as white noise.

lol. Lol.

Tell that to any great that didn't win a ring.

He'll tell you otherwise.

[nba_55]

I completely agree with OP. We should look at how a player does with what it's given to him. So many players play great for the whole post-season, but because their team doesn't win, their performance is overlooked. 2009 playoffs Lebron actually did better with what he had than 2013 Lebron, yet the majority never mentions 2009 playoffs when talking positively about Lebron's legacy.

[nba_55]

Nah, rings are the ultimate stat, but as with everything you have to put it in context.

Is Robert Horry a better player than Barkley 'cause he won titles and Barkley had none? No, because context matters. Barkley was the flagship of several playoff contending teams and Horry was a supplementary player for title teams. So those facts matter.

Ultimately, the best players are the players who help your team win the ultimate prize. However, the players that have most influenced the winning teams are the best players of all.

So, if hypothetically the same Jordan who won 6 championships was struck in a team like Philly right now, he wouldn't be top 10?

[Smoke117]

You are asking too much of ISH, ralph. You are asking idiots, morons, and imbeciles to go against their nature. You can only be what you are.

[Dr.J4ever]

So, if hypothetically the same Jordan who won 6 championships was struck in a team like Philly right now, he wouldn't be top 10?

If a young Michael Jordan played for Philly now, the 76ers would be a low seeded playoff team in the weak East. Jordan would be balling scoring 30ppg and the 76ers would become a destination team for future superstars to join him and chase a title.

With that in mind, how long before Jordan gets his title and the Goat talk starts all over again?

[Kblaze8855]

lol. Lol.

Tell that to any great that didn't win a ring.

He'll tell you otherwise.

Did you put that down the way you intended? I assume the ringless greats are fairly certain they are better than a lot of people with rings.

For obvious self-serving purposes it's people who spend their entire career winning in great situations who push the rings are all that matter line.

Is anyone really shocked to see that Terry Bradshaw says a quarterback is ranked by his rings and Dan Marino thinks that's ridiculous?

One won 4 superbowls. 1 only made it to one and lost that year

Fairly obvious what's going on there.

[nathanjizzle]

This thread is mediocre.

[nba_55]

If a young Michael Jordan played for Philly now, the 76ers would be a low seeded playoff team in the weak East. Jordan would be balling scoring 30ppg and the 76ers would become a destination team for future superstars to join him and chase a title.

With that in mind, how long before Jordan gets his title and the Goat talk starts all over again?

You can't change the scenario. If he was struck in a scrub team his whole career and never wins a championship because of his mediocre teammates, he wouldn't be in the top 10 all-time?

[ralph_i_el]

it's not ignorant - the pool of water polo players is a tiny fraction of the pool of hoopsters.

plus, water polo is for rich boy douchbags in frats like those SAE kids.

I was an independent, but I had a roommate in SAE and I had to beat his ass once lol. I don't know what it is, but everywhere I go folks HATE SAE because they're the worst.

My teams motto in college was "We're not douchebags, we're assholes" because most of us weren't in frats.

And duh there are more basketball players than water polo players. There are 5 courts within walking distance of me RIGHT NOW, and 1 pool. I won't apologize for having a wealthy family. It's not like they give my broke ass any money.

[ralph_i_el]

If a young Michael Jordan played for Philly now, the 76ers would be a low seeded playoff team in the weak East. Jordan would be balling scoring 30ppg and the 76ers would become a destination team for future superstars to join him and chase a title.

With that in mind, how long before Jordan gets his title and the Goat talk starts all over again?

I don't think they'd be a playoff team this season, but I have no doubt that if you drop MJ in any era he's going to win bare minimum 1 championship. Probably more. This thread wasn't to bash MJ, I acknowledge him as my GOAT and savior :roll:

[Dr.J4ever]

You can't change the scenario. If he was struck in a scrub team his whole career and never wins a championship because of his mediocre teammates, he wouldn't be in the top 10 all-time?

As I just said, if you put Jordan in Philly right now, I truly believe the 76ers would be contending for a low seed in the East. Jordan would be personally devastating the NBA.

He would be improving the play of his teammates too. Suddenly Noel becomes even better than he is now because of Jordan. Suddenly Jason Richardson's career is revitalized, and 3 point snipers Canaan and Covington become even better with more wide open looks.

Pretty soon with more help coming next season with Embiid and Dario Saric, and Jordan getting even better, the best free agents see Philly as a destination spot to win titles.

You see, no matter what, the truly best players become the best because they influence the outcome of their careers, and make their teams contend, at the very least.

You're trying to say an all time great like Jordan would come to Philly and the 76ers would be a bust for 10 years? Like Kevin Love with the Wolves? Love is now officially overrated.

Your scenario aint happening.

[DCL]

i don't think MJ would get the universal GOAT nod if he only had 4 rings.

[nba_55]

As I just said, if you put Jordan in Philly right now, I truly believe the 76ers would be contending for a low seed in the East. Jordan would be personally devastating the NBA.

He would be improving the play of his teammates too. Suddenly Noel becomes even better than he is now because of Jordan. Suddenly Jason Richardson's career is revitalized, and 3 point snipers Canaan and Covington become even better with more wide open looks.

Pretty soon with more help coming next season with Embiid and Dario Saric, and Jordan getting even better, the best free agents see Philly as a destination spot to win titles.

You see, no matter what, the truly best players become the best because they influence the outcome of their careers, and make their teams contend, at the very least.

You're trying to say an all time great like Jordan would come to Philly and the 76ers would be a bust for 10 years? Like Kevin Love with the Wolves? Love is now officially overrated.

Your scenario aint happening.

No shit... this is why I said hypothetically :facepalm And you keep changing the scenario :facepalm

[ralph_i_el]

You're trying to say an all time great like Jordan would come to Philly and the 76ers would be a bust for 10 years? Like Kevin Love with the Wolves? Love is now officially overrated.



nah, MJ would have gone to South Beach and won some rings :roll:

[pauk]

I dont mind boiling it down to anything, as long as you stick to it, because most are contradictive, they know their agenda is stupid.... like if you are boiling it all down to rings for example and/or "X of X in Finals", then stick to it... meaning your top 10 should look like:

1. Bill Russell
2. Sam Jones
3. Tom Heinsohn
4. KC Jones
5. Tom Sanders
6. John Havlicek
7. Jim Loscutoff
8. Frank Ramsey
9. Robert Horry
10. Bob Cousy

But they dont stick to it... they know that logic is stupid, they use that logic only in specific times when it suits their agenda... when it doesnt suit them they become contradictive immediately, especially when they see that top 10 list above where their favorite player has no place at all...

[Prime_Shaq]

I dont mind boiling it down to anything, as long as you stick to it, because most are contradictive, they know their agenda is stupid.... like if you are boiling it all down to rings for example and/or "X of X in Finals", then stick to it... meaning your top 10 should look like:

1. Bill Russell
2. Sam Jones
3. Tom Heinsohn
4. KC Jones
5. Tom Sanders
6. John Havlicek
7. Jim Loscutoff
8. Frank Ramsey
9. Robert Horry
10. Bob Cousy

But they dont stick to it... they know that logic is stupid, they use that logic only in specific times when it suits their agenda... when it doesnt suit them they become contradictive immediately, especially when they see that top 10 list above where their favorite player has no place at all...
List looks legit as **** :lol if we subtract the "weak era" then we can come to the conclusion that Robert Horry is GOAT.
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/147955/robert_2bhorry_5b1_5d.jpg

[IncarceratedBob]

List looks legit as **** :lol if we subtract the "weak era" then we can come to the conclusion that Robert Horry is GOAT.
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/147955/robert_2bhorry_5b1_5d.jpg
Crazy thing is Horry deserves some GOAT love. He was the glue guy on seven championship runs. Who is Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, w/o Big Shot Rob? He put in crazy amount of time into his craft, it's not his fault he was never given a real shot to be the #1 option on a team. He could do it all on the court, he could pass like Steve, shoot like Larry, rebound like Dennis and defend like Gary.

[3ball]

Al Jefferson would be a 2nd tier bigman in 1996 - no better than the 12th-best:

Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
Ewing
Alonzo
Sabonis (25 PER - unbelievable all-round talent)
Karl Malone
Barkley
Webber
Kemp

And he'd probably be behind Rik Smits, Vin Baker, Dino Radja, and certainly Derrick Coleman.





Barkley was the flagship of several playoff contending teams and Horry was a supplementary player for title teams. So those facts matter.


Facts absolutely matter.. Clearly, Horry was nowhere near a top tier bigman with super-elite efficiency like Barkely or Malone were - and who knows how great their post efficiency would be today... For instance, we know that 1.00 PPP is considered excellent for ANY scoring method, yet that's what high-volume poster Al Jefferson gets in today's game on the post.. Furthermore, Jefferson and others would be ranked as 2nd tier big men in previous eras, yet they are league-leaders in post efficiency today (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200), and they're all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

This elite post efficiency from 2nd tier bigs flat-out proves today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies... The only reason coaches don't use post-ups as much as before is because floor-spacing and the hand-check ban increased efficiencies on ball movement and dribble penetration, allowing these methods to SURPASS post-ups.. But Al Jefferson scoring 1.00 PPP on the post proves that post efficiencies THEMSELVES haven't diminished at all.

Also, if we are keeping it real, simple logic tells us that today's spacing and defensive 3 seconds rule force defenders to help from further distances on post players.. So even without the Al Jefferson proof, it makes sense that post PPP is higher today than it used to be.. After all, everything else (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) is.
.

[Im Still Ballin]

Facts absolutely matter.. Clearly, Horry was nowhere near a top tier bigman with super-elite efficiency like Barkely or Malone were - and who knows how great their post efficiency would be today... For instance, we know that 1.00 PPP is considered excellent for ANY scoring method, yet that's what high-volume poster Al Jefferson gets in today's game on the post.. Despite the fact that they would be ranked as 2nd tier big men in previous eras, Jefferson and others are league-leaders in post efficiency today (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200), and they are all at the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency of 1.00 PPP.

This elite post efficiency from 2nd tier bigs flat-out proves today's defensive environment hasn't diminished post efficiencies... The only reason coaches don't use post-ups as much as before is because floor-spacing and the hand-check ban increased efficiencies on ball movement and dribble penetration, allowing these methods to SURPASS post-ups.. But Al Jefferson scoring 1.00 PPP on the post proves that post efficiencies THEMSELVES haven't diminished at all.

Also, if we are keeping it real, simple logic tells us that today's spacing and defensive 3 seconds rule force defenders to help from further distances on post players.. So even without the Al Jefferson proof, it makes sense that post PPP is higher today than it used to be.. After all, everything else (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) is.
Why the low post offense has declined (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370159)

otoh;

In the 90's the Illegal defense rule schemes forced defenses to play man to man, weak/strong zones were not allowed... Defenses had their hands tied behind their back. It also did not allow the doubling of an off-ball player, usually a big with good post position. You could double the ball handler but it had to be an aggressive attempt, any otherwise would be deemed illegal. What all this means for low post players is that, they could get a good position on the block without being disrupted. There also was no 5 second back to the basket rule that exists now (AKA the Kevin Johnson rule).

http://media.giphy.com/media/PfS9JTMb9zF7i/giphy.gif
- Notice the single coverage, open paint

In 2000 strong side zones were permitted, and in 2001 all types of zones were legal. Defenses were given more freedom. What this did was allow for more advanced defending schemes; today defenses are faster and smarter than ever before. It's incredibly hard for a limbering 7 footer to get good post position and adequate room to score when defenses are rotating and effectively doubling the block while still being able to cover the open man quick enough. Thus gone, were the days of the Illegal defense, the offensive ratings that were exponentially increasing from the 80's to the late 90's began to start to dip as defenses were finally allowed to fight back.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-KIom4maMFs/STc0_Mq5DlI/AAAAAAAAOrY/zT3MdULists/s1600/2-3%2BZone.jpg
- Good luck trying to penetrate with this soft zone Kobe!

[Kblaze8855]

You see, no matter what, the truly best players become the best because they influence the outcome of their careers, and make their teams contend, at the very least.

