How much weight do you put on winning as "the man"?

[ClipperRevival]

To me, it's everything. I put a ton of weight for guys who won as "the man" versus guys who won as second fiddle or third wheel. There is nothing more impressive than being "the man" on a team and being the focus of the D every night and still dominating. It's so much easier to be the 2nd fiddle and kind of go under the radar of the bright lights.

That's exactly why history views Hakeem and Robinson so differently. Both have two rings but the way they got them is night and day. Hakeem carrying about as much a load as anyone in history while Robinson piggy backing off of Duncan late in his career.

Same with Pippen. He was one of the best all around wing players ever but the guy simply didn't have the type of offensive game to carry an offense on his back. He proved that when he went to Houston and Portland. And he needed MJ just as much as MJ needed Pip. They needed each other. But there was no denying who carried the load every night. Who defenses focused on every night.

Same with a guy like Drexler. He has a ring but had he beaten MJ in the 1992 finals or 1990 finals against Detroit as "the man", his place in history would've been much higher than it is now. He piggy backed off of Hakeem.

Same with Kobe. People say all Kobe needs is 1 more ring to tie MJ and I laugh. He only has 2 as "the man", where he clearly had to carry the largest burden. You can make a strong argument that in 2001, he was almost equal to Shaq, but in the grand scheme of things, he was the 2nd fiddle from 2000 - 2002. And he was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever.

Where it gets a little murky is with Duncan. He was clearly "the man" for his first 3 rings but he sort of blended in with the rest of the team for his last 2. But he clearly had the talent to score more if he wanted too. He was just willing to blend in. So do you downgrade him for that? I don't know because even though he was clearly not "the man", he might still have been the most valueable and important given what he brought to the table on both ends.

Thoughts?

[LikeABosh]

Rings as the man is one of the top criteria when ranking the GOATs. Once Lebron wins his 3rd FMVP this season Lebron vs. Kobe won't even be debatable. 3 fmvps, 4 mvps>>>>>>>>2 FMVP (one should have gone to Gasol), 1 MVP.

[Rake2204]

Winning championships as "the man" surely holds weight more than winning as second in line, in my opinion.

That said, I still think a lot of things in basketball are largely determined by circumstance. Kobe Bryant happened to be on Shaquille O'Neal's team and O'Neal was "the man", but perhaps O'Neal does not win those titles without having a guy like Bryant by his side.

Moreover, in the case of David Robinson, perhaps he would have had a better chance at winning NBA titles in his prime as "the man" if he had teams more similar to what Tim Duncan was working with in 1999 and 2003. For instance, prime Robinson may have had some use for a post-prime version of himself, instead of relying upon an aging Antoine Carr and Charles Smith, not to mention Negele Knight and a frequently disinterested and unreliable Dennis Rodman.

Separate from championships, I think "the man's" flat influence on a given team is very important, even in lieu of a ring. Sometimes things like Bryant leading a mid-2000's Smush Parker Lakers team to the playoffs can be a huge accomplishment, or LeBron James taking a lottery team and adding 30 wins (or Robinson in that case, though the Spurs' 35-win improvement in '90 also had to do with the additions of Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland and others).

As a result, winning championships as "the man" sometimes just cannot be in the cards. In order for Jordan to earn his six rings, he needed a lot of help and team support along the way. As it turned out, adding an all-time great player to a solid team resulted in championship glory over and over again. But if Jordan somehow got stuck playing for teams like the 1993 Mavericks his entire career (hello, Mike Iuzzolino), thus leading to vast win improvements (say from 11 wins to 48) but no NBA rings because the team sucks, would that mean Jordan was no longer the most skilled player of all-time?

[Heavincent]

2 FMVP (one should have gone to Gasol)

Retard alert.

[Dbrog]

Retard alert.

19/12/4/3 is somewhat comparable to 29/8/4/2. I think Kobe still deserved the MVP but I wouldn't be mad if someone disagreed.

On topic: Rings as the man mean almost everything to me. Basically agree with everything you said OP. Duncan and Russ are kinda the exceptions to this since they sacrificed everything for the good of their teams and didn't really care about the numbers at the end of the night. I would argue their presence and leadership still made them "the man" on almost all of those teams. Replace them with less mentally tough/basketball IQ players and those teams lose.

[scm5]

The thing is, Kobe proved he could win without Shaq with Gasol.

You can't take away his 8 years with Shaq and 2 years rebuilding after Shaq and say Kobe could only win 2 titles as the man in his career. That's not fair at all since Kobe really only had a window of 6 seasons to contend for championships.

It's actually amazing, if Lebron doesn't win this year, his record in the finals would be 2/6 which would tie Kobe's "window" of winning championships given to him by his haters by taking away his years with Shaq without any credit.

[Rake2204]

Retard alert.I'm not super familiar with that entire 2010 series, but could Gasol have actually had a case with Bryant struggling to shoot over 40% for the series while Pau averaged 19, 12, 4, and 3, including a 19-point, 18-rebound performance in Game 7 while Bryant shot 6 of 24?

I mean, I know better than to just live off statistics so I'm acknowledging there's obviously more to it, but just looking at how things shook out in that regard, could there have been any merit at all to Gasol earning the award? Could it be argued that Gasol could have swung that series?

Finals MVP aside, I sometimes find Pau Gasol extremely underrated; I suspect this is sometimes a product of a fanatic's need of validating Kobe Bryant winning "on his own". I think that's a total fallacy. Most great players need some great teammates to win championships - that's the way it should be.

[T_L_P]

Where it gets a little murky is with Duncan. He was clearly "the man" for his first 3 rings but he sort of blended in with the rest of the team for his last 2. But he clearly had the talent to score more if he wanted too. He was just willing to blend in. So do you downgrade him for that? I don't know because even though he was clearly not "the man", he might still have been the most valueable and important given what he brought to the table on both ends.

Thoughts?

:biggums:

I get the most recent one. In fact, Kawhi was our best player (though him and Duncan were 1a/1b in the postseason).

But how wasn't he CLEARLY the man in 07?

Here are his and Parker's stats:

20/11/4/2/.579 TS% in the Regular Season for Tim
19/3/5/1/.572 TS% in the Regular Season for Parker

26.1 - 21.4 PER
13.0 - 9.6 WS
.230 - .185 WS/48
7.1 - 2.1 BPM

Duncan was clearly the best Spur in the Regular Season.

What about the Playoffs?

22/12/3/3/.556 TS% for Tim
21/3/5/1/.523 TS% for Parker

27.4 - 18.7 PER
3.3 - 1.7 WS
.214 - .100 WS/48
7.2 - 0.5 BPM

Tim was far and away the best Spur in the Playoffs.

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2007.html

Tim lead the entire league in RAPM with a 10.2 (Garnett was 2nd with an 8.6)

Parker wasn't even top 75 with his 0.4

Matter of fact, Parker wasn't even second in command on that team - Manu was.

Duncan's role as the man was clearer in 07 than it was in 99 or 05 (Robinson being the best defensive player on the 99 team, Manu being the best offensive player on the 05 team).

That dynamic doesn't exist for 07. Duncan was arguably the best player in the league; Tony Parker wasn't even a top 5 player at his position. Nobody was calling it Parker's team.

Duncan won 4 rings as the man, the most after Russell (8-11), Jordan (6) and Mikan (5).

Edit: and I didn't even mention defense. 07 Duncan played DPOY-level defense; Parker was bad on that end.

[LikeABosh]

Retard alert.
Led team in win shares, DRTG, ORTG. He was the most valuable player in that series using the eye test. He also didn't shoot 6/24 in game 7.

[3ball]

I remember playing with James Blackmon (Sr.) in a summer, outdoor tournament.

He carried us to the championship.. He was like a superhero - we literally looked his direction anytime the game got tight.

Yeah, I put a lot of weight into winning rings as "the man"... Anything else is just good teamwork and strategy, where the whole team gets the credit... Who needs that.. :rolleyes:

[riseagainst]

Led team in win shares, DRTG, ORTG. He was the most valuable player in that series using the eye test. He also didn't shoot 6/24 in game 7.

2015 playoffs:

WS/48
Kevin Love: .220
Kyrie: .217
JR smith:.192
Tristan Thompson: .190
Lebron: .181

ORTG
Lebron: 105
Thompson: 132
Shumpert: 120
Kyrie: 121
JR: 121

Lebron aint even the top 3 player on his team.

[ClipperRevival]

Winning championships as "the man" surely holds weight more than winning as second in line, in my opinion.

That said, I still think a lot of things in basketball are largely determined by circumstance. Kobe Bryant happened to be on Shaquille O'Neal's team and O'Neal was "the man", but perhaps O'Neal does not win those titles without having a guy like Bryant by his side.

Moreover, in the case of David Robinson, perhaps he would have had a better chance at winning NBA titles in his prime as "the man" if he had teams more similar to what Tim Duncan was working with in 1999 and 2003. For instance, prime Robinson may have had some use for a post-prime version of himself, instead of relying upon an aging Antoine Carr and Charles Smith, not to mention Negele Knight and a frequently disinterested and unreliable Dennis Rodman.

Separate from championships, I think "the man's" flat influence on a given team is very important, even in lieu of a ring. Sometimes things like Bryant leading a mid-2000's Smush Parker Lakers team to the playoffs can be a huge accomplishment, or LeBron James taking a lottery team and adding 30 wins (or Robinson in that case, though the Spurs' 35-win improvement in '90 also had to do with the additions of Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland and others).

As a result, winning championships as "the man" sometimes just cannot be in the cards. In order for Jordan to earn his six rings, he needed a lot of help and team support along the way. As it turned out, adding an all-time great player to a solid team resulted in championship glory over and over again. But if Jordan somehow got stuck playing for teams like the 1993 Mavericks his entire career (hello, Mike Iuzzolino), thus leading to vast win improvements (say from 11 wins to 48) but no NBA rings because the team sucks, would that mean Jordan was no longer the most skilled player of all-time?

The part in red is a layman's statement. Of course Shaq doesn't win rings without Kobe. Just like MJ doesn't win rings without Pippen. But there is a hierarchy in most championship winning teams. So it should be accepted fact that even the greatest players don't win without help and others doing their part.

But I get what you're saying in the rest of your post.

[ClipperRevival]

Oh, and Gasol has ZERO claim to FMVP in 2010. As a die hard Laker fan, I watched that series as closely as possible and even attended a couple of games. Kobe was clearly "the man" and the leader and the most valuable player in that series, despite his game 7 performance.

[Beastmode88]

2015 playoffs:

WS/48
Kevin Love: .220
Kyrie: .217
JR smith:.192
Tristan Thompson: .190
Lebron: .181

ORTG
Lebron: 105
Thompson: 132
Shumpert: 120
Kyrie: 121
JR: 121

Lebron aint even the top 3 player on his team.

Damn dont do them like that.

[ClipperRevival]

:biggums:

I get the most recent one. In fact, Kawhi was our best player (though him and Duncan were 1a/1b in the postseason).

But how wasn't he CLEARLY the man in 07?

Here are his and Parker's stats:

20/11/4/2/.579 TS% in the Regular Season for Tim
19/3/5/1/.572 TS% in the Regular Season for Parker

26.1 - 21.4 PER
13.0 - 9.6 WS
.230 - .185 WS/48
7.1 - 2.1 BPM

Duncan was clearly the best Spur in the Regular Season.

What about the Playoffs?

22/12/3/3/.556 TS% for Tim
21/3/5/1/.523 TS% for Parker

27.4 - 18.7 PER
3.3 - 1.7 WS
.214 - .100 WS/48
7.2 - 0.5 BPM

Tim was far and away the best Spur in the Playoffs.

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2007.html

Tim lead the entire league in RAPM with a 10.2 (Garnett was 2nd with an 8.6)

Parker wasn't even top 75 with his 0.4

Matter of fact, Parker wasn't even second in command on that team - Manu was.

Duncan's role as the man was clearer in 07 than it was in 99 or 05 (Robinson being the best defensive player on the 99 team, Manu being the best offensive player on the 05 team).

That dynamic doesn't exist for 07. Duncan was arguably the best player in the league; Tony Parker wasn't even a top 5 player at his position. Nobody was calling it Parker's team.

Duncan won 4 rings as the man, the most after Russell (8-11), Jordan (6) and Mikan (5).

Edit: and I didn't even mention defense. 07 Duncan played DPOY-level defense; Parker was bad on that end.

As a Spurs fan, I bow down to your post. But I was talking about the finals. Duncan was clearly their best player over the entire 2007 season, that's for sure.

[LikeABosh]

2015 playoffs:

WS/48
Kevin Love: .220
Kyrie: .217
JR smith:.192
Tristan Thompson: .190
Lebron: .181

ORTG
Lebron: 105
Thompson: 132
Shumpert: 120
Kyrie: 121
JR: 121

Lebron aint even the top 3 player on his team.
That's why you use a combination of advanced stats, raw stats, and eye test.