I dont know about that. Plenty of greats only became serious contenders when something outside their control happened. And there are plenty of people unamiously considered to be the best or among the true elites who in retrospect dont get that credit because they never won. So people look back...and change the rankings of people who know better(those watching the people in question).

Its almost a self fulfilling assumption because we only call winners the true greats....which then makes it fairly obvious why all true greats seem to have won.

A guy like Oscar Robertson has slowly fallen from a fairly acceptable answer as the best player ever...which he was from his rookie season until like 1990....

There are two sides of the Oscar argument.....one thinks hes all time elite...arguably #1...one thinks he doesnt deserve nearly that ranking. But the two sides are almost entirely broken down into who did and did not see him play basketball.

There is a side basing its opinion on observation and relative knowledge...and one who pulls its opinion out of its ass based on google.

Yet we as a general fanbase have almost entirely accepted that every person who watched him has a worse grasp on him than those of us who didnt.

What gives us license to do such a(on its face) absurd thing is what you said:


no matter what, the truly best players become the best because they influence the outcome of their careers, and make their teams contend, at the very least

Oscar won 2 playoff series in a 10 year prime on the Royals/Kings and only won 50 games once. Never won till he was traded to the Bucks to win with Kareem. And he had HOF teammates on Cincy so its not like he had scrubs.

So...people apply the "IF hes great...he would have..." logic and disregard the opinion of literally...every single person who ever watched him play basketball.

Its a little amusing to me.

Sometimes it just....doesnt work out.

[3ball]

Im Still Ballin - your posts ^^^^^ are not based on facts.

Whereas my posts are, because I just point to the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200) that show Al Jefferson and other weak bigs achieving the gold efficiency standard of 1.00 PPP on the post.

Or I post the actual rules from the NBA rulebook, such as Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines, which stipulates a legal paint-camping provision.

Or I post quotes from the creator and implementer of the rule changes - NBA Vice-President of Basketball Operations Stu Jackson - where he said a major objective of the rule changes was to increase penetration, and then stated the rule changes had worked (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) to increase penetration, thus proving that penetration occurs more now.... than before.

Or I post the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/team/drives/?sort=DTP&dir=1) showing that penetration accounts for more points than any other method in today's game, just like the NBA intended.

QUOTES, WRITTEN RULES, STATS - ALL FACTS.
.

[ralph_i_el]

3ball spam :facepalm now it's a party
How has this fool never caught a ban?

Dude literally cares more about "Stu Jackson" than his own family.

[supernova5912]

well yeah when he has people lauding him as the next best thing since Magic and he hasn't even made a conference finals..

at some point, if you're as good as people say you are (top 3-5 player, best PG since Magic) you think you could lead your stacked team to the WCF

If the Clippers are stacked, every other playoff team in the West is mega-stacked. Clippers have several exploitable weaknesses, that will be exposed in the playoffs, such as the lack of a deep bench or a good small forward.

[3ball]

you're very biased against me ralph..
.

[DMAVS41]

All about context.

You take Kobe and Lebron for their first 7 years in the league and it's absurd to compare them on ring count. One guy played with a peak top 8 or so player of all time and perhaps the GOAT coach...and the other took over a shitty 17 win franchise.

But Lebron vs Kobe on rings is becoming more and more even as the years pass. While Kobe has had the clear cut better circumstances still all things considered...Lebron is now on his 7th straight team that is worthy of being called a title contender. Granted those Cavs teams weren't great, but they were good enough to deserve mentioning.

And now Lebron is playing yet again in a historically weak conference with the most loaded team, by far, in said conference.

We'll see how the rest of their careers turn out, but a finals made and rings won comparison in 8 years might be a pretty good measure.

All that is to say...comparing Kobe vs Lebron on rings is becoming a whole lot better now than comparing Kobe to KG or Hakeem or Oscar or Dirk...etc.

You should always judge players on how well they play the game first in my opinion. Winning rings takes circumstances, even in improbable runs, that are outside the control of single players.

[TheMarkMadsen]

If the Clippers are stacked, every other playoff team in the West is mega-stacked. Clippers have several exploitable weaknesses, that will be exposed in the playoffs, such as the lack of a deep bench or a good small forward.

no team has every position completely filled with no weakness..

Clippers have arguably the best front court in the league, a 6 MOTY, and a championship coach

if Cp3 is as good as people claim (in the convo with Magic) there is no excuse for this team not to reach the finals especially with KD out.

[3ball]

Al Jefferson would be a 2nd tier bigman in 1996 - no better than the 12th-best:

Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
Ewing
Alonzo
Sabonis (25 PER - unbelievable all-round talent)
Karl Malone
Barkley
Webber
Kemp

And he'd probably be behind Rik Smits, Vin Baker, Dino Radja, and certainly Derrick Coleman.





3ball now it's a party


I'll tell you the same thing I told 'Im Still Ballin' - my posts are factual because they're either based on stats, written rules, and/or quotes..

For example, Al Jefferson and the other bigs who lead the league in post efficiency would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras, yet the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200) show they all achieve the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency - 1.00 points per possession (PPP).. If players who would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras can get 1.00 PPP on the post in today's game, that decisively proves that post scoring is easier than ever..

Here's more stats, rules, and quotes - I posted the actual rules from the NBA rulebook, such as Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines, which stipulates a legal paint-camping provision.

I also posted quotes from the creator and implementer of the rule changes - NBA Vice-President of Basketball Operations Stu Jackson - where he said a major objective of the rule changes was to increase penetration.. He subsequently stated the rule changes had worked (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) to increase penetration, thus proving that penetration occurs more now.... than before.

Then I posted the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/team/drives/?sort=DTP&dir=1) showing that penetration accounts for more points than any other method in today's game, just like the NBA intended.

QUOTES, WRITTEN RULES, STATS - ALL FACTS, ONLY FACTS (you want GIF's too?)

[DMAVS41]

no team has every position completely filled with no weakness..

Clippers have arguably the best front court in the league, a 6 MOTY, and a championship coach

if Cp3 is as good as people claim (in the convo with Magic) there is no excuse for this team not to reach the finals especially with KD out.

I want to agree with this, but I can't. I agree that the Clippers when healthy are loaded enough to win...and we do tend to see CP3 rated very high for a player that has really not done anything in the playoffs of note in his career.

But no excuses not to reach the finals when literally every playoff team is about as good on paper? I can't agree with that.

No excuses would be if you plopped down a healthy Clippers team in the 07 West or something...and even then they'd have stiff competition from prime Dirk and prime Duncan...two players on good teams that were better players than Paul peak vs peak.

So while I agree that the excuse making for Paul not having enough is pretty annoying...and I agree at some point he needs to make a playoff run...or at least no choke horribly and cost his team a chance at the title like he did last year.

I can't fully get there with you on this "no excuses" thing. They lose...they don't need an excuse. The West is absolutely loaded.

What are you going to say if Paul plays great like he routinely does and his team loses? You really gonna blame him if they lose to the Warriors even if he outplays Curry?

Just can't go there with you...

[supernova5912]

no team has every position completely filled with no weakness..

Clippers have arguably the best front court in the league, a 6 MOTY, and a championship coach

if Cp3 is as good as people claim (in the convo with Magic) there is no excuse for this team not to reach the finals especially with KD out.
Chris Paul is clearly not as good as Magic. However, Clippers aren't stacked. Jamal Crawford has played poorly this season and is now injured. Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan are a great frontcourt pairing but they're both limited in certain aspects (ex. Griffin is taking 37.2% of his attempts from 16 feet out this season but only making 40.1%). Doc Rivers is a good coach but has made a plentiful number of mistakes as a GM.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I want to agree with this, but I can't. I agree that the Clippers when healthy are loaded enough to win...and we do tend to see CP3 rated very high for a player that has really not done anything in the playoffs of note in his career.

But no excuses not to reach the finals when literally every playoff team is about as good on paper? I can't agree with that.

No excuses would be if you plopped down a healthy Clippers team in the 07 West or something...and even then they'd have stiff competition from prime Dirk and prime Duncan...two players on good teams that were better players than Paul peak vs peak.

So while I agree that the excuse making for Paul not having enough is pretty annoying...and I agree at some point he needs to make a playoff run...or at least no choke horribly and cost his team a chance at the title like he did last year.

I can't fully get there with you on this "no excuses" thing. They lose...they don't need an excuse. The West is absolutely loaded.

What are you going to say if Paul plays great like he routinely does and his team loses? You really gonna blame him if they lose to the Warriors even if he outplays Curry?

Just can't go there with you...


If his team is good enough to win

and all other WC teams are about as good or good as his team then all things being equal this "Magic Level" point guard should be able to lead his team through the conference..no?

who cares how loaded the western conference is?

all these players that Cp3 is constantly compared to have led their teams through tough conferences.. why does he get constantly get a pass?

if any year was going to be the year to do it this is the year. There are really no "true contenders" in the West and by that I mean that the top teams in the west are all fairly "new" and aren't playoff tested.

OKC has been killed with injuries and the Spurs don't look the same, if Cp3 is an ATG point guard there is no excuse not to lead THIS team through THIS conference.

[DMAVS41]

If his team is good enough to win

and all other WC teams are about as good or good as his team then all things being equal this "Magic Level" point guard should be able to lead his team through the conference..no?

who cares how loaded the western conference is?

all these players that Cp3 is constantly compared to have led their teams through tough conferences.. why does he get constantly get a pass?

if any year was going to be the year to do it this is the year. There are really no "true contenders" in the West and by that I mean that the top teams in the west are all fairly "new" and aren't playoff tested.

OKC has been killed with injuries and the Spurs don't look the same, if Cp3 is an ATG point guard there is no excuse not to lead THIS team through THIS conference.

But who is actually saying he's as good as Magic? I mean...I don't think I've ever really heard someone actually say that to be honest.

[TheMarkMadsen]

But who is actually saying he's as good as Magic? I mean...I don't think I've ever really heard someone actually say that to be honest.

people are always talking as if he's right behind Magic in the GOAT point guard conversation, and it's not only ISH it's the media putting out stupid articles like this

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10010160/nba-how-chris-paul-surpassing-magic-johnson-best-point-guard-ever

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-on-5-131121/chris-paul-best-point-guard-ever


If people really think he's possibly the best point guard since Magic then yes there are no excuses for his lack of playoff success, if you consider him a top 3-5 player in the league, then there's no excuses especially since he's never done anything of note in the playoffs

Replace Paul with Kidd, Nash, GP, Isiah, and they are favorites to come out of the west.

People love making excuses for Paul, it's getting to the point where he could play with the all star team and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about how they have too many weakness. Because for years in LA it was "we need somebody better to coach"

ok, gets to handpick his coach, still has his 2014 top 3 MVP candidate BG next to him, DPOY contender at center, lots of talent and great coach..

now he needs a better SF.. i mean come on, if he's as good as people say then he would have made the conference finals at some point.. it's not like he's spent his career on T Mac's Magic.. he's had some very talented teams

[ralph_i_el]

you're very biased against me ralph..
.

You aren't saying anything new. It's always the same shit and it's never on topic.

[DMAVS41]

people are always talking as if he's right behind Magic in the GOAT point guard conversation, and it's not only ISH it's the media putting out stupid articles like this

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10010160/nba-how-chris-paul-surpassing-magic-johnson-best-point-guard-ever

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-on-5-131121/chris-paul-best-point-guard-ever


If people really think he's possibly the best point guard since Magic then yes there are no excuses for his lack of playoff success, if you consider him a top 3-5 player in the league, then there's no excuses especially since he's never done anything of note in the playoffs

Replace Paul with Kidd, Nash, GP, Isiah, and they are favorites to come out of the west.

People love making excuses for Paul, it's getting to the point where he could play with the all star team and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about how they have too many weakness. Because for years in LA it was "we need somebody better to coach"

ok, gets to handpick his coach, still has his 2014 top 3 MVP candidate BG next to him, DPOY contender at center, lots of talent and great coach..

now he needs a better SF.. i mean come on, if he's as good as people say then he would have made the conference finals at some point

Ok...so if someone is actually talking about Paul is as good or better than the likes of Durant and Lebron and is a top 20 player of all time...then I agree with you...well, more about him not having excuses for his teams not ever reaching the conference finals.

But I just don't think most people have taken the time to really think about this.

Because I think CP3 might be the best pg to play since Magic retired, but I also don't think he is a top 40 or so player of all time. I'd have to go through my rankings and such, but I think you can have both.

I think one could say CP3 is the best pg to play since Magic, but also not think he's as good as the likes of prime Duncan, KG, Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Lebron, Durant...etc.

So, as usual, I think players should be more judge off how they play...not how their team does...because so much is out of the control of one single player. Again, how the team performs of course matters, but just not as much as how a player actually plays.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Ok...so if someone is actually talking about Paul is as good or better than the likes of Durant and Lebron and is a top 20 player of all time...then I agree with you...well, more about him not having excuses for his teams not ever reaching the conference finals.

But I just don't think most people have taken the time to really think about this.

Because I think CP3 might be the best pg to play since Magic retired, but I also don't think he is a top 40 or so player of all time. I'd have to go through my rankings and such, but I think you can have both.

I think one could say CP3 is the best pg to play since Magic, but also not think he's as good as the likes of prime Duncan, KG, Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Lebron, Durant...etc.

So, as usual, I think players should be more judge off how they play...not how their team does...because so much is out of the control of one single player. Again, how the team performs of course matters, but just not as much as how a player actually plays.

How is Paul better than Kidd and Nash? Kidd led his less talented teams further, Nash's 2010 Suns which made the WCF were arguably less talented than these Clippers..

it's not like Paul's playoff success is due to a lack of talent around him, not at all. He choked away the OKC series last year, and again for most top players that type of shit would be held against him until he proves himself again..

Dirk couldn't shake 07 off until 11 happened, but Paul gets to walk around with a clean pass after getting blown out by 60 at home in the palyoffs in a game he put up 4 points, and an epic choke against OKC last year that had him crying and blaming himself after the game..

what kind of double standard is that? and Dirk had actually had some playoff success prior to 07 unlike Paul

[DMAVS41]

How is Paul better than Kidd and Nash? Kidd led his less talented teams further, Nash's 2010 Suns which made the WCF were arguably less talented than these Clippers..

it's not like Paul's playoff success is due to a lack of talent around him, not at all. He choked away the OKC series last year, and again for most top players that type of shit would be held against him until he proves himself again..

Dirk couldn't shake 07 off until 11 happened, but Paul gets to walk around with a clean pass after getting blown out by 60 at home in the palyoffs in a game he put up 4 points, and an epic choke against OKC last year that had him crying and blaming himself after the game..

what kind of double standard is that? and Dirk had actually had some playoff success prior to 07 unlike Paul

Because I think Paul is a better player than Kidd and Nash...close for me, especially with Kidd, but I think in a vacuum I'd rather have Paul than those guys.

I totally agree Paul choked last year. But the reason why people don't judge him as harshly as a guy like Dirk is because nobody thinks Paul is as good as prime Dirk.

It's a different class of player. That is what I was trying to get at....I don't think anyone deep down really feels like CP3 is a top 20 player of all time.

So he isn't judged as one.

[Kblaze8855]

How is Paul better than Kidd and Nash? Kidd led his less talented teams further, Nash's 2010 Suns which made the WCF were arguably less talented than these Clippers..

it's not like Paul's playoff success is due to a lack of talent around him, not at all. He choked away the OKC series last year, and again for most top players that type of shit would be held against him until he proves himself again..

Dirk couldn't shake 07 off until 11 happened, but Paul gets to walk around with a clean pass after getting blown out by 60 at home in the palyoffs in a game he put up 4 points, and an epic choke against OKC last year that had him crying and blaming himself after the game..

what kind of double standard is that? and Dirk had actually had some playoff success prior to 07 unlike Paul

Notice how your arguments dont even mention a single aspect of a game of basketball or how good anyone is at any of them?

Thats likely why there is such a disconnect between your thoughts and the many people you dont seem to understand rating Paul highly.

You list a gang of shit that literally has no bearing on anyones ability. Like...if his team stormed back to lose by 39 he would be better at basketball because its a lesser margin of defeat in one of 600 games?

How good you are at basketball is not determined by anything you have mentioned in at least the last 3 posts of yours I read.

You think Kidd is better...thats fine. Its not just an idiotic thing to say. But if he is it damn sure isnt because of the 2002 playoffs.

Every achievement rooted in winning is the right teammates ankle twisting or a coaches awful gameplan from never happening.

When that is the entirety of your argument we better be talking some epic unheard of Bill Russell 17 rings from age 16 to 35 winning.

Otherwise its usually built on a mound of coincidence and luck which players float their ability on top of. You need all 3...and im not sure ability is far and away the biggest part of that pie chart....

Teams that probably otherwise win the title have lost in the first round off seeding and coaching errors...

Dirk might well have 2 rings if not for Baron Davis missing a 3 vs the Lakers in March. He makes it...Warriors 7 seed Lakers 8...Mavs would have wrecked LA(Probably).

It wouldnt make anyone better or worse at basketball......but it changes things that heavily factor into how people judge players.

Winning is for a dozen reasons....losing too.

Better players than Chris Paul have won less with more highly regarded teammates(Oscar robertson). Worse players have won more with less talent on the roster(Reggie Miller for one).

It just...doesnt work that way.

Its never worked that way.

[DMAVS41]

Notice how your arguments dont even mention a single aspect of a game of basketball or how good anyone is at any of them?

Thats likely why there is such a disconnect between your thoughts and the many people you dont seem to understand rating Paul highly.

You list a gang of shit that literally has no bearing on anyones ability. Like...if his team stormed back to lose by 39 he would be better at basketball because its a lesser margin of defeat in one of 600 games?

How good you are at basketball is not determined by anything you have mentioned in at least the last 3 posts of yours I read.

You think Kidd is better...thats fine. Its not just an idiotic thing to say. But if he is it damn sure isnt because of the 2002 playoffs.

Every achievement rooted in winning is the right teammates ankle twisting or a coaches awful gameplan from never happening.

When that is the entirety of your argument we better be talking some epic unheard of Bill Russell 17 rings from age 16 to 35 winning.

Otherwise its usually built on a mound of coincidence and luck which players float their ability on top of. You need all 3...and im not sure ability is far and away the biggest part of that pie chart....

Teams that probably otherwise win the title have lost in the first round off seeding and coaching errors...

Dirk might well have 2 rings if not for Baron Davis missing a 3 vs the Lakers in March. He makes it...Warriors 7 seed Lakers 8...Mavs would have wrecked LA(Probably).

It wouldnt make anyone better or worse at basketball......but it changes things that heavily factor into how people judge players.

Winning is for a dozen reasons....losing too.

Better players than Chris Paul have won less with more highly regarded teammates(Oscar robertson). Worse players have won more with less talent on the roster(Reggie Miller for one).

It just...doesnt work that way.

Its never worked that way.


Well said...

The only thing I want to add is that how players react to certain circumstances is part of how good at basketball they are.

While Dirk might have 2 rings if he didn't face the Warriors...how Dirk reacted to those circumstances are part of the large formula that goes into his basketball playing ability.

This is where you and I disagree a bit I think.

You think it all boils down to skill set...but I think there is more to that "skill set"...like facing pressure, willing a team to a win, ability to change your game when something isn't working...etc. There is just more to MJ than "skill set" on the court. Jordan had something, whatever you want to call it, that went beyond just his ability to dribble, shoot, pass, elevate, defend...etc. It was obvious when you watched him...and I think we are missing certain aspects of greatness if we ignore that completely.

I'm actually not one to talk about intangibles a ton, and I'm not sure I'd label what I'm talking about as intangibles, but there is just a clear difference to me to producing in the regular season and doing it on the biggest stage. And how players react to all these circumstances must be factored into something for us to have an accurate idea of how good they are.

Paul choking like that last year does matter. It's not the end all be all, but it has to be factored into our ratings for Paul as a basketball player and it absolutely matters that he choked rather than came through. That matters.

This goes back to our Kevin Love stuff. You say you know exactly how good at basketball he is.

I say we need to see how he plays in the playoffs and how he does when facing the kind of tough circumstances April, May, and June tend to bring before we really can fairly evaluate him as a player.

Those things, to me, are part of being good at basketball. It's not just skill set...or I'd argue that your definition of "skill set" or "how good someone is at basketball" is too narrow.

[mehyaM24]

dirk's father was in the hospital that entire series vs golden state.

i give him a pass for that series & that alone. it's no coincidence that was really his only terrible playoffs in his career.

[DMAVS41]

dirk's father was in the hospital that entire series vs golden state.

i give him a pass for that series & that alone. it's no coincidence that was really his only terrible playoffs in his career.

Yes...it's a very tough series to judge strictly on basketball terms because of that.

But my point still stands...how players react (Dirk's Warriors series isn't a great example of this) to certain conditions should impact how we rate how good at basketball they are.

Whether Lebron dominates this year in the playoffs or plays like shit has to matter.

There is a difference between having the abilities and actually producing.

I think that is where Kblaze and I disagree a bit...in general I'm right there with him on this about circumstances...etc. But how these guys actually play matters.

[bizil]

A GOAT list factors:

- Solo accolades
- Team Accolades
- Numbers
- Peak Value
- Longevity being great
- Impact on the league (redefining a position, forcing rules changes, influencing overall style of play.)

So while rings shouldn't be the be all end all, its DAMN IMPORTANT! It can be used as a tiebreaker when comparing greats. For example, Russell has more rings than Shaq. But was Russ a better player than Shaq? Hell NO!!

But Russ was still a great player who compiled a better OVERALL RESUME than Shaq. So GOAT wise, Russ would have the edge. He has more MVPs, rings, and had an epic impact on the NBA. Peak wise or in terms of whose the better player, Shaq was clearly better than Russ.

[notatop29pg]

dirk's father was in the hospital that entire series vs golden state.

i give him a pass for that series & that alone. it's no coincidence that was really his only terrible playoffs in his career.

CP3's entire organisation was embroiled in a racist saga, an issue that stems back generations and generations... surely the plight of one mans father pales in comparison to a cultural issue that has affected millions.

That alone buys CP3 millions of passes.

[gts]

A GOAT list factors:

- Solo accolades
- Team Accolades
- Numbers
- Peak Value
- Longevity being great
- Impact on the league (redefining a position, forcing rules changes, influencing overall style of play.)



I agree with everything but I'd lose the "(redefining a position, forcing rules changes, influencing overall style of play.)"

There's maybe a handful of players in the history of the game that had that type of impact that stuck long term and some of it more evolutionary that anything, some of it is being in the right place right time...

[mehyaM24]

CP3's entire organisation was embroiled in a racist saga, an issue that stems back generations and generations... surely the plight of one mans father pales in comparison to a cultural issue that has affected millions.

That alone buys CP3 millions of passes.
?

that had no bearing on cp3's play. he outplayed curry & the clippers beat the warriors.

as for emotions? having your father in the ER > racial discrimination that you were never actually a part of. fvck outta here with you and doc rivers' alligator tears. :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

Notice how your arguments dont even mention a single aspect of a game of basketball or how good anyone is at any of them?

Thats likely why there is such a disconnect between your thoughts and the many people you dont seem to understand rating Paul highly.

You list a gang of shit that literally has no bearing on anyones ability. Like...if his team stormed back to lose by 39 he would be better at basketball because its a lesser margin of defeat in one of 600 games?

How good you are at basketball is not determined by anything you have mentioned in at least the last 3 posts of yours I read.

You think Kidd is better...thats fine. Its not just an idiotic thing to say. But if he is it damn sure isnt because of the 2002 playoffs.

Every achievement rooted in winning is the right teammates ankle twisting or a coaches awful gameplan from never happening.

When that is the entirety of your argument we better be talking some epic unheard of Bill Russell 17 rings from age 16 to 35 winning.

Otherwise its usually built on a mound of coincidence and luck which players float their ability on top of. You need all 3...and im not sure ability is far and away the biggest part of that pie chart....