[T_L_P]

As a Spurs fan, I bow down to your post. But I was talking about the finals. Duncan was clearly their best player over the entire 2007 season, that's for sure.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. And to be fair, if you're just talking about the Finals you're absolutely right. :cheers:

I do put a lot on winning as the man though. Obviously other things factor in (strength of squad, making the Playoffs or the Conference Finals or the Finals with dead weight, intangibles, etc), but that is one of the first things I look at.

[DMAVS41]

That's why you use a combination of advanced stats, raw stats, and eye test.

Or one could just understand that Lebron is the reason the other guys have performed so well....

If you combine that with also understanding Lebron himself is not playing great offensive basketball...you get those stats.

Just takes a bit of logic, intelligence, and context with this stuff.

[riseagainst]

Or one could just understand that Lebron is the reason the other guys have performed so well....

If you combine that with also understanding Lebron himself is not playing great offensive basketball...you get those stats.

Just takes a bit of logic, intelligence, and context with this stuff.

You forgot to mention objectivity. The most important tool.

[iamgine]

To me, it's everything. I put a ton of weight for guys who won as "the man" versus guys who won as second fiddle or third wheel. There is nothing more impressive than being "the man" on a team and being the focus of the D every night and still dominating. It's so much easier to be the 2nd fiddle and kind of go under the radar of the bright lights.

That's exactly why history views Hakeem and Robinson so differently. Both have two rings but the way they got them is night and day. Hakeem carrying about as much a load as anyone in history while Robinson piggy backing off of Duncan late in his career.

Same with Pippen. He was one of the best all around wing players ever but the guy simply didn't have the type of offensive game to carry an offense on his back. He proved that when he went to Houston and Portland. And he needed MJ just as much as MJ needed Pip. They needed each other. But there was no denying who carried the load every night. Who defenses focused on every night.

Same with a guy like Drexler. He has a ring but had he beaten MJ in the 1992 finals or 1990 finals against Detroit as "the man", his place in history would've been much higher than it is now. He piggy backed off of Hakeem.

Same with Kobe. People say all Kobe needs is 1 more ring to tie MJ and I laugh. He only has 2 as "the man", where he clearly had to carry the largest burden. You can make a strong argument that in 2001, he was almost equal to Shaq, but in the grand scheme of things, he was the 2nd fiddle from 2000 - 2002. And he was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever.

Where it gets a little murky is with Duncan. He was clearly "the man" for his first 3 rings but he sort of blended in with the rest of the team for his last 2. But he clearly had the talent to score more if he wanted too. He was just willing to blend in. So do you downgrade him for that? I don't know because even though he was clearly not "the man", he might still have been the most valueable and important given what he brought to the table on both ends.

Thoughts?
Well winning the title is more of a team and circumstance issue than individual greatness. There's no need to put much weight into it.

[Shih508]

As a Spurs fan, I bow down to your post. But I was talking about the finals. Duncan was clearly their best player over the entire 2007 season, that's for sure.

That final was easier than first round in 07. Duncan wasn't stat paddling like some other superstars and that's how Parker got his undeserved FMVP

[ClipperRevival]

That final was easier than first round in 07. Duncan wasn't stat paddling like some other superstars and that's how Parker got his undeserved FMVP

Yeah, and that makes Duncan look even better. If I was starting a team and I could pick anyone in history, Duncan would be one of the first players I would take, given what I know. Two way dominance for almost 2 decades. Great team player. Never let his ego get in the way of winning. What more can you ask for? He wasn't flashy but he just got the job done.

[ClipperRevival]

Well winning the title is more of a team and circumstance issue than individual greatness. There's no need to put much weight into it.

Of course teams win championships and the role players usually have to show up when it matters but history has shown a clear pattern of how a championship team is constructed. It starts with "the man", a second fiddle and a third wheel. Then you have the rest of the role players. Sure, you have your exceptions like the 2004 Pistons but the vast majority of the time, this holds true.

This isn't baseball, where any team that gets hot can win it. Basketball is the only sport where even before the season starts, we already know the 3-4 teams that have a legit chance to win it and no one else really has a chance. And that's because those are the teams with the best players. It's a game where one superstar can have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. And that's why winning as "the man" should carry a tremendous amount of weight.

[97 bulls]

Of course teams win championships and the role players usually have to show up when it matters but history has shown a clear pattern of how a championship team is constructed. It starts with "the man", a second fiddle and a third wheel. Then you have the rest of the role players. Sure, you have your exceptions like the 2004 Pistons but the vast majority of the time, this holds true.

This isn't baseball, where any team that gets hot can win it. Basketball is the only sport where even before the season starts, we already know the 3-4 teams that have a legit chance to win it and no one else really has a chance. And that's because those are the teams with the best players. It's a game where one superstar can have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. And that's why winning as "the man" should carry a tremendous amount of weight.
But then you're quick to blame the second fiddle when he has a bad showing and the team loses. And here in is my argument. If a player can take full blame for a teams failures like Starks 2/18 or Pippens migrane or Bryants 2004, why cant they get full blame for the success so long as theh play well?

I've said this forever. The best players win because theyre on the best teams. Which is why ultra talented players like Jordan, Shaq, James, and Chamberlain didnt have much success until their teams talent improved. Why do you think James keeps jumping from team to team? You really think he would've went back to Cleveland if they didnt have Irving there????? Why did Bryant threaten to leave LA????? Hell Magic Johnson came out and said that he only entered the draft two years early was to play with Jabaar. He even stated that had he been drafted by anyone else, he would've stayed in school.

You guys fool yourselves into thinking great players dont need great teams.

[LA_Showtime]

To me, it's everything. I put a ton of weight for guys who won as "the man" versus guys who won as second fiddle or third wheel. There is nothing more impressive than being "the man" on a team and being the focus of the D every night and still dominating. It's so much easier to be the 2nd fiddle and kind of go under the radar of the bright lights.

That's exactly why history views Hakeem and Robinson so differently. Both have two rings but the way they got them is night and day. Hakeem carrying about as much a load as anyone in history while Robinson piggy backing off of Duncan late in his career.

Same with Pippen. He was one of the best all around wing players ever but the guy simply didn't have the type of offensive game to carry an offense on his back. He proved that when he went to Houston and Portland. And he needed MJ just as much as MJ needed Pip. They needed each other. But there was no denying who carried the load every night. Who defenses focused on every night.

Same with a guy like Drexler. He has a ring but had he beaten MJ in the 1992 finals or 1990 finals against Detroit as "the man", his place in history would've been much higher than it is now. He piggy backed off of Hakeem.

Same with Kobe. People say all Kobe needs is 1 more ring to tie MJ and I laugh. He only has 2 as "the man", where he clearly had to carry the largest burden. You can make a strong argument that in 2001, he was almost equal to Shaq, but in the grand scheme of things, he was the 2nd fiddle from 2000 - 2002. And he was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever.

Where it gets a little murky is with Duncan. He was clearly "the man" for his first 3 rings but he sort of blended in with the rest of the team for his last 2. But he clearly had the talent to score more if he wanted too. He was just willing to blend in. So do you downgrade him for that? I don't know because even though he was clearly not "the man", he might still have been the most valueable and important given what he brought to the table on both ends.

Thoughts?

I don't understand how anyone can say Kobe piggy-backed for three of his championships and then go on to say Duncan blends in with the rest of the team. Even in 2000, when Kobe had yet to become a superstar, he showed he was far more than a sidekick.

[ClipperRevival]

But then you're quick to blame the second fiddle when he has a bad showing and the team loses. And here in is my argument. If a player can take full blame for a teams failures like Starks 2/18 or Pippens migrane or Bryants 2004, why cant they get full blame for the success so long as theh play well?

I've said this forever. The best players win because theyre on the best teams. Which is why ultra talented players like Jordan, Shaq, James, and Chamberlain didnt have much success until their teams talent improved. Why do you think James keeps jumping from team to team? You really think he would've went back to Cleveland if they didnt have Irving there????? Why did Bryant threaten to leave LA????? Hell Magic Johnson came out and said that he only entered the draft two years early was to play with Jabaar. He even stated that had he been drafted by anyone else, he would've stayed in school.

You guys fool yourselves into thinking great players dont need great teams.

I'm not blaming anyone. I am just calling it like it is. What is wrong with that? Like I said, history has shown that the vast majority of championship winning teams has a clear hierarchy. And we should give credit accordingly to which roles they played. I am looking at things AFTER the fact, not second guessing and bringing up "what if" scenarios.

And show me where I said great players don't need great teams. Of course they need some help. Let's not get into this layman's argument about "Oh, if MJ didn't have Pippen, he wouldn't have never won." Well, duh.

Yes, great teams do win. But great teams are almost always led by an alpha dog that carries a huge burden and gets the focus of the attention of the opposition every game. They are geared towards stopping you. And for you to continually face the pressure, burden and double teams every night and still come out on top, you should get more praise than the guy who sits in the corner and jacks up a few threes every game.

That's all I am saying. Give credit accordingly to what role you had in the championships. What is so wrong with that?

[ClipperRevival]

I don't understand how anyone can say Kobe piggy-backed for three of his championships and then go on to say Duncan blends in with the rest of the team. Even in 2000, when Kobe had yet to become a superstar, he showed he was far more than a sidekick.

A couple of Spurs fans have established Duncan was clearly the man in 4 of those 5 rings.

And I clearly said that Kobe was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever and that in 2001, it was close whether Kobe was almost as good as Shaq. But I meant in the grand scheme of things, or the totality of the situation from 2000 - 2002, Shaq was "the man". Are you going to disagree with that? Peak Shaq was one of the greatest forces to ever step on the basketball court. He was the guy the opposing teams focused on stopping first and foremost. He was that devastating.

[Ariza4three]

If we do weight, then realistically player's stats in each individual category / team's stats in each individual category

Average the % out and then proceed to add 100% to it.

[97 bulls]

I'm not blaming anyone. I am just calling it like it is. What is wrong with that? Like I said, history has shown that the vast majority of championship winning teams has a clear hierarchy. And we should give credit accordingly to which roles they played. I am looking at things AFTER the fact, not second guessing and bringing up "what if" scenarios.
It's not a matter of blaming so to speak. Its a matter of fairness. Why can one receive all the credit and or blame, but the supposed lesser players only receive blame? Like I stated, it makes no sense. Damn the what if, theres been plenty of championship teams in which a team best player didn't have a great series and yet they still win.


And show me where I said great players don't need great teams. Of course they need some help. Let's not get into this layman's argument about "Oh, if MJ didn't have Pippen, he wouldn't have never won." Well, duh.
Then what does it matter? Who cares who the proverbial best player is? The fact is, everyone has a role. You keep clamoring over double teams, well guess what? Teams go out and find your Steve Kerrs, Danny Greens, and Brian Shaws, and old Ray Allen types to make teams pay for committing to double teams. And the double team argument is such a crock of bull to begin with. Coaches want their offensive players making the right decisions. More often than not trying to go one on two or three is not conducive to winning. Sure its great theater, and said player will probably have amazing stats and plays etc, but in the end, those types of efforts end in losses.



Yes, great teams do win. But great teams are almost always led by an alpha dog that carries a huge burden and gets the focus of the attention of the opposition every game. They are geared towards stopping you. And for you to continually face the pressure, burden and double teams every night and still come out on top, you should get more praise than the guy who sits in the corner and jacks up a few threes every game.
Lol. Come on bro. Its not this simple I explained this already.


That's all I am saying. Give credit accordingly to what role you had in the championships. What is so wrong with that?
Thats fair. Im saying give blame accordingly as well. I mean obviously no one is gonna give Jud Buechler as much credit for the championships hes won as Jordan his. No one says "damn, if Jud Buchler scored hi 5 pts, the Bulls would've won." But Rodman? And his job on Malone and rebounding? Or Pippen (im using the Bulls cuz thats my team). They deserve full credit.

[Straight_Ballin]

So let's say Pippen won 2 as the man and 6 as 2nd fiddle. Does that mean he's not as good as someone that won 3 as the man and 0 as the 2nd fiddle?

If as the man = 9 and as 2nd fiddle = 3, then for Pippen it could have been:

2 * 9 = 18
6 * 3 = 18
Total = 36

vs

3*9 = 27

I just don't see how you can't give winning as 2nd fiddle no recognition whatsoever.

[ArbitraryWater]

So let's say Pippen won 2 as the man and 6 as 2nd fiddle. Does that mean he's not as good as someone that won 3 as the man and 0 as the 2nd fiddle?

If as the man = 9 and as 2nd fiddle = 3, then for Pippen it could have been:

2 * 9 = 18
6 * 3 = 18
Total = 36

vs

3*9 = 27

I just don't see how you can't give winning as 2nd fiddle no recognition whatsoever.

nobody saying that :biggums:

yea OP, among ATG's, winning as man is everything.. Rake made a good post but I didn't get the "Shaq wouldnt win without Kobe" part... of course not, but the sidekick can be replaced easier.