Teams that probably otherwise win the title have lost in the first round off seeding and coaching errors...

Dirk might well have 2 rings if not for Baron Davis missing a 3 vs the Lakers in March. He makes it...Warriors 7 seed Lakers 8...Mavs would have wrecked LA(Probably).

It wouldnt make anyone better or worse at basketball......but it changes things that heavily factor into how people judge players.

Winning is for a dozen reasons....losing too.

Better players than Chris Paul have won less with more highly regarded teammates(Oscar robertson). Worse players have won more with less talent on the roster(Reggie Miller for one).

It just...doesnt work that way.

Its never worked that way.

and where exactly in this post do you "mention a single aspect of a game of basketball or how good anyone is at any of them?"


you say that about my post and then go on to mouth of shit like "Dirk could have two rings if Lakers were 8th seed b/c Dirk would beat the Lakers"

... ok, that's a complete hypothetical.. i've been using nothing but reality when talking about Paul..


You list a gang of shit that literally has no bearing on anyones ability. Like...if his team stormed back to lose by 39 he would be better at basketball because its a lesser margin of defeat in one of 600 games?

well for beginners, Chris Paul hasn't played 600 playoff games, and yes.. If Paul had actually rallied his team..

and yeah, in the game where Paul lost by 60 points at home in the playoffs I would have thought "he was better at basketball" if he would have rallied the team back instead of doing what he actually did which was..

go 0-4 in the first quarter with 1 assist only to find his team down 20 at the end of the quarter..

so what does he do the next quarter.. attempts 1 shot (which he made BTW) and then takes 2 more shots the rest of the game, now you tell me.. if you're the best player on your team, and you're down 20 points in the 2nd, are you going to shoot more than 3 more times the rest of the game?

all the skills in the world don't give you heart, and to just give up after one quarter and watch your team take the worse playoff beat down of all time is pathetic, and then the next game he goes 5-16 for 12 points..



How good you are at basketball is not determined by anything you have mentioned in at least the last 3 posts of yours I read.


determining how good somebody is at basketball goes far beyond skills and stats.

Cp3 is probably the most skilled player in the league but..

in the playoffs you need to be able to score in bunches.. on the shots which aren't always the "best shot available" Chris Paul has a hard time scoring in bunches due to his lack of size during crucial points of playoff games on a consistent basis

also, Paul is incredibly hesitant with the ball and regularly over thinks things, he's always looking to make a play for his teammates during times where he needs to be the guy who is creating his own shot, and he still hasn't figured out when to do this in the playoffs.


Otherwise its usually built on a mound of coincidence and luck which players float their ability on top of. You need all 3...and im not sure ability is far and away the biggest part of that pie chart....

ok and everybody is playing with the same random chance of luck that Cp3 is.. it's not like Paul has had teammates suffering horrible injuries while no other teams don't, eventually talent, skill and the best players will rise to the top and win out. We've seen Cp3 on extremely talented teams and he still hasn't advanced them..

ability is by far and away the biggest part of the pie chart, other teams and coaches and your own coaches game plan the teams offense and defense around the best player and their abilities.. not the odd chance that somebody rolls an ankle next week.

OKC might be b2b champions without injuries, Kobe might have 6 if Bynum plays in 08, etc. etc. who cares, we judge based off of what actually happens, Kobe didn't have bynum but bounced back the next two years to win rings, KD and WB made a finals before they got injured, so they've proven they can get to the dance too

How many other players have been held in the regard that Paul is, without ever reaching any playoff success.. he's played on talented teams..when is he going to advance them?

[TheMarkMadsen]

so funny that people list "MVP" as an "individual award" in this thread

and then in the other thread their like "my guy deservers MVP this year and player X doesn't because of his teams record"

:coleman: :coleman:

[Pointguard]

Funny how many people have Kareem as their number 2 person all time but don't have a theory in place for his two different phases. Kareem went from unrivaled best player (outside of Wilt for a year) his first 10 years while winning once, to clearly being a lesser player, rarely being the best player, and winning five his next 9 years. Do you guys have a theory on what was the best Kareem?

To me there were only four players that were really related to winning it all and or winning big more than others. Only Russell, Magic, MJ, and Duncan should get max points for that, or always get some points for it. I can do without it being a major factor for all other players. A small factor if its very close.

[Young X]

How is Paul better than Kidd and Nash? Kidd led his less talented teams further, Nash's 2010 Suns which made the WCF were arguably less talented than these Clippers..Kidd didn't play in the toughest conference in league history...

He was facing 42-44 win teams to get to the conference finals, never once beat a team with over 50 wins and had HCA in every series. Every single team he beat would get bodied by the '14 Thunder or the Spurs.

Actually in Kidd's first 8 seasons playing in the west he never once got past the 1st round. Went from never making the 2nd round 8 straight times to making the finals the very next year when he got traded to the east.

The difference in their respective playoff success is one player playing in an extremely tough conference for his whole career and one playing in an extremely weak conference in his prime.

[Kblaze8855]

I ask if Paul is better at basketball if he cuts a 60 point lead to 39 and I get:


in the game where Paul lost by 60 points at home in the playoffs I would have thought "he was better at basketball" if he would have rallied the team back

Well...this brings us to an unfortunate point in conversation where I have to just assume you are either an idiot or being emotional due to hate and leave you alone. Im gonna lean towards hater for the moment since being a hater is less of an insult(though just as lacking in credibility).

Ive been doing this too long to keep engaging in long arguments with people who say things that make it obvious they are irrational.

You can find middle ground with a reasonable person you disagree with. You cant work with hate.

You hate Paul...I dont think I need to speak to you about him again.

This policy would have saved me 20 thousand posts the last 14 years....

Go on and argue 30 more posts about who the best basketball players are without mentioning a single basketball skill. Ive written tomes on Chris Pauls individual skills and nobody needs to see another. Especially not when im talking to someone I know doesnt care about basketball to begin with.

Enjoy your night.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Kidd didn't play in the toughest conference in league history...

He was facing 42-44 win teams to get to the conference finals, never once beat a team with over 50 wins and had HCA in every series. Every single team he beat would get bodied by the '14 Thunder or the Spurs.

Actually in Kidd's first 8 seasons playing in the west he never once got past the 1st round. Went from never making the 2nd round 8 straight times to making the finals the very next year when he got traded to the east.

The difference in their respective playoff success is one player playing in an extremely tough conference for his whole career and one playing in an extremely weak conference in his prime.

okay that's fair to say Kidd was playing in an easier conference.. and you say Paul has been playing in the greatest conference in history, so is the 08-15 West the toughest conference in history then?

Something you can say about Kidd is that he stepped up in the playoffs when his team was up against a wall, had a huge game 5 (game 7) against the 76ers which was do or die in 02,

that same playoff run Kidd's nets fell down 2-1 to Boston... Kidd stepped up huge averaging a triple double for that series.

Maybe Kidd didn't step up every single time his team was up against the wall, but we do have playoff runs where he clearly did, and I don't know if we can say the same for Paul

Those last 2 games against Denver were just awful in 09, in 08 the Hornets should have made the WCF, but they seemed to coast through game 6 and then lost at home in game 7 to the Spurs

60 pt loss on your homecourt, game 7 loss on your home court, the OKC series last year.. those are some pretty big negative to have on your playoff resume when there isn't anything to balance that out on the resume..yet

[TheMarkMadsen]

I ask if Paul is better at basketball if he cuts a 60 point lead to 39 and I get:



Well...this brings us to an unfortunate point in conversation where I have to just assume you are either an idiot or being emotional due to hate and leave you alone. Im gonna lean towards hater for the moment since being a hater is less of an insult(though just as lacking in credibility).

Ive been doing this too long to keep engaging in long arguments with people who say things that make it obvious they are irrational.

You can find middle ground with a reasonable person you disagree with. You cant work with hate.

You hate Paul...I dont think I need to speak to you about him again.

This policy would have saved me 20 thousand posts the last 14 years....

Go on and argue 30 more posts about who the best basketball players are without mentioning a single basketball skill. Ive written tomes on Chris Pauls individual skills and nobody needs to see another. Especially not when im talking to someone I know doesnt care about basketball to begin with.

Enjoy your night.

wow man really? you're going to take a sentence which was prefacing the upcoming paragraph and use that as the sound bite?


Go on and argue 30 more posts about who the best basketball players are without mentioning a single basketball skill.

how about you actually read my post instead of riding off into the sunset with a stick in your ass covering your ears?


determining how good somebody is at basketball goes far beyond skills and stats.

Cp3 is probably the most skilled player in the league but..

in the playoffs you need to be able to score in bunches.. on the shots which aren't always the "best shot available" Chris Paul has a hard time scoring in bunches due to his lack of size during crucial points of playoff games on a consistent basis

also, Paul is incredibly hesitant with the ball and regularly over thinks things, he's always looking to make a play for his teammates during times where he needs to be the guy who is creating his own shot, and he still hasn't figured out when to do this in the playoffs.


I guess decision making, being able to score in bunches, deciding when to get yours and when to create for teammates, being a hesitant decision maker and not being able to consistently create your own shot aren't considered basketball skills?

i see this type of shit all the type from posters like you, I haven't said one thing that isn't true about Paul, I'm not calling him a choker, i've pointed out certain moments where he choked, but i'm not calling him an all around choker. I'm saying he's held in pretty high regard for somebody who hasn't done much in the playoffs even though he plays on very talented teams..

and somehow to you that means I must hate Chris Paul..

[Kblaze8855]

I read the rest(I dont skip anything anyone took the time to explain).....I just mentally checked out at


"I would have thought "he was better at basketball" if he would have rallied the team back"

because I knew I wasnt giving a serious response to what I was reading.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. Not very sorry though. Barely any "sorry" to be had.

I realized that I missed the start of walking dead so I didnt walk off after my last post as expected. I'll have to download it shortly....

[TheMarkMadsen]

I read the rest(I dont skip anything anyone took the time to explain).....I just mentally checked out at



because I knew I wasnt giving a serious response to what I was reading.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. Not very sorry though. Barely any "sorry" to be had.

I realized that I missed the start of walking dead so I didnt walk off after my last post as expected. I'll have to download it shortly....


so because I said that I would look at that game differently if Chris Paul would have actually exerted some effort after that first quarter and attempted to bring his team back instead of just giving up..

that's not a serious response?

ok..

and you're completely re arranging what I said you arrogant douche bag this is my actual quote, instead of that bull shit you're making up pretending i said


in the game where Paul lost by 60 points at home in the playoffs I would have thought "he was better at basketball" if he would have rallied the team back instead of doing what he actually did which was..

go 0-4 in the first quarter with 1 assist only to find his team down 20 at the end of the quarter..

so what does he do the next quarter.. attempts 1 shot (which he made BTW) and then takes 2 more shots the rest of the game


now that's completely different that what you're pretending I said isn't it?

determining "who's better at basketball" goes far beyond stats and skills

[TheMarkMadsen]

you do realize that "rallying the team back" doesn't mean rally them once they go down by 60 right?

Hornets were down 20 to being the 2nd and Paul shot 3 times the rest of the game.. My problem with that game is he clearly just threw in the towel after that 1st quarter knowing there was a game 6.

but apparently that's not a fair critique to make

[Young X]

okay that's fair to say Kidd was playing in an easier conference.. and you say Paul has been playing in the greatest conference in history, so is the 08-15 West the toughest conference in history then?

Something you can say about Kidd is that he stepped up in the playoffs when his team was up against a wall, had a huge game 5 (game 7) against the 76ers which was do or die in 02,

that same playoff run Kidd's nets fell down 2-1 to Boston... Kidd stepped up huge averaging a triple double for that series.

Maybe Kidd didn't step up every single time his team was up against the wall, but we do have playoff runs where he clearly did, and I don't know if we can say the same for Paul

Those last 2 games against Denver were just awful in 09, in 08 the Hornets should have made the WCF, but they seemed to coast through game 6 and then lost at home in game 7 to the Spurs

60 pt loss on your homecourt, game 7 loss on your home court, the OKC series last year.. those are some pretty big negative to have on your playoff resume when there isn't anything to balance that out on the resume..yet22/14 in a game 7 win isn't stepping up?

Averaging 31.5/6/5 in his last 2 games against Memphis in 2013 to try and make up for Griffin's injury and his teammates completely disappearing isn't stepping up?

Difference is once again Kidd facing 42 win teams while CP was facing championship contending teams (Spurs, Memphis, Lakers, OKC).

And CP was playing injured in those last 2 games against Denver who were yet another team better than any team Kidd beat.

[3ball]

It's always the same shit and it's never on topic.

not true at all.. blatant lies.

[3ball]

You aren't saying anything new.


Everything I've posted itt is new - Al Jefferson and the other bigs who lead the league in post efficiency would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras, yet the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200) show they all achieve the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency - 1.00 points per possession (PPP).. If players who would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras can get 1.00 PPP on the post in today's game, that decisively proves that post scoring is easier than ever..

I also posted proof that penetration occurs more often today than before - NBA Vice-President of Basketball Operations Stu Jackson said a major objective of the rule changes was to increase penetration.. He subsequently stated the rule changes had worked (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) to increase penetration, thus proving that penetration occurs more now.... than before.

Then I posted the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/team/drives/?sort=DTP&dir=1) showing that penetration accounts for more points than any other method in today's game, just like the NBA intended.. Again, these are new stats that hadn't been posted before.

[3ball]

For example, Russell has more rings than Shaq. But was Russ a better player than Shaq? Hell NO!!


The problem with saying Shaq > Russell is that it's just not true in all scenarios, or even very many scenarios.

For example, we know that if Russell would've replaced Shaq on the 1997 and 1998 Lakers (Shaq's most stacked team that had 4 all-stars), Russell's supporting cast plays great next to him and they and beat Utah both times.. But Shaq's dumb, non-adjustable, athleticism-driven game was exploited and his team got destroyed by Utah.

[tpols]

The problem with saying Shaq > Russell is that it's just not true in all scenarios, or even very many scenarios.

For example, we know that if Russell would've replaced Shaq on the 1997 and 1998 Lakers (Shaq's most staked team that had 4 all-stars), Russell beats Utah both times.. But Shaq's dumb, non-adjustable, athleticism-driven game was exploited and his team got destroyed by Utah.

Yup.. winners > stat guys

Bird/magic/russell > shaq/lebron

Shaqs game was extremely dominant but very rigid.. inflexible and not about making others better.

Jordan is like a rare combo of stats plus winning.

[Im Still Ballin]

Everything I've posted itt is new - Al Jefferson and the other bigs who lead the league in post efficiency would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras, yet the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200) show they all achieve the universally-recognized standard for elite efficiency - 1.00 points per possession (PPP).. If players who would be 2nd tier bigs in previous eras can get 1.00 PPP on the post in today's game, that decisively proves that post scoring is easier than ever..

I also posted proof that penetration occurs more often today than before - NBA Vice-President of Basketball Operations Stu Jackson said a major objective of the rule changes was to increase penetration.. He subsequently stated the rule changes had worked (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html) to increase penetration, thus proving that penetration occurs more now.... than before.

Then I posted the NBA's own stats (http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/team/drives/?sort=DTP&dir=1) showing that penetration accounts for more points than any other method in today's game, just like the NBA intended.. Again, these are new stats that hadn't been posted before.
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif

Incorrect 2ball,

Why the low post offense has declined (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370159)

otoh;

In the 90's the Illegal defense rule schemes forced defenses to play man to man, weak/strong zones were not allowed... Defenses had their hands tied behind their back. It also did not allow the doubling of an off-ball player, usually a big with good post position. You could double the ball handler but it had to be an aggressive attempt, any otherwise would be deemed illegal. What all this means for low post players is that, they could get a good position on the block without being disrupted. There also was no 5 second back to the basket rule that exists now (AKA the Kevin Johnson rule).

http://media.giphy.com/media/PfS9JTMb9zF7i/giphy.gif
- Notice the single coverage, open paint

In 2000 strong side zones were permitted, and in 2001 all types of zones were legal. Defenses were given more freedom. What this did was allow for more advanced defending schemes; today defenses are faster and smarter than ever before. It's incredibly hard for a limbering 7 footer to get good post position and adequate room to score when defenses are rotating and effectively doubling the block while still being able to cover the open man quick enough. Thus gone, were the days of the Illegal defense, the offensive ratings that were exponentially increasing from the 80's to the late 90's began to start to dip as defenses were finally allowed to fight back.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-KIom4maMFs/STc0_Mq5DlI/AAAAAAAAOrY/zT3MdULists/s1600/2-3%2BZone.jpg
- Good luck trying to penetrate with this soft zone Kobe!

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yup.. winners > stat guys

Bird/magic/russell > shaq/lebron

Shaqs game was extremely dominant but very rigid.. inflexible and not about making others better.

Jordan is like a rare combo of stats plus winning.
Not true at all.

How was Shaq "inflexible" when he's been to 3 finals with 3 different teams? Winning chips while either being the BEST player or integral figure (Miami).

Stupid posts like this just makes people think you have an agenda.

[Lebron23]

Not true at all.

How was Shaq "inflexible" when he's been to 3 finals with 3 different teams? Winning chips while either being the BEST player or integral figure (Miami).

Stupid posts like this just makes people think you have an agenda.


He always had an agenda. That guy is the King of the Kobetards.

[tpols]

Not true at all.

How was Shaq "inflexible" when he's been to 3 finals with 3 different teams? All either being the BEST player or integral figure (Miami).

Stupid posts like this just makes people think you have an agenda.

Because he's played on unreal loaded teams?

Anyone that's played with prime penny, prime kobe, prime wade, prime nash, prime bron, big 3 celtics and only has 4 rings to show for it over two decades? That's the most help of anyone ever.. by far. Jordan might have 8 rings in that scenario If he played with talent like that his whole career. Shaq never transformed into defensive anchor in old age like duncan wilt KG etc all did.. he stayed trying to be the diesel.. his ego wouldn't allow him to change his game to win.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Because he's played on unreal loaded teams?

Anyone that's played with prime penny, prime kobe, prime wade, prime nash, prime bron, big 3 celtics and only has 4 rings to show for it over two decades? That's the most help of anyone ever.. by far. Jordan might have 8 rings in that scenario If he played with talent like that his whole career. Shaq never transformed into defensive anchor in old age like duncan wilt KG etc all did.. he stayed trying to be the diesel.. his ego wouldn't allow him to change his game to win.
That doesn't mean he didn't adjust. Shaq's stint with Miami proves he could play as the second option and still be an indomitable force all things equal.

3 different coaches; 3 different teams; 3 finals appearances and/or titles. Whatever help had is negated by most ATG's having tons of help as well.

Lets not pretend like your boy Kobe has had success without Phil, because he hasn't.

[Dr.J4ever]

I dont know about that. Plenty of greats only became serious contenders when something outside their control happened. And there are plenty of people unamiously considered to be the best or among the true elites who in retrospect dont get that credit because they never won. So people look back...and change the rankings of people who know better(those watching the people in question).

Its almost a self fulfilling assumption because we only call winners the true greats....which then makes it fairly obvious why all true greats seem to have won.

A guy like Oscar Robertson has slowly fallen from a fairly acceptable answer as the best player ever...which he was from his rookie season until like 1990....

There are two sides of the Oscar argument.....one thinks hes all time elite...arguably #1...one thinks he doesnt deserve nearly that ranking. But the two sides are almost entirely broken down into who did and did not see him play basketball.

There is a side basing its opinion on observation and relative knowledge...and one who pulls its opinion out of its ass based on google.

Yet we as a general fanbase have almost entirely accepted that every person who watched him has a worse grasp on him than those of us who didnt.

What gives us license to do such a(on its face) absurd thing is what you said:



Oscar won 2 playoff series in a 10 year prime on the Royals/Kings and only won 50 games once. Never won till he was traded to the Bucks to win with Kareem. And he had HOF teammates on Cincy so its not like he had scrubs.

So...people apply the "IF hes great...he would have..." logic and disregard the opinion of literally...every single person who ever watched him play basketball.

Its a little amusing to me.

Sometimes it just....doesnt work out.

You have to qualify the word "winner". Where did this winning get you? The regular season? Playoffs? The Finals?

Second, how much did this great player contribute to make his team win? Was he the centerpiece of a good regular season only? A deep playoff run? FMVP? Again, context matters.

The game of basketball revolves on it's objective: winning within a team context. Ultimately, the best players are the players that make it's team win. I mean, how else can you evaluate who the best players are? Stats?

I've been saying this over and over here on this board. Stats are not absolute figures that stand forever. They can and will change from team to team depending on the structure, opportunity, and offensive philosophy of a team.

At the end of the day, some GM in Milwaukee thought that if you pair Oscar with KAJ, you can win a title. This is pretty good proof that Oscar was a great player when you consider the entire context, meaning his whole career.

Kevin Love is now proving he was overrated just like I was saying during the Kevin Love "empty stats" debates before he went to the Cavs. That stats can change from team to team depending on offensive philosophy and structure is also being proven with Love's much lower statline with the Cavs.

Do stats matter? Of course, if you put it in context. Stats are a means to an end, and not an end in itself. In basketball, there is only one end: winning.

Bill Russel would agree with that.

[TheMarkMadsen]

22/14 in a game 7 win isn't stepping up?

Averaging 31.5/6/5 in his last 2 games against Memphis in 2013 to try and make up for Griffin's injury and his teammates completely disappearing isn't stepping up?

Difference is once again Kidd facing 42 win teams while CP was facing championship contending teams (Spurs, Memphis, Lakers, OKC).

And CP was playing injured in those last 2 games against Denver who were yet another team better than any team Kidd beat.

Paul played great in 2013 outside of game 3 but come man Memphis wasn't a championship contending team.

and no, the 08 nuggets weren't better than the 03 Pistons.

Paul has had some moments, but he doesn't have enough playoff success to outweigh his failures..yet.. which i believe he has his best chance ever this year to do..

We pick apart guys like Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, KD, WB, for every time they ever came up short, Cp3 is considered one of the leagues top players so i'm just unsure where all this uproar is coming from when people begin to point out his failures come playoff time.

With KD out this year, and as talented as the Clippers are, I really don't see what would hold them back from the WCF.

The only team that they'll face with a better player than Cp3 will be GSW and that's arguable

Paul has been in the MVP talk consistently every year since like 07 and has been considered a top 3-5 ever year since 08 at the latest

[tpols]

That doesn't mean he didn't adjust. Shaq's stint with Miami proves he could play as the second option and still be an indomitable force all things equal.

3 different coaches; 3 different teams; 3 finals appearances and/or titles. Whatever help had is negated by most ATG's having tons of help as well.

Lets not pretend like your boy Kobe has had success without Phil, because he hasn't.
I mean I didn't say kobe was flexible either.. he suffers from a similar problem as shaq in he he can't take his focus outside scoring in old age. He should've been in magic mode for years now but he only does it here and there.

The only difference is kobe is an extremely hard worker and at least was always committed to the game and wanting to win even if his stubbornness made him a fool At times. Shaq flat out cared more about his personal brand more than honing himself as a player and being dedicated to pure basketball.

[DMAVS41]

You have to qualify the word "winner". Where did this winning get you? The regular season? Playoffs? The Finals?

Second, how much did this great player contribute to make his team win? Was he the centerpiece of a good regular season only? A deep playoff run? FMVP? Again, context matters.

The game of basketball revolves on it's objective: winning within a team context. Ultimately, the best players are the players that make it's team win. I mean, how else can you evaluate who the best players are? Stats?

I've been saying this over and over here on this board. Stats are not absolute figures that stand forever. They can and will change from team to team depending on the structure, opportunity, and offensive philosophy of a team.

At the end of the day, some GM in Milwaukee thought that if you pair Oscar with KAJ, you can win a title. This is pretty good proof that Oscar was a great player when you consider the entire context, meaning his whole career.

Kevin Love is now proving he was overrated just like I was saying during the Kevin Love "empty stats" debates before he went to the Cavs. That stats can change from team to team depending on offensive philosophy and structure is also being proven with Love's much lower statline with the Cavs.