[LA_Showtime]

A couple of Spurs fans have established Duncan was clearly the man in 4 of those 5 rings.

And I clearly said that Kobe was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever and that in 2001, it was close whether Kobe was almost as good as Shaq. But I meant in the grand scheme of things, or the totality of the situation from 2000 - 2002, Shaq was "the man". Are you going to disagree with that? Peak Shaq was one of the greatest forces to ever step on the basketball court. He was the guy the opposing teams focused on stopping first and foremost. He was that devastating.

I truthfully felt like both Shaq and Kobe carried the Lakers in 2001 and 2002, but I understand what you are saying, yes. Shaq was incredible.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

So let's say Pippen won 2 as the man and 6 as 2nd fiddle. Does that mean he's not as good as someone that won 3 as the man and 0 as the 2nd fiddle?

If as the man = 9 and as 2nd fiddle = 3, then for Pippen it could have been:

2 * 9 = 18
6 * 3 = 18
Total = 36

vs

3*9 = 27

I just don't see how you can't give winning as 2nd fiddle no recognition whatsoever.

The man stuff is just overrated fluff. Sure it means some, but its not the end all be all. Nobody questioned who "the man" was between Magic and Kareem; frankly nobody even cared about it.

All of that nonsense started during the 90's, and precipitated into the Kobe/LeBron era (hence the crap LeBron fanbois spew on the daily).

[Ne 1]

"Rings as the man" is not even a real category, it's a faux catogeory. Yet people throw it out as a statistical category. Does anyone outside of ISH and similar sites comprised of a tiny fraction of hardcore elitist fans care about this? This is a rhetorical question. No one does. Rings are rings. Walk into the local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings Kobe, or for that matter Shaq or Magic have. 5, 4, and 5. It is hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant. If "the man" could win without the "sidekick" it would mean something but many players have proved this cannot be done, aside from Hakeem, Duncan, Dirk and Barry. Look at LeBron before Wade. Look at Kobe before Gasol. Look at Jordan before before Pippen and the list goes on and on.

[LikeABosh]

So let's say Pippen won 2 as the man and 6 as 2nd fiddle. Does that mean he's not as good as someone that won 3 as the man and 0 as the 2nd fiddle?

If as the man = 9 and as 2nd fiddle = 3, then for Pippen it could have been:

2 * 9 = 18
6 * 3 = 18
Total = 36

vs

3*9 = 27

I just don't see how you can't give winning as 2nd fiddle no recognition whatsoever.
:oldlol: Where the **** are you coming up with these calculations?

[Duncan21formvp]

2015 playoffs:

WS/48
Kevin Love: .220
Kyrie: .217
JR smith:.192
Tristan Thompson: .190
Lebron: .181

ORTG
Lebron: 105
Thompson: 132
Shumpert: 120
Kyrie: 121
JR: 121

Lebron aint even the top 3 player on his team.

great post

[DMAVS41]

Depends on the circumstances, but most of the greatest players of all time led teams to a title at one point in their careers.

Some guys just never had the help...hard to get on KG for not winning in Minny (I know he won in Boston) or Barkley for not winning in 93...etc.

But I do think it matters.

In my opinion, part of being a great basketball player is being able to sustain a long playoff run with consistently great play round to round against tough competition.

There seems to be a new trend that how good one is at basketball is a very narrow view based mostly on a narrow definition of skillset and regular season play.

Too many have looked great in the regular season only to not be able to produce in the playoffs....and too few have shown the ability to carry teams in the playoffs in a variety of circumstances for me to ignore it.

Still a team game and the circumstances really matter, but I think it's a fair knock on Stockton and Malone, for example, that they never won.

[Kvnzhangyay]

I put the most weight on level of play, whether win or loss

Obviously then, as such, winning as the man is much better than winning as the second option, as in most cases winning as the man means winning as the first option.

But I also hold losing as the man while playing at a high level is better than winning as the second option

[HOoopCityJones]

I really can't cal it , OP.

This forum called Lebron Top 5 after he got his first and called Timmy D Top 5 after he got his fifth. One was the man forsure, the other was a role player in the grand scheme.

[iamgine]

Of course teams win championships and the role players usually have to show up when it matters but history has shown a clear pattern of how a championship team is constructed. It starts with "the man", a second fiddle and a third wheel. Then you have the rest of the role players. Sure, you have your exceptions like the 2004 Pistons but the vast majority of the time, this holds true.

This isn't baseball, where any team that gets hot can win it. Basketball is the only sport where even before the season starts, we already know the 3-4 teams that have a legit chance to win it and no one else really has a chance. And that's because those are the teams with the best players. It's a game where one superstar can have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. And that's why winning as "the man" should carry a tremendous amount of weight.
Not only team win championship, circumstance also wins it.

Had Hakeem be the one played for the Bulls and Jordan for Rockets, it's reasonable to say Hakeem'd be the one winning plenty more. Same goes for Wilt and Russell. Put Anthony Davis on this year's Spurs, chance is he'd be leading them on the finals right now putting up monster numbers.

That's why there's no need to put much weight into it winning the title.

[Rocketswin2013]

Generally, the greatest players usual win titles. Or at least come close.

But you have to actually look at every situation for what it is. You shouldn't just look at rings as the be-all. For instance, Stephen Curry is about to win as the man, and IMHO he's never been a better player than Chris Paul. Hell, when Chris Paul's team lost to James Harden's team in Game 7 of the WCSF, he was by far the best player on the court. But he lost, and that's all everyone will give a shit about.

[DMAVS41]

Generally, the greatest players usual win titles. Or at least come close.

But you have to actually look at every situation for what it is. You shouldn't just look at rings as the be-all. For instance, Stephen Curry is about to win as the man, and IMHO he's never been a better player than Chris Paul. Hell, when Chris Paul's team lost to James Harden's team in Game 7 of the WCSF, he was by far the best player on the court. But he lost, and that's all everyone will give a shit about.

I'm not gonna say Curry is better than Paul for sure or something.

But he's certainly at that level now. Has been for a couple years in my opinion.

[ClipperRevival]

It's not a matter of blaming so to speak. Its a matter of fairness. Why can one receive all the credit and or blame, but the supposed lesser players only receive blame? Like I stated, it makes no sense. Damn the what if, theres been plenty of championship teams in which a team best player didn't have a great series and yet they still win.


Then what does it matter? Who cares who the proverbial best player is? The fact is, everyone has a role. You keep clamoring over double teams, well guess what? Teams go out and find your Steve Kerrs, Danny Greens, and Brian Shaws, and old Ray Allen types to make teams pay for committing to double teams. And the double team argument is such a crock of bull to begin with. Coaches want their offensive players making the right decisions. More often than not trying to go one on two or three is not conducive to winning. Sure its great theater, and said player will probably have amazing stats and plays etc, but in the end, those types of efforts end in losses.



Lol. Come on bro. Its not this simple I explained this already.


Thats fair. Im saying give blame accordingly as well. I mean obviously no one is gonna give Jud Buechler as much credit for the championships hes won as Jordan his. No one says "damn, if Jud Buchler scored hi 5 pts, the Bulls would've won." But Rodman? And his job on Malone and rebounding? Or Pippen (im using the Bulls cuz thats my team). They deserve full credit.

We've been down this road before and as before, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ClipperRevival]

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding my points. All I'm basically saying is that you that can't take rings at face value. What role you play when you win matters. Of course it's not the be all, end all. But it absolutely does matter.

For example, Pippen has 6 rings. Why is he not a top 10 consensus all time great? Why is he not in the same class as MJ? Both won on the same team right? We all know why and history is judging him accordingly. He was always 2nd fiddle to MJ.

Or the Hakeem/Robinson situation? Again, history is judging them accordingly and it comes down to the fact that both Robinson and Pippen were 2nd fiddle. They had another man leading the charge. And simply doesn't carry the same weight as if you win as "the man."

You can say it doesn't matter but history has shown that it absolutely does matter.

Wade winning 3 rings, one as "the man" and 2 as 2nd fiddle does not carry the same weight as if he won 3 as "the man". Is anyone going to disagree? I mean seriously? You're going to throw the "you win as a team" crap when judging the best players of all time and just ignore what role a player played? I hope not because that's layman's thinking. When discussing the best of all time, you have to get detailed.

[ClipperRevival]

Generally, the greatest players usual win titles. Or at least come close.

But you have to actually look at every situation for what it is. You shouldn't just look at rings as the be-all. For instance, Stephen Curry is about to win as the man, and IMHO he's never been a better player than Chris Paul. Hell, when Chris Paul's team lost to James Harden's team in Game 7 of the WCSF, he was by far the best player on the court. But he lost, and that's all everyone will give a shit about.

Individually, CP3 is the better player but CP3 had the supporting cast to win the last couple of years. He choked last year big time in game 5 and this year, he got caught up in the moment in game 6, when his team was up by 19 late in the 3rd. He had chances, he just didn't come through. History will not be kind of CP3 if he never makes a conference finals and guess what, rightfully so.

It's not like he was playing in Minnesota for all these years with no help like Garnett. He had help. And he clearly choked.

[ClipperRevival]

"Rings as the man" is not even a real category, it's a faux catogeory. Yet people throw it out as a statistical category. Does anyone outside of ISH and similar sites comprised of a tiny fraction of hardcore elitist fans care about this? This is a rhetorical question. No one does. Rings are rings. Walk into the local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings Kobe, or for that matter Shaq or Magic have. 5, 4, and 5. It is hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant. If "the man" could win without the "sidekick" it would mean something but many players have proved this cannot be done, aside from Hakeem, Duncan, Dirk and Barry. Look at LeBron before Wade. Look at Kobe before Gasol. Look at Jordan before before Pippen and the list goes on and on.

Please. So are you saying that if Kobe wins another ring as a 2nd fiddle or even 3rd wheel in the next couple of years, his 6 rings would carry the same weight as MJ's 6? If so, I'll just stop there.

[Magic 32]

Once Lebron wins his 3rd FMVP this season Lebron vs. Kobe won't even be debatable. 3 fmvps, 4 mvps>>>>>>>>2 FMVP (one should have gone to Gasol), 1 MVP.

Another idiot who didn't watch game 1 and 6 and just looked at the box score.

[ClipperRevival]

I really can't cal it , OP.

This forum called Lebron Top 5 after he got his first and called Timmy D Top 5 after he got his fifth. One was the man forsure, the other was a role player in the grand scheme.

Duncan was "the man" in 4 of his titles. Sure, he didn't win the FMVP in 2007 but he was clearly their alpha dog if you look at the entire season. His last ring, he was their 2nd best player. So he has 4 as "the man" and 1 as 2nd fiddle. That carries a lot of weight for me.

[ClipperRevival]

Not only team win championship, circumstance also wins it.

Had Hakeem be the one played for the Bulls and Jordan for Rockets, it's reasonable to say Hakeem'd be the one winning plenty more. Same goes for Wilt and Russell. Put Anthony Davis on this year's Spurs, chance is he'd be leading them on the finals right now putting up monster numbers.

That's why there's no need to put much weight into it winning the title.

And that's why you have to look at the situation for every player and judge accordingly. Did he have absolutely no help his entire career? If so, then you have to be a bit forgiving. Or did he have help but simply couldn't get it done and didn't play up to his potential come playoff time?

[97 bulls]

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding my points. All I'm basically saying is that you that can't take rings at face value. What role you play when you win matters. Of course it's not the be all, end all. But it absolutely does matter.
Again. Whose role are we comparing? Jud Buchler and Michael Jordan? I agree.



For example, Pippen has 6 rings. Why is he not a top 10 consensus all time great? Why is he not in the same class as MJ? Both won on the same team right? We all know why and history is judging him accordingly. He was always 2nd fiddle to MJ.
Because Pippen doesn't have an MVP (much less 5), the DPOY (although he should've), the scoring titles, etc.



Or the Hakeem/Robinson situation? Again, history is judging them accordingly and it comes down to the fact that both Robinson and Pippen were 2nd fiddle. They had another man leading the charge. And simply doesn't carry the same weight as if you win as "the man."
Lol Robinson was an old man for all but one his championships bro. Come on. But like Kuniva stated, this phenomena didnt exist until the early 00s when Jordan fans used it against Bryant. Kareem wasnt the man for three of his championships. I've never heard it used against him. Why?



You can say it doesn't matter but history has shown that it absolutely does matter.

Wade winning 3 rings, one as "the man" and 2 as 2nd fiddle does not carry the same weight as if he won 3 as "the man". Is anyone going to disagree? I mean seriously? You're going to throw the "you win as a team" crap when judging the best players of all time and just ignore what role a player played? I hope not because that's layman's thinking. When discussing the best of all time, you have to get detailed.
According to you it doesn't.