Do stats matter? Of course, if you put it in context. Stats are a means to an end, and not an end in itself. In basketball, there is only one end: winning.

Bill Russel would agree with that.

I'm not ready to write off Kevin Love yet, but you make a good point.

It is the same point I was trying to make with him last year. He was saying he doesn't need to see Kevin Love play one playoff game to know exactly how good he is.

Which is something I just find absurd.

His definition of being "good at basketball" is extremely narrow and misses a lot of what being good at basketball entails in my opinion.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I mean I didn't say kobe was flexible either.. he suffers from a similar problem as shaq in he he can't take his focus outside scoring in old age. He should've been in magic mode for years now but he only does it here and there.

The only difference is kobe is an extremely hard worker and at least was always committed to the game and wanting to win even if his stubbornness made him a fool At times. Shaq flat out cared more about his personal brand more than honing himself as a player and being dedicated to pure basketball.

Again, not true given what happened in 2006. Shaq literally gave the reigns to Wade and focused on other areas beside scoring: rebounding and defense being the most valued.

There were a few articles that even claimed Shaq had played one of his best Finals despite Wade completely and thoroughly outscoring him. Not what I would call inflexible...

So far, outside of their primes, Shaq's the guy who had success and was a KEY COG for a title team. Kobe has barely mustered a first round appearance.

[DaRkJaWs]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.
Let's see if your views are consistent. So I ask you: what do you think about wilt chamberlain?

[tpols]

Again, not true given what happened in 2006. Shaq literally gave the reigns to Wade and focused on other areas beside scoring: rebounding and defense being the most valued.

There were a few articles that even claimed Shaq had played one of his best Finals despite Wade completely and thoroughly outscoring him. Not what I would call inflexible...

So far, outside of their primes, Shaq's the guy who had success and was a KEY COG for a title team. Kobe has barely mustered a first round appearance.

that.. is just bullshit. I've heard all of the big heat fans on this board speak to shaq in 2006.. and they all dog him for how he capped that season. Wade and the refs dragged his 350lb ass to that title like a pack of huskies carrying a sled over the biggest mountain in alaska.



As for the last bit kobe in 2000 was just outside his prime and provided incredible support in his role.. best defensive season, ball handling and facilitating very well.. He's won a ring in a pure second option support role As well

[DMAVS41]

Because he's played on unreal loaded teams?

Anyone that's played with prime penny, prime kobe, prime wade, prime nash, prime bron, big 3 celtics and only has 4 rings to show for it over two decades? That's the most help of anyone ever.. by far. Jordan might have 8 rings in that scenario If he played with talent like that his whole career. Shaq never transformed into defensive anchor in old age like duncan wilt KG etc all did.. he stayed trying to be the diesel.. his ego wouldn't allow him to change his game to win.

I feel like this is a bit unfair because Shaq didn't have the body at an old age to anchor a defense...he didn't have the foot speed or quickness to recover and guard a pick and role and protect the rim.

Sure, he could have done better...like most, but he did yield to other players/teams and try to help in a specific role.

I think we have to give him some credit for doing that like he did for the Cavs and Suns.

[ralph_i_el]

Let's see if your views are consistent. So I ask you: what do you think about wilt chamberlain?
I think I've seen nowhere near enough of him to have a real opinion

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

that.. is just bullshit. I've heard all of the big heat fans on this board speak to shaq in 2006.. and they all dog him for how he capped that season. Wade and the refs dragged his 350lb ass to that title like a pack of huskies carrying a sled over the biggest mountain in alaska.

Actually it's not.


O'Neal has not only played smartly and efficiently but at times has been as dominant as ever. Despite double-teams, sometimes when he doesn't have the ball, he is averaging 14.6 points, 9.8 rebounds and 3.2 assists and shooting 66.7%
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/playoffs/2006-06-20-shaq_x.htm

Shaq played great throughout. What you're claiming are myths perpetuated by Wade zealots.

Kobe was playing alongside Shaq, and many people consider Kobe to be in his physical prime around 2000-2001. Main difference being, though, is Shaq was removed from his; depleted with bad knees.

[Kblaze8855]

You have to qualify the word "winner". Where did this winning get you? The regular season? Playoffs? The Finals?

Second, how much did this great player contribute to make his team win? Was he the centerpiece of a good regular season only? A deep playoff run? FMVP? Again, context matters.

The game of basketball revolves on it's objective: winning within a team context. Ultimately, the best players are the players that make it's team win. I mean, how else can you evaluate who the best players are? Stats?


I dont know why people just go from winning to stats as if there is nothing else.

People only started really really knowing stats in like.....1999. A broadcast might mention who lead the league in ____ or you could buy an almanac(as I did), hope to have the guys card in your collection, or get the right edition of SI and see season numbers....but you couldnt just instantly know who put up ___ in what season.

I remember seeing Peter Vecsey interviewing someone who mentioned Elgin Baylor. Neither of them knew Baylor averaged 19 rebounds a game at one point. Peter is 71 and covered the NBA and ABA in the 60s. I know Baylors numbers better than he does....because of the internet.

But the numbers were not the other side of the argument until that was an option.

I know players numbers from the 80s better now than I knew at the time.

My opinion wasnt based on numbers. It was based on basketball games.

Evaluating the people I saw based on the way they played.


I've been saying this over and over here on this board. Stats are not absolute figures that stand forever. They can and will change from team to team depending on the structure, opportunity, and offensive philosophy of a team.

At the end of the day, some GM in Milwaukee thought that if you pair Oscar with KAJ, you can win a title. This is pretty good proof that Oscar was a great player when you consider the entire context, meaning his whole career.


Winning a ring with Kareem is proof Oscar was great all along?

So...he doesnt end his career a shadow of himself on the Bucks you dont have proof Oscar was great?



Kevin Love is now proving he was overrated just like I was saying during the Kevin Love "empty stats" debates before he went to the Cavs. That stats can change from team to team depending on offensive philosophy and structure is also being proven with Love's much lower statline with the Cavs.

Kevin love isnt proving anything. Proof cant be undone. Hes in the regular season of season one in Cleveland. Nothing thats happened so far will matter with a ring. Thats how it works it seems.


Do stats matter? Of course, if you put it in context. Stats are a means to an end, and not an end in itself. In basketball, there is only one end: winning.

Bill Russel would agree with that.

Bill Russell would also tell you someone who never led a team to any real playoff success is just as good as he is(He list Oscar as one of 6 people he considers tied for the GOAT).

Greatness is hard to hide behind wins and losses and wins and losses have made a lot of people who dont deserve it look greater than they are.

If you are great...you just are. The rest may fall into line or it may not. It tends to because in basketball one person can have a greater impact than in most team sports. But as long as there are multiple greats at once(as is always the case) some of them have to fail.

Some will fail....10-15 years in a row.

Only so much room at the top.

A shitty owner can make the most dominant player in the world a pretender on a whim.

[DaRkJaWs]

I think I've seen nowhere near enough of him to have a real opinion
You're what in a certain gaming community we call a dodger (talks a lot but when it comes down to 1v1 you dodge). A lot has been said about wilt especially on ish so your bs isn't flying pal. You are a loser.

[JohnFreeman]

You're what in a certain gaming community we call a dodger (talks a lot but when it comes down to 1v1 you dodge). A lot has been said about wilt especially on ish so your bs isn't flying pal. You are a loser.
No one on this forum has watched Wilt play, except for highlights

[tpols]

Actually it's not.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/playoffs/2006-06-20-shaq_x.htm

Shaq played great throughout. What you're claiming are myths perpetuated by Wade zealots.

Kobe was playing alongside Shaq, and many people consider Kobe to be in his physical prime around 2000-2001. Main difference being, though, is Shaq was removed from his; depleted with bad knees.

You just gave the stats for part of the series.. and left out Shaq's 9 point close out game while wade dropped 36/10/5 lol..

This would be like me propping kobes 15 ppg 2000 finals linking YouTube videos to him hitting clutch shot after clutch shot to win a swing game.. it still wouldn't make his Finals anything crazy or 'best ever finals for him'.. because a 15 ppg or 13 ppg player isn't anything real special unless they're fking bill russel. And Shaq was never bill russell. Shaq's 2006 finals was just absolutely nothing noteworthy at all.

[DaRkJaWs]

No one on this forum has watched Wilt play, except for highlights
Jlauber?

[ralph_i_el]

You're what in a certain gaming community we call a dodger (talks a lot but when it comes down to 1v1 you dodge). A lot has been said about wilt especially on ish so your bs isn't flying pal. You are a loser.
You describe me with gamer lingo, but I'm the loser :roll:
How am I supposed to.have an opinion on a guy when the only chance I have to watch him is one highlight video put together by an insane fanboy? All I know is he played in an era where no one really cared about the NBA, the game was still young and evolving at a rapid rate in terms of strategy and skill (my grandpa used to watch Bill Russell in Oakland, and he said in the 40's players used to shoot with a hand on either side of the ball, flinging it over their heads.). Players smoked cigs in the locker rooms back then for ****s sake! Guys had to have second jobs lol.

I'm not going to speak to the skill of a player that I wasn't alive to watch. Maybe he's the GOAT, I really don't give a damn.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You just gave the stats for part of the series.. and left out Shaq's 9 point close out game while wade dropped 36/10/5 lol..

One game isn't gonna help your argument. FYI.

It's not all about stats either. With his age and health, Shaq played a pretty smart and efficient series on both ends. Drew doubles - passed out to open players. Rebounded - began fastbreaks with his outlet passes. Defended - gained extra possessions for the offense. I could go on, but most people without a personal agenda invested know the deal.


This would be like me propping kobes 15 ppg 2000 finals linking YouTube videos to him hitting clutch shot after clutch shot to win a swing game.. it still wouldn't make his Finals anything crazy or 'best ever finals'.. because a 15 ppg or 13 ppg player isn't anything real special unless they're fking bill russel. And Shaq was never bill russell. Shaq's 2006 finals was just absolutely nothing noteworthy at all.

Kobe played a mediocre series because of injuries, bad shot selection and defense (the perimeter players he defended generally outscored/played him).

Bad example on your part.

[tpols]

One game isn't gonna help your argument. FYI.

It's not all about stats either. With his age and health, Shaq played a pretty smart and efficient series on both ends. Drew doubles - passed out to open players. Rebounded - began fastbreaks with his outlet passes. Defended - gained extra possessions for the offense. I could go on, but most people without a personal agenda invested know the deal.



Kobe played a mediocre series because of injuries, bad shot selection and defense (the perimeter players he defended generally outscored/played him).

Bad example on your part.

I've literally never heard anyone prop Shaq's 13 ppg 2006 finals outside one bron stan.. lol. he had a down series.. went from like 20/10 in the ECF's and dropped off a cliff..

Shaq drew doubles, played good defense, rebounded etc. Kobe played good defense, and actually closed games had crucial sequences. Both did a little bit outside their paltry averages. Neither were special. the fact that you said Shaq's 2006 finals was one of his best is just.. alright peace.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Finally, regardless what you or anybody else thinks about those finals, they should be a reminder to everyone who idiotically believes Shaq "never adjusted" his game. Offensively guy was still one of the best impact players in the L, and yet, sacrificed his scoring to help improve the Heat's inadequacies in other areas. He and most superstars that have done the same, should be lauded for that.

[nathanjizzle]

i cant believe someone actually said "a player should be judged on individual performance and not team success, because one player has little impact on team success." only someone that is a fan boy of an underachiever like dirk would say something like that.

wtf? do some of you even play basketball? are we creating the myth now that 1 player has little impact on team success because their are "so many factors" outside of that player?

i mean have any of you even played basketball? i could go to a random pick up game and lead a bunch of scrubs to win 3 straight games. its not just about basketball talent, its about leadership and confidence, you give your players confidence to win because they see you as a competent leader. you cant say most of these all stars are competent leaders at all which is why alot of them are only good for putting up stats that dont translate to winning.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Yup.. winners > stat guys

Bird/magic/russell > shaq/lebron

Shaqs game was extremely dominant but very rigid.. inflexible and not about making others better.

Jordan is like a rare combo of stats plus winning.

Winners? Shaq has more rings than Bird..

[Dr.J4ever]

I dont know why people just go from winning to stats as if there is nothing else.

People only started really really knowing stats in like.....1999. A broadcast might mention who lead the league in ____ or you could buy an almanac(as I did), hope to have the guys card in your collection, or get the right edition of SI and see season numbers....but you couldnt just instantly know who put up ___ in what season.

I remember seeing Peter Vecsey interviewing someone who mentioned Elgin Baylor. Neither of them knew Baylor averaged 19 rebounds a game at one point. Peter is 71 and covered the NBA and ABA in the 60s. I know Baylors numbers better than he does....because of the internet.

But the numbers were not the other side of the argument until that was an option.

I know players numbers from the 80s better now than I knew at the time.

My opinion wasnt based on numbers. It was based on basketball games.

Evaluating the people I saw based on the way they played.




Winning a ring with Kareem is proof Oscar was great all along?

So...he doesnt end his career a shadow of himself on the Bucks you dont have proof Oscar was great?




Kevin love isnt proving anything. Proof cant be undone. Hes in the regular season of season one in Cleveland. Nothing thats happened so far will matter with a ring. Thats how it works it seems.



Bill Russell would also tell you someone who never led a team to any real playoff success is just as good as he is(He list Oscar as one of 6 people he considers tied for the GOAT).

Greatness is hard to hide behind wins and losses and wins and losses have made a lot of people who dont deserve it look greater than they are.

If you are great...you just are. The rest may fall into line or it may not. It tends to because in basketball one person can have a greater impact than in most team sports. But as long as there are multiple greats at once(as is always the case) some of them have to fail.

Some will fail....10-15 years in a row.

Only so much room at the top.

A shitty owner can make the most dominant player in the world a pretender on a whim.

We're not disagreeing a whole lot here. My main point is that it's very difficult to hide a great player. Truly great players become apparent, and it's not just in the stat line, W-Ls will show it too. Great players will attract success because fans and front office people will see the need to build around him. Suddenly, everyone will have vision and see that this great player can lead them to the promised land. History has shown this to be true.

Again, I can't change history and discuss hypotheticals. Oscar did win a title, and it punctuated the fact that he was a great player capable of not just producing stats, but making those stats work well enough to make his team win a title.

We also have to define the word "failure" for a great player. Is it leading your team for 10 years, making them perennial contenders in the process, and losing in the Finals 3 times, for example, but never winning the big one? There is no question that whoever does this is a great player, and not a failure. This is where circumstances and the breaks of the game can be considered.

Or leading your team for 3 or 4 years and never making the playoffs even once? Now, this player is very questionable as a great player, and may be overrated.

The level of winning is crucial in the discussion to determine who ended up as a failure, and thus not a truly great player.

[3ball]

but making those stats work well enough to make his team win a title.


DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!

Tell him what he's won Bob!

You hit the nail on the head - you must have both: goat stats AND the winning to prove that those stats can be accumulated within a winning team framework - not every all-time great can put up GOAT stats within a winning team concept... Like, Oscar only put up GOAT stats on non-winning teams... His stats when he won the title weren't GOAT or anywhere near.

That's why Jordan is GOAT - he had the goat stats AND his 6/6 proves he made those stats work for him better than anyone in the modern era.

[knicksman]

Why cant people just admit that there are people who will do anything to win and there are people who would let luck/teammates win it for them. It seems like they just cant accept that there are betas and there are alphas.

[oarabbus]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!

Tell him what he's won Bob!

You hit the nail on the head - you must have both: goat stats AND the winning to prove that those stats can be accumulated within a winning team framework - not every all-time great can put up GOAT stats within a winning team concept... Like, Oscar only put up GOAT stats on non-winning teams... His stats when he won the title weren't GOAT or anywhere near.

That's why Jordan is GOAT - he had the goat stats AND his 6/6 proves he made those stats work for him better than anyone in the modern era.


Oscar didn't have a Pippen

[game3524]

Oscar didn't have a Pippen

He did have Jerry Lucas though.

Oscar's problem is not even the lack of championship as the man, but the fact his teams generally didn't win much(only one season with 50+ wins in his prime).

[knicksman]

no team has every position completely filled with no weakness..

Clippers have arguably the best front court in the league, a 6 MOTY, and a championship coach

if Cp3 is as good as people claim (in the convo with Magic) there is no excuse for this team not to reach the finals especially with KD out.

only pre injury cp3 was comparable to magic. Other than that hes done. He cant do it anymore. 2nd, Pgs hasnt won as the man since isiah so why the high expectations. 3rd despite the injury, cp3 has still achieve more than other pgs.

Westbrook wasnt the man and made his team worse.
rose has the leastern conference.
parker has pop and role players that wins FMVPs instead of him.
curry hasnt made it to the 2nd round either.

Last season was the first time he finally had an elite player to carry him but they got robbed by the refs.
So why the expectations so high my friend? Or maybe just stupid :confusedshrug:

[Kblaze8855]

We're not disagreeing a whole lot here. My main point is that it's very difficult to hide a great player. Truly great players become apparent, and it's not just in the stat line, W-Ls will show it too. Great players will attract success because fans and front office people will see the need to build around him. Suddenly, everyone will have vision and see that this great
player can lead them to the promised land. History has shown this to be true.

Again, I can't change history and discuss hypotheticals. Oscar did win a title, and it punctuated the fact that he was a great player capable of not just producing stats, but making those stats work well enough to make his team win a title.


Again....when you define great players as winners you have to see how saying success finds great players is a little odd right? If greats are winners...of course people you consider great tend to have won. How not?

Doesnt seem you can even conceptualize a great player who isnt winning when you cant explore the "hypothetical" situation of Oscar being a proven great player before he was well past his prime.

Quite a few well regarded basketball minds...coaches and people considered legends then and now....considered Oscar the best player of all time his rookie season and shortly after....

He didnt get great when he proved he could win playing with the best player in the NBA in a reduced role.

The list of people so destructive to a winning environment they couldnt win no matter how fortuitous the situation they find themselves in is rather short...




We also have to define the word "failure" for a great player. Is it leading your team for 10 years, making them perennial contenders in the process, and losing in the Finals 3 times, for example, but never winning the big one? There is no question that whoever does this is a great player, and not a failure. This is where circumstances and the breaks of the game can be considered.

No question you say?

There are people a few posts up from this one who think a 4 time MVP who has been to the finals in half the seasons of a 10 year career and won twice already is only "great" in the minds of people brainwashed by the media.

There is always a question...because there are always idiots and the uninformed. Idiots are unpredictable.

The uninformed are fairly easy to predict. They find the path of least resistance on issues they dont have the information to discuss on a deeper level. Which is why an awful lot of people present no evidence beyond winning in arguments that logic demands a lot more of.

"___ won ___ and is therefore ____" isnt the popular explanation because its true. Its the popular explanation because its easy and it doesnt require you to know anything about how it came to be.

Doesnt mean I think you are an idiot....but the great majority of people with that view sure seem like it when you ask for details.

Repping the winner is easy. People love easy.



Or leading your team for 3 or 4 years and never making the playoffs even once? Now, this player is very questionable as a great player, and may be overrated.

The level of winning is crucial in the discussion to determine who ended up as a failure, and thus not a truly great player.

There are hall of famers who never won a playoff series and never even took their team to an NCAA tournament game(peaked at the NIT)...

Sometimes..most times even...it isnt as easy as we want it to be.

[3ball]

Oscar the best player


Have you ever watched Oscar play during his prime years?.. He held the ball for entire possessions and controlled every offensive decision for his team.

This style was great at getting him GOAT stats, but that style could never fit into a championship team - if your GOAT stats can't be achieved on a championship team, they can't be considered equal with someone whose GOAT stats ARE achieved on championship teams.

Any coach can devise a gameplan to maximize the scoring and stats of a certain player - this is essentially what happens anytime a player puts up great stats and loses... Now if a gameplan was developed that allowed a player to put up GOAT stats and go 6/6, then that player would obviously be GOAT, and their playing STYLE would also be GOAT.
.

[stanlove1111]

Have you ever watched Oscar play during his prime years?.. He held the ball for entire possessions and controlled every offensive decision for his team.

This style was great at getting him GOAT stats, but that style could never fit into a championship team - if your GOAT stats can't be achieved on a championship team, the stats can't be considered equal with someone whose GOAT stats ARE achieved on championship teams.

It's no surprise that Oscar only won when his numbers came down.. Oscar's style was so ball-dominant that if he had played with Kareem earlier in his career, they probably underachieve and lose - just like many stacked teams that used suboptimal playing styles have done throughout history (Miami 2011, Lakers 1998, Lakers 2004, etc., etc.).

Any coach can devise a gameplan to maximize the scoring and stats of a certain player - this is essentially what happens anytime a player puts up great stats and loses... Now if a gameplan was developed that allowed a player to put up GOAT stats and go 6/6, then that player would obviously be GOAT, and their playing style would also be GOAT.
.

Bingo..100% spot on.

Oscar never led his team to the title round paste high school and there was a reason for that. His college team won a ttile right after he left.. he dominated the ball way to much.

Some on here want to talk about the title he won in 1971 but lets look at the facts. The Bucks were third best team the year before and they were led by two rookies. The two teams that were better then them the year before were not gojng to stop them in 1971 with or without Oscar. The Knicks ddn't even get to the finals and the Lakers lost West and Baylor..The Bucks most likely didn't even need Oscar that year to win it all.

[John Tesh]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship. CP3 gets constant hate for his lack of playoff success.

Why do guys like this even watch basketball? I know I watch ball to see the best players blow my mind with fantastic displays of skill and athleticism, and to root for my hometown team.

Every season there are 6-10 teams that can realistically win it all. Even if a star player spends 10 years of their career on a squad that gives them enough support to win (unlikely), their chances of winning more than once are very slim, no matter how well they play.

Give 2 pts to FMVP, 1.5 pts to 2nd options or significant 3rd options, 1 pt to contributing role/role players.

Jordan = 12 pts
Duncan = 9 pts
Kobe = 8.5 pts
Shaq = 7.5 pts
Horry = 7 pts
Wade = 5 pts
LeBron = 4 pts
Bosh = 3 pts

:applause:

[riseagainst]

Give 2 pts to FMVP, 1.5 pts to 2nd options or significant 3rd options, 1 pt to contributing role/role players.

Jordan = 12 pts
Duncan = 9 pts
Kobe = 8.5 pts
Shaq = 7.5 pts
Horry = 7 pts
Wade = 5 pts
LeBron = 4 pts
Bosh = 3 pts

:applause:


:applause:
:applause:

[Im Still Ballin]

Give 2 pts to FMVP, 1.5 pts to 2nd options or significant 3rd options, 1 pt to contributing role/role players.

Jordan = 12 pts
Duncan = 9 pts
Kobe = 8.5 pts
Shaq = 7.5 pts
Horry = 7 pts
Wade = 5 pts
LeBron = 4 pts
Bosh = 3 pts

:applause:
Then add 2 pts for MVP's

Jordan = 22
Duncan = 13
Kobe = 10.5
Shaq = 9.5
Horry = 7
Wade = 5
Lebron = 12
Bosh = 3

[John Tesh]

Then add 2 pts for MVP's

Jordan = 22
Duncan = 13
Kobe = 10.5
Shaq = 9.5
Horry = 7
Wade = 5
Lebron = 12
Bosh = 3

Not bad.

[John Tesh]

Pippen would be at 9 for the record in either scenario.

[ralph_i_el]

Give 2 pts to FMVP, 1.5 pts to 2nd options or significant 3rd options, 1 pt to contributing role/role players.

Jordan = 12 pts
Duncan = 9 pts
Kobe = 8.5 pts
Shaq = 7.5 pts
Horry = 7 pts
Wade = 5 pts
LeBron = 4 pts
Bosh = 3 pts

:applause:

So every single part of a players career that doesn't take place in the 7 game nba finals series doesn't matter:facepalm

Who's alt are you? If you need a throwaway account to say something, it's invariably stupid.