[iamgine]

For example, Pippen has 6 rings. Why is he not a top 10 consensus all time great? Why is he not in the same class as MJ? Both won on the same team right? We all know why and history is judging him accordingly. He was always 2nd fiddle to MJ.

Because...he's not shown that he was on that level. As shown by the # of MVP he won or the MVP votes he got. Has nothing to do with the # of rings he won. Barkley with no ring was generally ranked higher than Pippen. Why? Well because he was considered better.

Winning the title helps, but no need to put much weight into it.

[ClipperRevival]

Because...he's not shown that he was on that level. As shown by the # of MVP he won or the MVP votes he got. Has nothing to do with the # of rings he won. Barkley with no ring was generally ranked higher than Pippen. Why? Well because he was considered better.

Winning the title helps, but no need to put much weight into it.

So you are admitting there are "levels" to greatness right? And that's exactly my POINT! How great you are determines whether you are "the man" on a team or if you are 2nd fiddle.

Barkley was great enough to be "the man" and had he won a couple of rings as such, that would carry a lot of weight for me. Perhaps even more than winning 6 as 2nd fiddle. And that's my point. That winning as "the man" carries more weight than winning as 2nd fiddle when you are comparing two players to judge where they belong in history.

[iamgine]

So you are admitting there are "levels" to greatness right? And that's exactly my POINT! How great you are determines whether you are "the man" on a team or if you are 2nd fiddle.

Barkley was great enough to be "the man" and had he won a couple of rings as such, that would carry a lot of weight for me. Perhaps even more than winning 6 as 2nd fiddle. And that's my point. That winning as "the man" carries more weight than winning as 2nd fiddle when you are comparing two players to judge where they belong in history.
Your point was "there are levels to greatness" and "winning as "the man" carries more weight than winning as 2nd fiddle"? :wtf: Next you're gonna tell us that to win you need to outscore the other team. :lol

Well anyways, winning the title whether as the man or not is more a team and circumstance accomplishment thus doesn't need to be weighted too heavily.

[ClipperRevival]

Your point was "there are levels to greatness" and "winning as "the man" carries more weight than winning as 2nd fiddle"? :wtf: Next you're gonna tell us that to win you need to outscore the other team. :lol

Well anyways, winning the title whether as the man or not is more a team and circumstance accomplishment thus doesn't need to be weighted too heavily.

So you give Pippen's 6 rings the same weight as MJ's 6 rings?

Or Hakeem's 2 rings the same weight as Robinson's 2 rings?

Because by your logic, since teams win rings and you seem to be putting little emphasis on the impact a specific player can have in winning rings, that is what you are implying.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Considering that Kareem and Magic are both considered consensus top 5 players apparently not much :confusedshrug:

[Ne 1]

Considering that Kareem and Magic are both considered consensus top 5 players apparently not much :confusedshrug:
And the funny thing is that Kobe was closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, yet all 5 of Magic's rings "count" but only 2 of Kobe's rings "count." (2009, 2010) Nobody puts a qualifier on any of Magic's titles, he's generally considered to be a 5 time champion even though he was only clearly "the man" for 2 of his rings but Kobe is penalized for playing with Shaq? Makes no sense.

[iamgine]

So you give Pippen's 6 rings the same weight as MJ's 6 rings?

Or Hakeem's 2 rings the same weight as Robinson's 2 rings?

Because by your logic, since teams win rings and you seem to be putting little emphasis on the impact a specific player can have in winning rings, that is what you are implying.
Not same weight, just not much weight in rings.

For example, Wade had 3 rings and at least one of them was as "the man". But I think Barkley is still above him in ranking despite not winning anything.

[LAZERUSS]

And the funny thing is that Kobe was closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, yet all 5 of Magic's rings "count" but only 2 of Kobe's rings "count." (2009, 2010) Nobody puts a qualifier on any of Magic's titles, he's generally considered to be a 5 time champion even though he was only clearly "the man" for 2 of his rings but Kobe is penalized for playing with Shaq? Makes no sense.

Or...Kareem was clearly a second fiddle in the '82 post-season (hell, McAdoo put up nearly identical stats off the bench, and in considerably less minutes), or a "third wheel" in the '87 title run, and then, he gets credit for a ring in '88 when his team won DESPITE his AWFUL play?

[ClipperRevival]

Considering that Kareem and Magic are both considered consensus top 5 players apparently not much :confusedshrug:

Yeah, but ranking players on the all time great list involves not only rings, but individual success, longevity, peak, skills, etcs. Both did enough (if you put the rings aside for a moment) to warrant top 5 consensus. The rings just confirm their status.

And I will openly admit, the Showtime Lakers situation can get a bit fuzzy because Kareem was clearly "the man" when Magic first came on board but as time went by and Kareem got older and Magic became better, the status of "the man" was blurry at times, especially in the mid 80's. But that TEAM was so good in an ultra competitive era for top tier teams, they deserve a special place in history. Winning 5 rings and making 8 finals appearances.

But that scenario is the exception and not the rule.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, but ranking players on the all time great list involves not only rings, but individual success, longevity, peak, skills, etcs. Both did enough (if you put the rings aside for a moment) to warrant top 5 consensus. The rings just confirm their status.

And I will openly admit, the Showtime Lakers situation can get a bit fuzzy because Kareem was clearly "the man" when Magic first came on board but as time went by and Kareem got older and Magic became better, the status of "the man" was blurry at times, especially in the mid 80's. But that TEAM was so good in an ultra competitive era for top tier teams, they deserve a special place in history. Winning 5 rings and making 8 finals appearances.

But that scenario is the exception and not the rule.

Let me put it to you this way...

A PRIME Kareem, in his first ten seasons, and pre-Magic...went to two Finals, and won one ring (and his team probably had the easiest run to a title in NBA history in '71.)

And yet, a Kareem, at best, was the SECOND best player (and in his last two titles, the third and even fifth best player) in FOUR of his five Laker titles. And, even in his lone Laker season as the "main" guy, his team did better in the clinching game six on the road, withOUT him, than they did the first five games of that series, WITH him.

How come?

Was he a "choker" in his peak and prime years, and then a stud in the last half of his career and when he was worse physically?

[pauk]

Alot.

[ClipperRevival]

Let me put it to you this way...

A PRIME Kareem, in his first ten seasons, and pre-Magic...went to two Finals, and won one ring (and his team probably had the easiest run to a title in NBA history in '71.)

And yet, a Kareem, at best, was the SECOND best player (and in his last two titles, the third and even fifth best player) in FOUR of his five Laker titles.

How come?

Was he a "choker" in his peak and prime years, and then a stud in the last half of his career and when he was worse physically?

Umm, Kareem was 33 when Magic came on board in 1981. Did you expect him to be as dominant at that age as he was at his peak? He was the best in 1980 and you could argue in 1985, when the guy was freaken 38.

Or is this another angle for you to degrade Kareem in hopes of boosting Wilt? If so, please stop.

[LAZERUSS]

Umm, Kareem was 33 when Magic came on board in 1981. Did you expect him to be as dominant at that age as he was at his peak? He was the best in 1980 and you could argue in 1985, when the guy was freaken 38.

Or is this another angle for you to degrade Kareem in hopes of boosting Wilt? If so, please stop.

How do explain a PEAK and PRIME Kareem, then?

In his 10 prime seasons...

Two trips to the Finals, winning a ring with the easiest run to a title in NBA history;...getting blown-out by two inferior Sonics teams (one borderline HOF player) in the late 70's; losing with HCA in '73 to a far worse GS team, and in a series in which he shot his team right down the drain; losing with a 63 win team in a series in which he shot .414 in the last four games; losing with HCA, and getting outplayed in a game seven of the Finals by a 6-9 white guy; and missing the playoffs altogether in arguably the weakest era for NBA champions ('75 thru '79) in NBA history.

Then, all of a sudden, and past his prime, he wins five rings?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yeah, but ranking players on the all time great list involves not only rings, but individual success, longevity, peak, skills, etcs. Both did enough (if you put the rings aside for a moment) to warrant top 5 consensus. The rings just confirm their status.

And I will openly admit, the Showtime Lakers situation can get a bit fuzzy because Kareem was clearly "the man" when Magic first came on board but as time went by and Kareem got older and Magic became better, the status of "the man" was blurry at times, especially in the mid 80's. But that TEAM was so good in an ultra competitive era for top tier teams, they deserve a special place in history. Winning 5 rings and making 8 finals appearances.

But that scenario is the exception and not the rule.

When did being "the man" matter? It didn't matter with Magic and Kareem. Did it all start with Kobe?

Why would it be more important to be the best player on the team and not the strength of all your teammates overall when weighing the context of rings?

Would it be more impressive to win a ring by playing with the best player in the league and a bunch of scrubs or by playing with the 3-12th best players in the league if you are the 2nd best player in the league?

[ClipperRevival]

How do explain a PEAK and PRIME Kareem, then?

In his 10 prime seasons...

Two trips to the Finals, winning a ring with the easiest run to a title in NBA history;...getting blown-out by two inferior Sonics teams (one borderline HOF player) in the late 70's; losing with HCA in '73 to a far worse GS team, and in a series in which he shot his team right down the drain; losing with a 63 win team in a series in which he shot .414 in the last four games; losing with HCA, and getting outplayed in a game seven of the Finals by a 6-9 white guy; and missing the playoffs altogether in arguably the weakest era for NBA champions ('75 thru '79) in NBA history.

Then, all of a sudden, and past his prime, he wins five rings?

I didn't watch him in the 70's so I can't comment. But it is what it is. As it stands, KAJ is the only other guy in history to have a legit claim as the GOAT when you look at the body of work.

[ClipperRevival]

When did being "the man" matter? It didn't matter with Magic and Kareem. Did it all start with Kobe?

Why would it be more important to be the best player on the team and not the strength of all your teammates overall when weighing the context of rings?

Would it be more impressive to win a ring by playing with the best player in the league and a bunch of scrubs or by playing with the 3-12th best players in the league if you are the 2nd best player in the league?

I think it always mattered. But like I said, the 80's Lakers was a special situation because that team was so stacked and accomplished so much in such a tough era that it gets a special place in history. And again, I will openly admit that status of "the man" was fuzzy.

All I am saying is that you can't look at rings at face value. And winning as "the man" carries the most weight. And history proves that the vast majority of championship winning teams had a clear alpha dog and that person should be held to a higher plateau than his teammates.

If you disagree with that, no big deal. We all have opinions.

[LAZERUSS]

I didn't watch him in the 70's so I can't comment. But it is what it is. As it stands, KAJ is the only other guy in history to have a legit claim as the GOAT when you look at the body of work.

Not arguing Kareem's greatness...just his credit for rings. He was the best player on exactly ONE team in the "Magic-era", and even that is deceptive, since that Laker team played better in the clinching game six, withOUT him, than they did in the first five games of that series WITH him. After that...second fiddle in '82 (and with a full-time McAdoo they might have won a title without him; second fiddle in the entire '85 playoffs (albeit, he had a great Finals); clearly a third-wheel in their '87 run; and then in '88, they won DESPITE him.

The Lakers, even with stacked rosters in the late 70's, badly under-achieved. then MAGIC arrived, and guess what..an immediate 60 win season and a dominating title. The rest of the decade they were playing for titles nearly very season. Kareem retired, and they IMPROVED. Then Magic retired...and boom... records of 43-39 and then 39-43.

As for "the only other guy in history to have a legit claim as the GOAT"...

Give Wilt MAGIC for 10 seasons (and Worthy for seven), and he likely would have won a ring every season. Even in the Celtic-Dynasty years.



Explain that.

[ClipperRevival]

Not arguing Kareem's greatness...just his credit for rings. He was the best player on exactly ONE team in the "Magic-era", and even that is deceptive, since that Laker team played better in the clinching game six, withOUT him, than they did in the first five games of that series WITH him. After that...second fiddle in '82 (and with a full-time McAdoo they might have won a title without him; second fiddle in the entire '85 playoffs (albeit, he had a great Finals); clearly a third-wheel in their '87 run; and then in '88, they won DESPITE him.

The Lakers, even with stacked rosters in the late 70's, badly under-achieved. then MAGIC arrived, and guess what..an immediate 60 win season and a dominating title. The rest of the decade they were playing for titles nearly very season. Kareem retired, and they IMPROVED. Then Magic retired...and boom... records of 43-39 and then 39-43.

As for "the only other guy in history to have a legit claim as the GOAT...

Give Wilt MAGIC for 10 seasons, and he likely would have won a ring every season. Even in the Celtic-Dynasty years.



Explain that.

And i do not put the same weight on KAJ's 6 rings as MJ's 6. And that is why i hold MJ is such high esteem. Because he did it as "the man". That carries more weight.

But again, KAJ was 33 when Magic came on board. Most guys are past their prime by then and retire only a couple of years after. That's another reason why he is the GOAT conversation because of his amazing longevity.