[Dr.J4ever]

That last post by 3ball and stanlove were pretty much accurate, I guess. Never thought I would be agreeing with 3ball, and disagreeing with kblaze in any thread, but there's always a first.:lol

I don't feel comfortable commenting about Oscar too much since I never saw him play, except watching taped partial games from NBA TV or some grainy You Tube videos. All I know about the guy are some great stats, and what other respected people say about him. I'm pretty sure if he didn't win a title, he would be even further down the list of goat players, and we know he is sliding downward these days.

To me, not relying on the ultimate stat-- winning--and how much does the hero contribute to the winning, and how far does he take his team just doesn't make sense. This would mean being reduced to what I call the means, not the end itself, the stats. I have already said stats aren't absolute figures that stand forever. They can and will change depending on opportunity, team philosophy, and structure.

Let me make an example on the top of my head. Ever watch Team USA in Fiba ball? Now we know from watching entire NBA seasons that many of it's players are among the best in the world, but you won't always be able to tell if you watch these international tournaments .

For instance, and this probably happened to different players(I'm too lazy to look it up) in this situation. There must have been games where Lebron would score 12 points, melo would score 17 points, and kobe would get 10 points in a 15 point win over Lithuania. Kleiza would lead Lithuania with 28 points with great shooting from the outside, and all over really.

Now a first time watcher of these games would conclude that kleiza is the best scorer of all of them, and in fact, many inferior international players would be named in the fiba mythical team after the tournament over American players.

Individually, the tournament would show lesser players getting stats over American players that we know are superior players and it's not just because of mpg. The American team would have the philosophy of making everyone happy and sharing the scoring load to make sure upsets would not happen, but the international team would have to rely on it's one or 2 good scorers with NBA lineage to combat the superior Americans and hope lightning strikes.

Now, when looking at this, only one stat would clearly show who the best players are, and it's Ws-Ls. Americans very rarely dominate these tournaments from a stat perspective, but they do dominate where it really matters. The US is unbeaten since 2006(Spanoulis and Greece :lol )

In hoops, the team with the best players usually win. The best players win even when their stats aren't as good as players from the losing side. When trying to determine who the best players are winning comes first, and stats second, in my book. Stats are just a means to an end, and not the end in itself.

[Kblaze8855]

Do I really need to do another "I'm not talking about stats im talking about basketball playing ability" thing?

You keep telling me its wins and not stats when I never said it was stats to begin with. You ask me what to consider if not winning and assumed it was stats and ran with it....and I'm reasonably sure I covered that a while back.

I suspect a greater portion of my time here has been spent discussing why I don't care what someone averaged than any other subject.

This was five years ago:

www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=175259


and I was wasting even more time bring preachy about it before that.

I don't know who you believe is saying look at stats and not winning but it isn't me.

I'm saying it takes too many players coaches and owners for teams to be successful to judge any individual off the accomplishments.

And if I were going to try it would have to be some truly overwhelming all-encompassing accomplishments independent of each individual factor.

Bill Russell for example won in high school, college, the Olympics and the NBA and only lost 1 series in his life during which his ankle wasn't broken. And he coached two teams to title so you can't even use his coaches against him.

He's probably the only example off the top of my head in American team sports who's grip on victory was so ridiculous it borders on supernatural. People talk about his team being talented and he won 55 games in a row in college and two national titles for a school that was only heard from again like twice in the last 60 years.

If I'm going to put aside rational observations and boil it down to the kind of bullshit I'm so often fed by a know nothing public you better be doing something epic.

[John Tesh]

So every single part of a players career that doesn't take place in the 7 game nba finals series doesn't matter:facepalm

Who's alt are you? If you need a throwaway account to say something, it's invariably stupid.

:facepalm It wasn't a serious post.

[ralph_i_el]

:facepalm It wasn't a serious post.
So not serious that you made an entire thread for it:rolleyes:

For real though
I'm glad I made this thread. A lot of good discussion from all angles.
ISH:applause:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Boiled down:::

[SexSymbol]

no

[Rooster]

That last post by 3ball and stanlove were pretty much accurate, I guess. Never thought I would be agreeing with 3ball, and disagreeing with kblaze in any thread, but there's always a first.:lol

I don't feel comfortable commenting about Oscar too much since I never saw him play, except watching taped partial games from NBA TV or some grainy You Tube videos. All I know about the guy are some great stats, and what other respected people say about him. I'm pretty sure if he didn't win a title, he would be even further down the list of goat players, and we know he is sliding downward these days.

To me, not relying on the ultimate stat-- winning--and how much does the hero contribute to the winning, and how far does he take his team just doesn't make sense. This would mean being reduced to what I call the means, not the end itself, the stats. I have already said stats aren't absolute figures that stand forever. They can and will change depending on opportunity, team philosophy, and structure.

Let me make an example on the top of my head. Ever watch Team USA in Fiba ball? Now we know from watching entire NBA seasons that many of it's players are among the best in the world, but you won't always be able to tell if you watch these international tournaments .

For instance, and this probably happened to different players(I'm too lazy to look it up) in this situation. There must have been games where Lebron would score 12 points, melo would score 17 points, and kobe would get 10 points in a 15 point win over Lithuania. Kleiza would lead Lithuania with 28 points with great shooting from the outside, and all over really.

Now a first time watcher of these games would conclude that kleiza is the best scorer of all of them, and in fact, many inferior international players would be named in the fiba mythical team after the tournament over American players.

Individually, the tournament would show lesser players getting stats over American players that we know are superior players and it's not just because of mpg. The American team would have the philosophy of making everyone happy and sharing the scoring load to make sure upsets would not happen, but the international team would have to rely on it's one or 2 good scorers with NBA lineage to combat the superior Americans and hope lightning strikes.

Now, when looking at this, only one stat would clearly show who the best players are, and it's Ws-Ls. Americans very rarely dominate these tournaments from a stat perspective, but they do dominate where it really matters. The US is unbeaten since 2006(Spanoulis and Greece :lol )

In hoops, the team with the best players usually win. The best players win even when their stats aren't as good as players from the losing side. When trying to determine who the best players are winning comes first, and stats second, in my book. Stats are just a means to an end, and not the end in itself.

Stats means a lot if you can at least have an impact in wins and losses. On a game of basketball , a great player should have that impact. Watching Harden live this year in offense, the other 9 players in the floor predicate on what he's gonna do. That's what an offensive threat should be. On the other end, there are players that their presence in the floor make it hard for anyone to get an easy basket just like Rudy Gobert. And that one can't be measured by stat alone.

Thats why stats are overrated if you don't put it into context. In baseball it means a lot because it's mostly one on one. You can have the best stats and the best player and your team record could be the worst. In basketball, you are playing at both ends most of the time, you can set up your teammates for open shots. You have more impact individually so to speak.

[John Tesh]

So not serious that you made an entire thread for it:rolleyes:

For real though
I'm glad I made this thread. A lot of good discussion from all angles.
ISH:applause:

I thought it would be fun to discuss how people would rank based on it. I'm sorry that I don't take ISH as seriously as you do.

[ralph_i_el]

I thought it would be fun to discuss how people would rank based on it. I'm sorry that I don't take ISH as seriously as you do.

Sorry to jump all over you if you didn't mean it as trolling. I've been working too hard and not smoking enough pot:facepalm it's making me a dick

[TheBigVeto]

Some ignorant Chi-town public school droput just called Dirk "mediocre" for only winning one championship.

Dude must be racist.

Dirk's one ring carries a lot of weight because he also beat David Stern and his minions.

[dubeta]

I think the FMVP ratio is the most important metric FMVP's/rings

[DMAVS41]

i cant believe someone actually said "a player should be judged on individual performance and not team success, because one player has little impact on team success." only someone that is a fan boy of an underachiever like dirk would say something like that.

wtf? do some of you even play basketball? are we creating the myth now that 1 player has little impact on team success because their are "so many factors" outside of that player?

i mean have any of you even played basketball? i could go to a random pick up game and lead a bunch of scrubs to win 3 straight games. its not just about basketball talent, its about leadership and confidence, you give your players confidence to win because they see you as a competent leader. you cant say most of these all stars are competent leaders at all which is why alot of them are only good for putting up stats that dont translate to winning.

you are probably talking about me...even though I didn't remotely say that.

I said players should be judged more on how they play than how their team does overall. that doesn't translate into team success doesn't matter.

It's just not hard...we really gonna get on Barkley for not winning in 93? We really gonna act like Dirk was better in 2011 Finals than Barkley was in 93? It's total BS to do that.

Barkley was a monster...he put up 27/13/6 and absolutely dominated game 2 in which his team still lost because that other team had the GOAT.

What do we do with that? Ignore the simple fact that players that have played far worse have won titles because of circumstances out of their control?

You judge players on everything they do...not just winning or winning titles.

I happen to think Dirk was better than Barkley, but it sure isn't because of how Dirk played in the 2011 finals.

You could go down the list of so many things like that. Check out Kobe's 00 finals...he's better than better players because of that ring or something? Nonsense.

Which is why I said the most important thing is how players play. Winning matters a lot still, but we can't ignore the obvious.

Now...where I agree with you...is that impact and being good at basketball go beyond stats and individual skill set. Those are tedious arguments and complicated issues that take a lot of time to work through...so most people like ring counting. Again...which is stupid and incomplete.

As always you have to compare players as best you can based on their circumstances for winning. Had a guy like Shaq or Kobe or Lebron not won multiple titles given their level of help...yes...we would have to question their greatness. Just like we'll have to question it with Durant if he fails to win a ring with the kind of loaded teams he's had and likely will continue to have.

But people like you take it too far. You expect a team of Terry, Steakhouse, Harris, Dampier....and some solid role players to win titles over the likes of Duncan, loaded Suns teams, Shaq/Kobe...etc.

That just isn't a reasonable championship or bust type scenario.

Context matters with all this shit...

[jongib369]

Have you ever watched Oscar play during his prime years?.. He held the ball for entire possessions and controlled every offensive decision for his team.

This style was great at getting him GOAT stats, but that style could never fit into a championship team - if your GOAT stats can't be achieved on a championship team, they can't be considered equal with someone whose GOAT stats ARE achieved on championship teams.

Any coach can devise a gameplan to maximize the scoring and stats of a certain player - this is essentially what happens anytime a player puts up great stats and loses... Now if a gameplan was developed that allowed a player to put up GOAT stats and go 6/6, then that player would obviously be GOAT, and their playing STYLE would also be GOAT.
.
Replace Oscar with Jordan or Magic during Oscars prime years...Do you think either individual on those teams can overcome the Celtics?

Apologies if you've already addressed this, it's a simple point I'm bringing up...But I just don't see either of them putting Oscar's team over the top with him replaced

[3ball]

Replace Oscar with Jordan or Magic during Oscars prime years...Do you think either individual on those teams can overcome the Celtics?


Jordan got GOAT stats playing off-ball.

Oscar got GOAT stats dominating the ball.

Accordingly, if Jordan replaced Oscar, the team would be completely transformed (for the better imo) and the team would play totally differently.

To answer your question - Oscar almost beat the Celtics in 1963 when he took them 7 games in the conference finals... I think with Jordan's style transforming that team into something completely different, I have no doubt that he could do better than the 7 games Oscar took the Celtics (MJ would beat em').

[Solefade]

unless we're talking about the #1 guy, rings shouldn't matter and that #1 spot currently belongs to MJ.

theres too many variables to judge a player by rings which is team success...what if you have a shitty GM or a coach or an owner? not really fair

[Lebron23]

Regular Season MVP, Regular Season/Playoffs/Finals Performance, and Finals MVP only matters in comparing the career of NBA Players.

[John Tesh]

Sorry to jump all over you if you didn't mean it as trolling. I've been working too hard and not smoking enough pot:facepalm it's making me a dick

We're all good :cheers:

[kennethgriffin]

I think

:roll:

[John Tesh]

:roll:

:sleeping

[kennethgriffin]

:sleeping

forgot to sign out of your alt

:roll:

[John Tesh]

forgot to sign out of your alt

:roll:

I was pointing out that you weren't funny. Didn't matter who it was towards.