And yeah, Magic was that good. :cheers: Best leader ever. Who wouldn't want to play with THAT guy? Gets you the ball when you're open, inspires you, gives you confidence and leads.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I think it always mattered. But like I said, the 80's Lakers was a special situation because that team was so stacked and accomplished so much in such a tough era that it gets a special place in history. And again, I will openly admit that status of "the man" was fuzzy.

All I am saying is that you can't look at rings at face value. And winning as "the man" carries the most weight. And history proves that the vast majority of championship winning teams had a clear alpha dog and that person should be held to a higher plateau than his teammates.

If you disagree with that, no big deal. We all have opinions.

It's just a silly distinction that was created by Jordan mythologists who started getting scared when Kobe started racking up rings so early in his career. Kobe put up monster numbers during the first threepeat. Was he better than prime Shaq? No. Was any other legend better than prime Shaq? Did they beat many teams during that run that were on par with them talentwise 1-12? Absolutely.

Imagine a world in which the Clippers are not a laughing stock and didn't choke this postseason. Whose ring would it have been? Chris Paul's? Blake Griffins? Deandre Jordan's?

[LAZERUSS]

And i do not put the same weight on KAJ's 6 rings as MJ's 6. And that is why i hold MJ is such high esteem. Because he did it as "the man". That carries more weight.

But again, KAJ was 33 when Magic came on board. Most guys are past their prime by then and retire only a couple of years after. That's another reason why he is the GOAT conversation because of his amazing longevity.

And yeah, Magic was that good. :cheers: Best leader ever. Who wouldn't want to play with THAT guy? Gets you the ball when you're open, inspires you, gives you confidence and leads.

I put CONTEXT into my take on rings.

I have said it before, but none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it likely would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

What we do know, is that when Wilt was finally given a roster that was the equal of Russell's, and healthy, his TEAM destroyed Russell's...in a series in which he dominated Russell pretty much the same way he did in the majority of their post-season careers.

As far as Magic goes...had Kareem had Magic in his 10 seasons in the 70's, he likely would have won 10 rings. Same with Wilt and Magic in the 60's.

[ClipperRevival]

It's just a silly distinction that was created by Jordan mythologists who started getting scared when Kobe started racking up rings so early in his career. Kobe put up monster numbers during the first threepeat. Was he better than prime Shaq? No. Was any other legend better than prime Shaq? Did they beat many teams during that run that were on par with them talentwise 1-12? Absolutely.

Imagine a world in which the Clippers are not a laughing stock and didn't choke this postseason. Whose ring would it have been? Chris Paul's? Blake Griffins? Deandre Jordan's?

Had Clips won this year? Well, we would've had to see who performed in the WCF and Finals. But since CP3 choked again, we will never know.

Again, I'm not saying all teams had a clear alpha dog but most did. And in situations where there isn't one, we see should see it as such.

[DMAVS41]

There is a certain burden a player has by winning as the clear cut best player on a team.

That matters.

But none of this shit matters more than the actual impact a player makes. Doesn't matter if Curry wins the next 2 titles as the man....he's not as good as better players that never won as the man.

The reason this got all confused is basically because of Kobe fans. They started ring counting like if Kobe won x number of titles it would make him better than certain players.

But we all know that isn't how it works. Winning matters and results matter, but more than all of that...it matters how a player plays and how good said player is.

It's obvious and everyone gets that, but it gets muddied when people want to say (again, it's almost always Kobe fans) that Kobe is better than Lebron, for example, because he's won more titles. It's a terrible argument...and a common retort is to talk about titles won as the best player as it's obviously infinitely easier to win a title playing with peak Shaq than it is when Mo Williams or a hurt Kyrie are your running mates.

Kobe being better or worse than Lebron...that answer won't be found in counting titles. It will be found in analyzing the impact of each player and evaluating how they played the game.

Shit...just recently I've seen people take Kobe over Lebron in 09 because Kobe beat the Magic and Lebron lost to them. Now, one can take Kobe that year and it's fine...but that reason is straight up stupid.

So that's where it started...and it's probably not ending.

[ClipperRevival]

I put CONTEXT into my take on rings.

I have said it before, but none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it likely would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

What we do know, is that when Wilt was finally given a roster that was the equal of Russell's, and healthy, his TEAM destroyed Russell's...in a series in which he dominated Russell pretty much the same way he did in the majority of their post-season careers.

As far as Magic goes...had Kareem had Magic in his 10 seasons in the 70's, he likely would have won 10 rings. Same with Wilt and Magic in the 60's.

Of course context is huge also. You have to look at every situation for what it is.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

There is a certain burden a player has by winning as the clear cut best player on a team.

That matters.

But none of this shit matters more than the actual impact a player makes. Doesn't matter if Curry wins the next 2 titles as the man....he's not as good as better players that never won as the man.

The reason this got all confused is basically because of Kobe fans. They started ring counting like if Kobe won x number of titles it would make him better than certain players.

But we all know that isn't how it works. Winning matters and results matter, but more than all of that...it matters how a player plays and how good said player is.

It's obvious and everyone gets that, but it gets muddied when people want to say (again, it's almost always Kobe fans) that Kobe is better than Lebron, for example, because he's won more titles. It's a terrible argument...and a common retort is to talk about titles won as the best player as it's obviously infinitely easier to win a title playing with peak Shaq than it is when Mo Williams or a hurt Kyrie are your running mates.

Kobe being better or worse than Lebron...that answer won't be found in counting titles. It will be found in analyzing the impact of each player and evaluating how they played the game.

Shit...just recently I've seen people take Kobe over Lebron in 09 because Kobe beat the Magic and Lebron lost to them. Now, one can take Kobe that year and it's fine...but that reason is straight up stupid.

So that's where it started...and it's probably not ending.


Yeah its Kobe fans fault for thinking averaging 29.4 ppg/ 7.3 rebs/6.1 apg on 56 TS% in the playoffs en route to a 15-1 record and ring actually counted.

The audacity.

:roll:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It's just a silly distinction that was created by Jordan mythologists who started getting scared when Kobe started racking up rings so early in his career. Kobe put up monster numbers during the first threepeat. Was he better than prime Shaq? No. Was any other legend better than prime Shaq? Did they beat many teams during that run that were on par with them talentwise 1-12? Absolutely.

Imagine a world in which the Clippers are not a laughing stock and didn't choke this postseason. Whose ring would it have been? Chris Paul's? Blake Griffins? Deandre Jordan's?
Don't know about it being Jordan mythologists as much it was the media, but spot on.

People that put too much emphasis on "being the man" are celebrity worshipers. Those beta cuckolds that are into kinky shit.

Sure being the leader of your team is great, and if you win as the best player/leader on your team...even more impressive - but its not the end-all-be-all, and neither are stats which can have a warped interpretation of 'impact'.

[ClipperRevival]

There is a certain burden a player has by winning as the clear cut best player on a team.

That matters.

But none of this shit matters more than the actual impact a player makes. Doesn't matter if Curry wins the next 2 titles as the man....he's not as good as better players that never won as the man.

The reason this got all confused is basically because of Kobe fans. They started ring counting like if Kobe won x number of titles it would make him better than certain players.

But we all know that isn't how it works. Winning matters and results matter, but more than all of that...it matters how a player plays and how good said player is.

It's obvious and everyone gets that, but it gets muddied when people want to say (again, it's almost always Kobe fans) that Kobe is better than Lebron, for example, because he's won more titles. It's a terrible argument...and a common retort is to talk about titles won as the best player as it's obviously infinitely easier to win a title playing with peak Shaq than it is when Mo Williams or a hurt Kyrie are your running mates.

Kobe being better or worse than Lebron...that answer won't be found in counting titles. It will be found in analyzing the impact of each player and evaluating how they played the game.

Shit...just recently I've seen people take Kobe over Lebron in 09 because Kobe beat the Magic and Lebron lost to them. Now, one can take Kobe that year and it's fine...but that reason is straight up stupid.

So that's where it started...and it's probably not ending.

I agree with your entire post except possibly for the part in red. Wouldn't you say that the reason why the Warriors are so good is because they have Curry? Of course, they are a stacked team and would be very good without him but perhaps having him takes them to another level? I have never seen a guy like him before with his combination of skills.

Yes, some players are in bad situations and might not have had a legit chance to compete for rings. And we have to see each player's career in context. But i don't think you should downgrade a guy for winning.

[LAZERUSS]

Of course context is huge also. You have to look at every situation for what it is.


Agreed.

And here are a couple of examples.

In Wilt's 61-62 season, he single-handedly carried a roster, the core of which was the same last place roster he inherited in his rookie season, to a 49-31 record, and then past the Nats in the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics...in a series in which he averaged 34 ppg and 27 rpg.

In his 63-64 season, he took essentially the same roster that had gone 31-49 the season before, to a 48-32 record. Then he put up a monstrous 39-23 seven game series against a much more talented Hawks team (just compare rosters), and then into the Finals, where he battled Russell's 59-21 Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers. His team lost that series, 4-1, but the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. Overall, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebounded Russell, per game, 28-25; and outshot Russell from the field by a .517 to .386 margin. Oh, and Russell's teammates collectively outshot Wilt's by a .408 to .345 margin.

In his 64-65 season, Wilt was traded at mid-season, to the Sixers for three players. This was a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 just the year before, and missed the playoffs. Even with Wilt, they could only go 21-20, and ended up with a 40-40 record. Chamberlain then carried THAT roster to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals, and with a loaded roster (go ahead and look it up) in the first round. Then, Wilt single-handedly carried THAT roster to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the height of their glory, in a series in which he outscored Russell, per game, 30-16; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31-25; and outshot Russell from the floor, .555 to .447 (hell, he even outshot him from the line, .583 to .472.)


And I have never gotten a response from the Russell-supporters regarding the following:

In the 65-66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 (his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series, BTW) going into game five. Chamberlain exploded for a 46 point game, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds (Russell had an 18-31 game BTW)...in a 120-112 clinching loss.

Ok, fast forward to the very next season. Now it was Russell who was the same identical situation...down 3-1 going into game five. Did Russell respond with a 46-34 game against Wilt? Hell no...he quietly led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter...with a FOUR point (on 2-5 shooting) 21 rebound game...in a blow-out loss. Oh, and Wilt hung 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half, and with the game still close, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocks.

If Russell were supposedly the better player than Wilt...what happened in the '67 EDF's, and when his team needed him to really step up?

[ClipperRevival]

Agreed.

And here are a couple of examples.

In Wilt's 61-62 season, he single-handedly carried a roster, the core of which was the same last place roster he inherited in his rookie season, to a 49-31 record, and then past the Nats in the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics...in a series in which he averaged 34 ppg and 27 rpg.

In his 63-64 season, he took essentially the same roster that had gone 31-49 the season before, to a 48-32 record. Then he put up a monstrous 39-23 seven game series against a much more talented Hawks team (just compare rosters), and then into the Finals, where he battled Russell's 59-21 Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers. His team lost that series, 4-1, but the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. Overall, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebounded Russell, per game, 28-25; and outshot Russell from the field by a .517 to .386 margin. Oh, and Russell's teammates collectively outshot Wilt's by a .408 to .345 margin.

In his 64-65 season, Wilt was traded at mid-season, to the Sixers for three players. This was a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 just the year before, and missed the playoffs. Even with Wilt, they could only go 21-20, and ended up with a 40-40 record. Chamberlain then carried THAT roster to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals, and with a loaded roster (go ahead and look it up) in the first round. Then, Wilt single-handedly carried THAT roster to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the height of their glory, in a series in which he outscored Russell, per game, 30-16; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31-25; and outshot Russell from the floor, .555 to .447 (hell, he even outshot him from the line, .583 to .472.)


And I have never gotten a response from the Russell-supporters regarding the following:

In the 65-66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 (his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series, BTW) going into game five. Chamberlain exploded for a 46 point game, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds (Russell had an 18-31 game BTW)...in a 120-112 clinching loss.

Ok, fast forward to the very next season. Now it was Russell who was the same identical situation...down 3-1 going into game five. Did Russell respond with a 46-34 game against Wilt? Hell no...he quietly led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter...with a FOUR point (on 2-5 shooting) 21 rebound game...in a blow-out loss. Oh, and Wilt hung 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half, and with the game still close, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocks.

If Russell were supposedly the better player than Wilt...what happened in the '67 EDF's, and when his team needed him to really step up?

:oldlol: I knew you were just waiting to get in your Wilt argument.

But i see what you're saying to an extent. But one thing i must say is that you are too focused on the box score. They can be misleading sometimes. Sometimes a guy can have 35 points and actually hurt the team while a guy can have 10 points, 9 reb, 8 assists and be dominant. Box scores only tell part of the story.

Wilt was the dominant offensive force. Russell was the guy who played D, rebounded and made the outlet pass. They had different roles. Of course on paper, Wilt has the superior numbers. Maybe he needed too given his supporting cast. But i just think looking at the individual numbers don't tell the whole story and that seems to be your primary basis for your Wilt argument.

The guy was great, top 5 GOAT, isn't that good enough?

[Ne 1]

The bottom line is that you need to have one standard across the board. You cannot cherry pick giving guys like Magic, Oscar, Dr. J, Jerry West, Duncan, Kareem etc. a pass and then turn around and say only 2 of Kobe's rings are legitimate or that Scottie's 6 rings are irrelevant or that a player like Elgin Baylor or Karl Malone should be ranked below players like Oscar or West etc. because they have a ring.
IMO the best standard is actually no standard at all. Judge each championship on a case by case basis. What matters is the strength of the team as a whole, not who "the man" was. For example Kobe was a top 2-3 player in 2001 and 2002, who cares if he was playing with a slighty better player at the time.

[LAZERUSS]

:oldlol: I knew you were just waiting to get in your Wilt argument.

But i see what you're saying to an extent. But one thing i must say is that you are too focused on the box score. They can be misleading sometimes. Sometimes a guy can have 35 points and actually hurt the team while a guy can have 10 points, 9 reb, 8 assists and be dominant. Box scores only tell part of the story.

Wilt was the dominant offensive force. Russell was the guy who played D, rebounded and made the outlet pass. They had different roles. Of course on paper, Wilt has the superior numbers. Maybe he needed too given his supporting cast. But i just think looking at the individual numbers don't tell the whole story and that seems to be your primary basis for your Wilt argument.

The guy was great, top 5 GOAT, isn't that good enough?

Yes, he is a Top-5 GOAT, without question. In fact, he has a case as THE GOAT, just as Magic, Kareem, Russell, and MJ do. There is no clear-cut GOAT.

[sd3035]

Didn't Wilt only win once as the man? :roll:

One title as the man playing against short white office workers who play basketball as a hobby

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[ClipperRevival]

The bottom line is that you need to have one standard across the board. You cannot cherry pick giving guys like Magic, Oscar, Dr. J, Jerry West, Duncan, Kareem etc. a pass and then turn around and say only 2 of Kobe's rings are legitimate or that Scottie's 6 rings are irrelevant.
IMO the best standard is actually no standard at all. Judge each championship on a case by case basis. What matters is the strength of the team as a whole, not who "the man" was.

Gees, now i realize it's the Kobe fans that are giving me such a hard time in this thread. Show me where i said his 3 rings with Shaq don't count. Of course they do. I'm just saying they don't carry the same weight as if he had won all 5 as "the man". If you disagree with this, fine. But that's how i view it.

[ClipperRevival]

Yes, he is a Top-5 GOAT, without question. In fact, he has a case as THE GOAT, just as Magic, Kareem, Russell, and MJ do. There is no clear-cut GOAT.

Sorry, but Wilt has no basis for being the GOAT. Not when you look at his playoff failures. Whether fair or not, it is what it is. And if you want to be the GOAT, you cannot have such a terrible playoff history. This is the high rent district. You need to have a stacked legacy in the rings department.

[LAZERUSS]

Didn't Wilt only win once as the man? :roll:

One title as the man playing against short white office workers who play basketball as a hobby

:roll: :roll: :roll:

A PEAK Kareem faced many of those same "short white office workers", and was nowhere near as dominant as a prime Chamberlain had been against them.

You remember Kareem, right? The same KAJ who, at ages 38-40, ROUTINELY CARPET-BOMBED a 23-25 year old Hakeem.

Of course, as I am sure you would agree that Hakeem would just be a bench-warmer, at best, in the current NBA.

[LAZERUSS]

Sorry, but Wilt has no basis for being the GOAT. Not when you look at his playoff failures. Whether fair or not, it is what it is. And if you want to be the GOAT, you cannot have such a terrible playoff history. This is the high rent district. You need to have a stacked legacy in the rings department.

In his 13 post-seasons, he went to 12 Conference Finals, and Six Finals, winning two rings. And his TEAM lost to the eventual champion, TEN times, five of which were game seven's, and four of those of which were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. AND, he was the best player on the floor in the vast majority of them.

Sorry, but you don't hold the HUNDREDS of NBA records, MANY of which came in the POST-SEASON...and not be considered a GOAT.

If rings were the criteria, then even you would have to rank Russell, WAY ahead of MJ.

[La Frescobaldi]

Sorry, but Wilt has no basis for being the GOAT. Not when you look at his playoff failures. Whether fair or not, it is what it is. And if you want to be the GOAT, you cannot have such a terrible playoff history. This is the high rent district. You need to have a stacked legacy in the rings department.

Utter nonsense.

[navy]

Depends on my agenda.

[Ne 1]

Gees, now i realize it's the Kobe fans that are giving me such a hard time in this thread. Show me where i said his 3 rings with Shaq don't count. Of course they do. I'm just saying they don't carry the same weight as if he had won all 5 as "the man". If you disagree with this, fine. But that's how i view it.
They do carry the same weight though when you take into account his 2001 and 2002 rings are on par with or better than some rings won as "the man" and also that the 3-peat Lakers weren't very talented outside of their 2 stars and how heavily they relied on them as a duo because they had below average role players at each position outside of them.

[ClipperRevival]

In his 13 post-seasons, he went to 12 Conference Finals, and Six Finals, winning two rings. And his TEAM lost to the eventual champion, TEN times, five of which were game seven's, and four of those of which were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. AND, he was the best player on the floor in the vast majority of them.

Sorry, but you don't hold the HUNDREDS of NBA records, MANY of which came in the POST-SEASON...and not be considered a GOAT.

If rings were the criteria, then even you would have to rank Russell, WAY ahead of MJ.

Sorry but 2 rings doesn't enter you into the GOAT conversation. Top 5? Of course. But not GOAT. That is for MJ or Kareem. Why? Because they have the best body of work from rings, individual accomplishments, skills, peak, longevity, college, etc. If you disagree, fine.

[ClipperRevival]

They do carry the same weight though when you take into account his 2001 and 2002 rings are on par with or better than some rings won as "the man" and also that the 3-peat Lakers weren't very talented outside of their 2 stars and how heavily they relied on them as a duo because they had below average role players at each position outside of them.

If that's your opinion, fine. But i disagree.

[La Frescobaldi]

Sorry but 2 rings doesn't enter you into the GOAT conversation. Top 5? Of course. But not GOAT. That is for MJ or Kareem. Why? Because they have the best body of work from rings, individual accomplishments, skills, peak, longevity, college, etc. If you disagree, fine.
so it was chamberlain's fault that Baylor and West sat the '71 playoffs with DNP-injury? Jerry West was tv commentating his own team in the playoffs.

That Lakers squad had no business getting to the conference finals. The ONLY reason they got there was #13.
Wilt Chamberlain played the best basketball anybody ever saw in the '71 playoffs, and only a person who never saw it could think he was somehow on some lower level because the Bucks beat that team.

you have the narrowest understanding of NBA basketball that i've seen in awhile.

[DMAVS41]

I agree with your entire post except possibly for the part in red. Wouldn't you say that the reason why the Warriors are so good is because they have Curry? Of course, they are a stacked team and would be very good without him but perhaps having him takes them to another level? I have never seen a guy like him before with his combination of skills.

Yes, some players are in bad situations and might not have had a legit chance to compete for rings. And we have to see each player's career in context. But i don't think you should downgrade a guy for winning.

I said players that were better.

Like...unless Curry gets even better....he's not better than Barkley or David Robinson or Karl Malone in my opinion.

Now, he could improve and get better, but at his current level...I'm pretty comfortable in saying I'd take those guys over him.

Of course Curry deserves credit for winning if they do and it will be largely because of him as he's the clear cut best player.

My point was more of a philosophical one that just winning doesn't make one better. The most important thing is still impact and how good a player actually is.

[LAZERUSS]

Sorry but 2 rings doesn't enter you into the GOAT conversation. Top 5? Of course. But not GOAT. That is for MJ or Kareem. Why? Because they have the best body of work from rings, individual accomplishments, skills, peak, longevity, college, etc. If you disagree, fine.

Kareem has no case, then, either. Why? Because I have already discounted at least two, if not three, and even possibly four of his rings.

College? Kareem was the greatest and MJ is not even in the discussion.

MJ winning six rings? Yep...with stacked rosters that were capable of going 55-27 without him, and then losing a close (and controversial) seven game series against a 56-26 Knicks team that would lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals (and outscoring Houston in the process.)

What happened in '95, when a clearly RESTED (and not "rusty" as some idiots might argue) couldn't get to the Finals with nearly the same roster from the '94 team?

And how come MJ had a losing record in the post-season in his first six seasons (including a 1-9 record in his first three)?


Again, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in their ten years in the league together, and you tell me how many more rings Wilt would have won in those years. I could argue all ten, but even if it had only been say, six, and then add his '72 ring in...and where would Wilt rank on your all-time list?

[DMAVS41]

The bottom line is that you need to have one standard across the board. You cannot cherry pick giving guys like Magic, Oscar, Dr. J, Jerry West, Duncan, Kareem etc. a pass and then turn around and say only 2 of Kobe's rings are legitimate or that Scottie's 6 rings are irrelevant or that a player like Elgin Baylor or Karl Malone should be ranked below players like Oscar or West etc. because they have a ring.
IMO the best standard is actually no standard at all. Judge each championship on a case by case basis. What matters is the strength of the team as a whole, not who "the man" was. For example Kobe was a top 2-3 player in 2001 and 2002, who cares if he was playing with a slighty better player at the time.

But nobody other than Kobe fans use rings so heavily to rank players.

That is what you aren't getting....it's not that Kobe's rings don't count...it's that they don't make him better than he was.

Kobe winning a ring in 00 doesn't make him better than he was.

What we should do, and literally everyone other than Kobe fans do it...is talk about how good players actually were and their real impact.

With Kobe fans it's always about rings and all defensive awards...

[LAZERUSS]

so it was chamberlain's fault that Baylor and West sat the '71 playoffs with DNP-injury? Jerry West was tv commentating his own team in the playoffs.

That Lakers squad had no business getting to the conference finals. The ONLY reason they got there was #13.
Wilt Chamberlain played the best basketball anybody ever saw in the '71 playoffs, and only a person who never saw it could think he was somehow on some lower level because the Bucks beat that team.

you have the narrowest understanding of NBA basketball that i've seen in awhile.

:applause:

The '71 WCF's were very interesting. Here was Wilt, a year removed from major knee surgery, at age 34, well past his prime, and playing in arguably the worst season of his career...and yet those that actually watched that series between his vastly depleted Lakers, and going up against a GOAT team in that series, and up against a Kareem that I would argue was at his PEAK...and outplayed KAJ (then Alcindor) by a 3-1-1 margin in those five games.

Now, can you imagine a PEAK Wilt, circa '67, and playing with his '67 roster...and going up against that great Bucks team?

I have ZERO doubt that THAT Wilt easily outplays Kareem, and that Wilt's Sixers win that series.

[ClipperRevival]

so it was chamberlain's fault that Baylor and West sat the '71 playoffs with DNP-injury? Jerry West was tv commentating his own team in the playoffs.

That Lakers squad had no business getting to the conference finals. The ONLY reason they got there was #13.
Wilt Chamberlain played the best basketball anybody ever saw in the '71 playoffs, and only a person who never saw it could think he was somehow on some lower level because the Bucks beat that team.

you have the narrowest understanding of NBA basketball that i've seen in awhile.

You don't have to get all annoyed just because someone disagrees with you. If you think he's the GOAT, fine.

[ClipperRevival]

I said players that were better.

Like...unless Curry gets even better....he's not better than Barkley or David Robinson or Karl Malone in my opinion.

Now, he could improve and get better, but at his current level...I'm pretty comfortable in saying I'd take those guys over him.

Of course Curry deserves credit for winning if they do and it will be largely because of him as he's the clear cut best player.

My point was more of a philosophical one that just winning doesn't make one better. The most important thing is still impact and how good a player actually is.

Fair enough.

[ClipperRevival]

Kareem has no case, then, either. Why? Because I have already discounted at least two, if not three, and even possibly four of his rings.

College? Kareem was the greatest and MJ is not even in the discussion.

MJ winning six rings? Yep...with stacked rosters that were capable of going 55-27 without him, and then losing a close (and controversial) seven game series against a 56-26 Knicks team that would lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals (and outscoring Houston in the process.)

What happened in '95, when a clearly RESTED (and not "rusty" as some idiots might argue) couldn't get to the Finals with nearly the same roster from the '94 team?

And how come MJ had a losing record in the post-season in his first six seasons (including a 1-9 record in his first three)?


Again, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in their ten years in the league together, and you tell me how many more rings Wilt would have won in those years. I could argue all ten, but even if it had only been say, six, and then add his '72 ring in...and where would Wilt rank on your all-time list?


So MJ and KAJ suck? And Wilt GOAT? Gotcha

[La Frescobaldi]

You don't have to get all annoyed just because someone disagrees with you. If you think he's the GOAT, fine.

i'm annoyed because you are plastering a bunch of garbage about one of the greatest players to ever tie up sneaks when you never saw him play, don't know anything about him, and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

and you make it in statements as if it were fact.

[ClipperRevival]

i'm annoyed because you are plastering a bunch of garbage about one of the greatest players to ever tie up sneaks when you never saw him play, don't know anything about him, and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

and you make it in statements as if it were fact.

In that regard, you have a case. You are right, i never saw him play. I am basing this off of common, accepted knowledge and what he has accomplished. No one is questioning his greatness. I just question his case for being the GOAT. Let's not forget, being the GOAT doesn't only include peak. If we are only talking peak, he has a case but GOAT means you have to look at the entire body of work.

[La Frescobaldi]

In that regard, you have a case. You are right, i never saw him play. I am basing this off of common, accepted knowledge and what he has accomplished. No one is questioning his greatness. I just question his case for being the GOAT. Let's not forget, being the GOAT doesn't only include peak. If we are only talking peak, he has a case but GOAT means you have to look at the entire body of work.

if you use that logic, then he is unquestionably the goat, standing alone, and nobody is remotely close.

which is just as false; he's not alone up there.

basketball is far more subtle than this. Step up your game.

edit ~ and no, it's not accepted knowledge, either. jeez man.

[97 bulls]

Kareem has no case, then, either. Why? Because I have already discounted at least two, if not three, and even possibly four of his rings.

College? Kareem was the greatest and MJ is not even in the discussion.

MJ winning six rings? Yep...with stacked rosters that were capable of going 55-27 without him, and then losing a close (and controversial) seven game series against a 56-26 Knicks team that would lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals (and outscoring Houston in the process.)

What happened in '95, when a clearly RESTED (and not "rusty" as some idiots might argue) couldn't get to the Finals with nearly the same roster from the '94 team?

And how come MJ had a losing record in the post-season in his first six seasons (including a 1-9 record in his first three)?


Again, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in their ten years in the league together, and you tell me how many more rings Wilt would have won in those years. I could argue all ten, but even if it had only been say, six, and then add his '72 ring in...and where would Wilt rank on your all-time list?
And just to add to the bold. The Knicks lost by 4 in that gane 7 with Starks going 2/18. Had he just scored or made three more baskets, the Knicks would've won and he still would've had a bad game.

Funny thing is, Starks gets all the blame for the Knicks losing that game, but no one ever bring ip that Ewing ( the Knicks leader/best player) only shot 41% in that game. Why diesnt he receive all the blame? According Clippersrevaival, he would've deserved all the praise.

[LAZERUSS]

So MJ and KAJ suck? And Wilt GOAT? Gotcha

Where have I ever claimed that MJ and KAJ "sucked?"

Those two are among the FIVE legitimate "GOATS" (Magic, Russell, and Wilt all having strong cases, as well.)

KAJ without Magic? ONE ring (and had an old Wilt had his two best teammates in the playoffs that season, he might have been ringless.)

MJ in his first six seasons? A LOSING record in the playoffs. Went 0-6 against Bird, and then 6-12 against Isaiah. And his team was within a few points of going to the Finals, and likely a few points from winning a title...withOUT him, in '94. And with nearly that same roster, and fully refreshed the next year...lost in the ECF's.

CONTEXT.

I have given you NUMEROUS examples of Wilt's DOMINANCE. You claimed that he had a "terrible playoff legacy", when in fact, he had a BRILLIANT "playoff" legacy. He won TWO rings, and came within an eyelash of FIVE more. And again, he played in 29 post-season series, and was the best player on the floor in probably 25 of them...which included EIGHT against Russell, and TWO more against Kareem.

The FACT was, if anyone considers Russell as a GOAT, then how can a Wilt who ROUTINELY CRUSHED him in the playoffs, not be right there with him?

I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt was a "choker" in his post-season play. The man was the leading rebounder in 28 of his 29 post-season series, and in the one in which he wasn't, it was by one rebound. And when the two met again as centers, a 35 year old Wilt, playing 47 mpg in the '72 Finals, outrebounded a 31 year old Lucas, playing 46 mpg...by a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin. The REALITY was, Chamberlain was, BY FAR, the most dominant post-season rebounder. He was murdering his HOF opposing centers in that regard.

Scoring? Yep..."the Choker" had post-seasons of 28.0 ppg, 29.3 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had playoff series (three of which came against Russell), of 30.1 ppg, 30.5 ppg, 33.6 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg. And he had 13 games of 40+ (four of which came against Russell), with FOUR of 50+, including the ONLY THREE in "must-win" games (and yes, one against Russell.) He also had a 45 point, must-win Finals game, as well.

FG% efficiency? He was ROUTINLY outshooting the post-season league average by staggering margins. For instance, in his '64 playoff run, (with five games against Russell), he shot .543 from the field, in a post-season NBA that shot .420...all while averaging 34.7 ppg. In his '67 playoff run, which featured two series against Russell and Thurmond, he shot .579, in a post-season NBA that shot .424.

Defense? He DRAMATICALLY reduced the efficiency of his opposing centers, most all of whom are in the HOF. He held Russell to post-seasons of .399, .397, .386, and .358. He held Thurmond to post-seasons of .392, .373, and .343. He held Bellamy to a .421 series (in a season in which he shot .541 against the NBA.) And against a PEAK Kareem...he held him to post-seasons series of .481 and .457...in seasons in which Kareem shot .574 and.577.

Clutch?

How about these facts:


Wilt's numbers in those 23 games...13 of which came against HOF starting centers.

12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

And this...


Wilt actually played in 37 "elimination games",...games where either his team faced elimination, or could have clinched the series:

1. W: 53-22-2, 24-42 FG/FGA

2. W: 50-35-2, 22-42

3. L: 26-24-0, 8-18

4. L: 33-23-1, 13-29

5. W: 56-35-1, 22-48

6. W: 32-21-1, 12-29

7. L: 22-22-3, 7-15

8. W: 39-30-?, 19-29

9. L: 30-27-2, 12-28

10. W: 38-26-5, 14-22, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

11. W: 30-26-4, 13-22, 13 blks (Triple-Double)

12. L: 30-32-2, 12-15

13. L: 46-34-?, 19-34

14. W: 18-27-9, 7-14

15. W: 29-36-13, 10-16, 7 blks (Triple-Double)

16. W: 24-23-4, 8-13

17. W: 25-27-3, 10-19

18. L: 28-30-7, 11-21

19. L: 20-27-8, 6-21

20. L: 14-34-5, 4-9

21. W: 11-25-1, 5-9

22. W: 16-29-3, 5-11, 16 blks (Triple-Double)

23. L: 8-18-4, 1-5

24. L: 18-27-3, 7-8

25. W: 36-14-3, 12-20

26. W: 12-26-11, 4-11, 11 blks (Quad-Double)

27. W: 30-27-6, 11-18, 11 blks (Triple-Double)

28. W: 45-27-3, 20-27

29. L: 21-24-4, 10-16

30. W: 25-19-9, 7-12

31. L: 23-12-4, 10-21

32. W: 8-31-8, 4-6

33. W: 20-24-2, 8-12, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

34. W: 24-29-4, 10-14, 8 blks

35. W: 21-28-4, 10-17, 8 blks

36. W: 5-22-7, 2-2

37. L: 23-21-3, 9-16


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

.546 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 on average in that span.)

Keep in mind that 24 of those 37 games came after his "scoring seasons" (59-60 thru 65-66)

Just some food for thought...

[Yao Ming's Foot]

But nobody other than Kobe fans use rings so heavily to rank players.

That is what you aren't getting....it's not that Kobe's rings don't count...it's that they don't make him better than he was.

Kobe winning a ring in 00 doesn't make him better than he was.

What we should do, and literally everyone other than Kobe fans do it...is talk about how good players actually were and their real impact.

With Kobe fans it's always about rings and all defensive awards...

:roll:

How good is Kobe considering only Kareem has more all star selections than him in his career?

Or that only no player in NBA history has more All NBA team awards than him?

Or those don't count either?

Kobe has a top ten resume even if you completely ignore his status as a 5-time champion.

[DMAVS41]

:roll:

How good is Kobe considering only Kareem has more all star selections than him in his career?

Or that only no player in NBA history has more All NBA team awards than him?

Or those don't count either?

Kobe has a top ten resume even if you completely ignore his status as a 5-time champion.

What do you mean..."doesn't count". I certainly never said that. I said it's silly to act like Kobe winning a ring, in 00 for example, somehow makes him better than he actually was as a player that year. Stuff like that.

And who doesn't have Kobe in the top 12 or so all time?

The point is that, with Kobe, the conversation is usually more about all star selections, all defense, and rings than it is about how good of a player he actually was.

That is where all this "ring counting" started.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What do you mean..."doesn't count". I certainly never said that. I said it's silly to act like Kobe winning a ring, in 00 for example, somehow makes him better than he actually was as a player that year. Stuff like that.

And who doesn't have Kobe in the top 12 or so all time?

The point is that, with Kobe, the conversation is usually more about all star selections, all defense, and rings than it is about how good of a player he actually was.

That is where all this "ring counting" started.

Thats how you split hairs among other legends. :confusedshrug:

But right nobody thought about comparing ring totals among fellow great players throughout NBA history until LeBron came into the league and started not winning them.

[DMAVS41]

Thats how you split hairs among other legends. :confusedshrug:

But right nobody thought about comparing ring totals among fellow great players throughout NBA history until LeBron came into the league and started not winning them.

I think it's definitely a factor, just not as big of one as Kobe fans seem to think.

[Ne 1]

What do you mean..."doesn't count". I certainly never said that. I said it's silly to act like Kobe winning a ring, in 00 for example, somehow makes him better than he actually was as a player that year. Stuff like that.

And who doesn't have Kobe in the top 12 or so all time?

The point is that, with Kobe, the conversation is usually more about all star selections, all defense, and rings than it is about how good of a player he actually was.

That is where all this "ring counting" started.
Not true. A main reason a lot of fans rank Magic over Bird is because he has 5 rings to Bird's 3. Same thing for Russell and Wilt, people who value winning gave Russell over Wilt.

[DMAVS41]

Not true. A main reason a lot of fans rank Magic over Bird is because he has 5 rings to Bird's 3. Same thing for Russell and Wilt, people who value winning gave Russell over Wilt.

It's a reason some use...I never denied that. I'm saying it's flawed reasoning for the most part.

But it was never like it is now with Kobe and Lebron. In fact, a lot of people ranked Bird higher most of the 80's than Magic....I was in the minority because I thought Magic was better.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I think it's definitely a factor, just not as big of one as Kobe fans seem to think.

:facepalm

Right because nobody reminds Kobe fans that Jordan has 6 rings. Seriously this is a moronic conversation. The importance of rings among NBA legends was established well before Kobe or Kobe fans were ever born.

[NBASTATMAN]

To me, it's everything. I put a ton of weight for guys who won as "the man" versus guys who won as second fiddle or third wheel. There is nothing more impressive than being "the man" on a team and being the focus of the D every night and still dominating. It's so much easier to be the 2nd fiddle and kind of go under the radar of the bright lights.

That's exactly why history views Hakeem and Robinson so differently. Both have two rings but the way they got them is night and day. Hakeem carrying about as much a load as anyone in history while Robinson piggy backing off of Duncan late in his career.

Same with Pippen. He was one of the best all around wing players ever but the guy simply didn't have the type of offensive game to carry an offense on his back. He proved that when he went to Houston and Portland. And he needed MJ just as much as MJ needed Pip. They needed each other. But there was no denying who carried the load every night. Who defenses focused on every night.

Same with a guy like Drexler. He has a ring but had he beaten MJ in the 1992 finals or 1990 finals against Detroit as "the man", his place in history would've been much higher than it is now. He piggy backed off of Hakeem.

Same with Kobe. People say all Kobe needs is 1 more ring to tie MJ and I laugh. He only has 2 as "the man", where he clearly had to carry the largest burden. You can make a strong argument that in 2001, he was almost equal to Shaq, but in the grand scheme of things, he was the 2nd fiddle from 2000 - 2002. And he was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever.

Where it gets a little murky is with Duncan. He was clearly "the man" for his first 3 rings but he sort of blended in with the rest of the team for his last 2. But he clearly had the talent to score more if he wanted too. He was just willing to blend in. So do you downgrade him for that? I don't know because even though he was clearly not "the man", he might still have been the most valueable and important given what he brought to the table on both ends.

Thoughts?



You are mistaken... Gasol did most of the heavy lifting in 2010.. Check Winning percentages on both players and its obvious who was better.. Check the eye test and you see Gasol making game winners in crucial games and carrying the Lakers in game 7'S Where Kobe was a NO SHOW...

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Right because nobody reminds Kobe fans that Jordan has 6 rings. Seriously this is a moronic conversation. The importance of rings among NBA legends was established well before Kobe or Kobe fans were ever born.

Calm down man. Seriously.

I never said they don't matter.

I said they are used too much to prop or hate on certain players.

I think MJ fans that say that are stupid to. Any fan base that uses rings that heavily is stupid.

MJ could have won 3 rings and he'd still be a better basketball player than Kobe. If they use that....they are just lazy and stupid.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Calm down man. Seriously.

I never said they don't matter.

I said they are used too much to prop or hate on certain players.

I think MJ fans that say that are stupid to. Any fan base that uses rings that heavily is stupid.

And just for the record how many ring does your favorite player have?

[DMAVS41]

And just for the record how many ring does your favorite player have?

1.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

1.

Shocking

[DMAVS41]

Shocking

Why?

Let me guess...you think MVP's don't matter that much.

How many MVP's does your favorite player have?

It's stupid going back and forth about this stuff. It's much better to just have a discussion about how good players actually were.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why?

Let me guess...you think MVP's don't matter that much.

How many MVP's does your favorite player have?

It's stupid going back and forth about this stuff. It's much better to just have a discussion about how good players actually were.

He is top ten in MVP award shares.

Sounds like you are in a rough spot. Normal people discuss how good players were by talking about their awards and championships. :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

He is top ten in MVP award shares.

Sounds like you are in a rough spot. Normal people discuss how good players were by talking about their awards and championships. :confusedshrug:

I don't think they do. I think they talk about how good they actually were at playing basketball while factoring in awards and titles because so much of that is dictated by circumstances.

Rough spot? I'm in the sensible spot...just like history will even out and Kobe will be a fringe top 10 player in a few years...when his on paper resume should put him higher.

The reason? Everyone knows he just wasn't as good as his on paper resume when looking at solely awards and championships.

Let me spell this out:

YOU: All that matters is awards and championships

ME: Awards and championships matter, but the context of those also matters. Even more important than awards and titles...is how good a player actually was playing the game of basketball. Because circumstances differ so much between players...I think it's better to take everything we can into account when evaluating a player rather than looking at something so limited like just titles and wards.


I'll let you figure out which one will lead to more accurate conclusions.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't think they do. I think they talk about how good they actually were at playing basketball while factoring in awards and titles because so much of that is dictated by circumstances.

Rough spot? I'm in the sensible spot...just like history will even out and Kobe will be a fringe top 10 player in a few years...when his on paper resume should put him higher.

The reason? Everyone knows he just wasn't as good as his on paper resume when looking at solely awards and championships.

Let me spell this out:

YOU: All that matters is awards and championships

ME: Awards and championships matter, but the context of those also matters. Even more important than awards and titles...is how good a player actually was playing the game of basketball. Because circumstances differ so much between players...I think it's better to take everything we can into account when evaluating a player rather than looking at something so limited like just titles and wards.


I'll let you figure out which one will lead to more accurate conclusions.

:roll:

ok boss.

[DMAVS41]

:roll:

ok boss.


Yep.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yep.

And what is it exactly about Kobe that unjustly forced awards and rings in his lap that made him different than every other NBA legend before him?

[DMAVS41]

And what is it exactly about Kobe that unjustly forced awards and rings in his lap that made him different than every other NBA legend before him?

Most players don't get to play with peak Shaq for 8 years....

And what is it about Kobe that he comes off via the eye test and with stats as not nearly as good as his fans claim?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Most players don't get to play with peak Shaq for 8 years....

And what is it about Kobe that he comes off via the eye test and with stats as not nearly as good as his fans claim?

Kobe's greatness isn't derived from his fans. Its derived from his contemporaries. , other NBA legends and NBA coaches. But I guess your "eye test" and fringe "stats" outweigh their takes :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Kobe's greatness isn't derived from his fans. Its derived from his contemporaries. , other NBA legends and NBA coaches. But I guess your "eye test" and fringe "stats" outweigh their takes :confusedshrug:


I only have my eyes...

And I don't think the basketball community would refer to data as "fringe stats"...

Get with the times son.

[Ne 1]

Why?

Let me guess...you think MVP's don't matter that much.

How many MVP's does your favorite player have?

It's stupid going back and forth about this stuff. It's much better to just have a discussion about how good players actually were.
The difference is is that MVP is a subjective award voted on by sports writers. When you bring up MVPs, you're arguing an award based on the opinion of a majority of media members. I don't need the media to tell me how well someone played when I saw them myself. I do agree with the MVP selections more often than not, but I've also disagreed with too many to praise the award. Even if I agreed with 100% it is still a subjective award.

[ClipperRevival]

if you use that logic, then he is unquestionably the goat, standing alone, and nobody is remotely close.

which is just as false; he's not alone up there.

basketball is far more subtle than this. Step up your game.

edit ~ and no, it's not accepted knowledge, either. jeez man.

Ok then, objectively tell me why Wilt is the GOAT. I think a good number of fans agree that the consensus top 1-2 is MJ and KAJ or KAJ and MJ. Of course some have different rankings like Russell (most rings) or Wilt (greatest peak) but I think a good number of fans have MJ/KAJ as 1-2. So instead of telling me I don't know jack, how about you back up your reasoning.

[ClipperRevival]

You are mistaken... Gasol did most of the heavy lifting in 2010.. Check Winning percentages on both players and its obvious who was better.. Check the eye test and you see Gasol making game winners in crucial games and carrying the Lakers in game 7'S Where Kobe was a NO SHOW...

Lol. No, just no. Ask 100 Laker fans who followed the team in 2010 (like myself) and about 95 will say Kobe was clearly "the man". Gasol and Artest were the mvps in game 7 but Kobe was still the best player in that series.

[Wade's Rings]

The difference is is that MVP is a subjective award voted on by sports writers. When you bring up MVPs, you're arguing an award based on the opinion of a majority of media members. I don't need the media to tell me how well someone played when I saw them myself. I do agree with the MVP selections more often than not, but I've also disagreed with too many to praise the award. Even if I agreed with 100% it is still a subjective award.

The All Defensive Teams & All NBA Teams aren't subjective? Why did Kobe win 1st Team All D over Wade from 2009-2011? Why was Kobe 1st Team all NBA in 2011 over Wade? CP3 wasn't even 1st All NBA in 2009 because the NBA had to put Kobe on there.

[DMAVS41]

The difference is is that MVP is a subjective award voted on by sports writers. When you bring up MVPs, you're arguing an award based on the opinion of a majority of media members. I don't need the media to tell me how well someone played when I saw them myself. I do agree with the MVP selections more often than not, but I've also disagreed with too many to praise the award. Even if I agreed with 100% it is still a subjective award.

Yea...and winning a title doesn't make you a better player than others that didn't win.

I've disagreed with many people that won titles who were known as better players than others that didn't.

I see all nba and all defensive awards the same way.

I just see it all relatively the same.

It's all meaningless without evaluating circumstances and evaluating how players play the game.

[Ne 1]

Bottom line is you play to win the game and the most important thing is winning. Yes, you do have to consider the situations players are in, and it's more important when discussing a guy who only had one. When players win multiple titles and contend other years, then chances are it goes a little beyond being in a great situation.

[DMAVS41]

Bottom line is you play to win the game and the most important thing is winning. Yes, you do have to consider the situations players are in, and it's more important when discussing a guy who only had one. When players win multiple titles and contend other years, then chances are it goes a little beyond being in a great situation.

Of course you play to win the game. Which is why winning and contending absolutely matters when discussing how good players were.

And of course it's not only situation...I never insisted upon that.

I just think there is a balanced middle ground here to speak honestly about the impact of a player in combination with things like awards and team success...

Is what it is.

[SpecialQue]

This bullshit only became a thing when Jordan was around. Before that, rings were rings. Sports media, and sports fans, are fvcking idiots.

[bobeticus]

This bullshit only became a thing when Jordan was around. Before that, rings were rings. Sports media, and sports fans, are fvcking idiots.

This. pathetic trolls are pathetic.

A ring is a ring who doesn't care if it's a man carrying it or a team... or a super team or a stacked team... who cares winning the championship that's all it matters.

[catch24]

Leading a unit to a title is HUGE in my book. Depending on how you play obviously.

Kobe in 2001 and 2002, like Magic/Kareem for example, is a special case where his value to the team was insurmountable.

[ClipperRevival]

Leading a unit to a title is HUGE in my book. Depending on how you play obviously.

Kobe in 2001 and 2002, like Magic/Kareem for example, is a special case where his value to the team was insurmountable.

Yes. And that's why I always said that Kobe was the greatest 2nd fiddle ever. That should not be taken as a downgrade but as a compliment. Meaning he was so good, he almost matched prime Shaq at times, when he was only in his early 20's and not in is prime yet. Yes, prime Shaq, one of the most devastating forces ever to step on the court. But in the grand scheme of things in their 2000-2002 run, Shaq was still "the man". The guy defenses focused on and game planned against. That carries weight.

But Kobe is a legit top 10 atg. At his peak, you can argue that he was the most devastating wing scorer ever, even over MJ. He proved his true greatness when he won 2 as "the man" after Shaq left. His place in history is secured with the best ever.

[AlphaWolf24]

Yeah its Kobe fans fault for thinking averaging 29.4 ppg/ 7.3 rebs/6.1 apg on 56 TS% in the playoffs en route to a st15-1 record and ring actually counted.

The audacity.

:roll:


Lol....this

Kobes 01' posteason run was better then 06' Wades

Winning as the "man" is not just " fmvp"

No one says Bird has only 2 " the man" titles
I understand people saying Pippen is not as good as offensive player as MJ

But Kobe and Bird have shown to be the best offensive players and the ability to carry teams offensively

They were both the #1 offensive/ clutch time option for all their titles...they deserve full credit fmvp or not

After all it's not like they left 60 win teams in their prime to collude with other superstars...

"Colluding "titles are worst then anything

[AlphaWolf24]

Most players don't get to play with peak Shaq for 8 years....

And what is it about Kobe that he comes off via the eye test and with stats as not nearly as good as his fans claim?


Actually his stats are amongst the greatest players ever...

He's top 5 according to most major stats the NBA uses...

Like points, all nba teams , all defensive teams , all stars , titles + fm ps

I put more weight into eye test + those stats then a fly by the night ESPN stat that shows Nick Collison impacting the game at a better rate then Steph Curry


Cough cough Rapm cough Collison # 20 ranked player

[BlakFrankWhite]

It matters a lot

The top 10 GOAT list comprises the players who led their teams to titles as "The Man"

[Ne 1]

Kobe in 2001 and 2002, like Magic/Kareem for example, is a special case where his value to the team was insurmountable.

I agree and the general consensus after the '01 playoffs was actually that Shaq and Kobe were the 2 best players in the league. This is how close it actually was.

MVP of each series:

2001
vs. Blazers - Either, hard to pick.
vs. Kings - Could go with either, Shaq dominated first two games and Kobe the last two.
vs. Spurs - Kobe, but Shaq had good series as well.
vs. Sixers - Shaq, but Kobe had a good series as well.

2002
'vs. Blazers - Shaq
vs. Spurs - Kobe (Shaq was injured in this series which was the reason for his low offensive output, the Lakers would have lost this series if it weren't for Kobe's fourth quarter play in the last 3 games)
vs. Kings - I'll say Shaq, but after going back and watching the series it was way closer than the stats say (Kobe was just as important as Shaq in the wins, but Shaq played better than him in the losses and Kobe had some horrific shooting nights in those games they lost).
vs. Nets - Shaq, but Kobe played well and had probably the best Finals performance not be awarded MVP in a winning effort (besides Kareem in 1980 who was literally robbed of that award by CBS)

[bobeticus]

i've just read this one...

Magic Johnson: Nine Finals appearances, five titles, Hall of Famer, one of the most iconic players, ever. Johnson is revered for his Finals play, including his play at center in 1980 when Kareem-Abdul Jabbar went down with an ankle injury.

so Magic is 5/9
MJ is 6/6
KB 5/6

[Sarcastic]

It means everything. Lebron tanked the 2011 finals so that he didn't have a ring without being "the man".

[houston]

alot but it is overrated

[Dbrog]

i've just read this one...

Magic Johnson: Nine Finals appearances, five titles, Hall of Famer, one of the most iconic players, ever. Johnson is revered for his Finals play, including his play at center in 1980 when Kareem-Abdul Jabbar went down with an ankle injury.

so Magic is 5/9
MJ is 6/6
KB 5/6

Russell 11/12 in the Finals :eek:

[bobeticus]

Russell 11/12 in the Finals :eek:

8 Teams 72 Game Sched.... wow that's

7 teams x 10 games = 70 games + Playoff

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Spurs5Rings2014]

i've just read this one...

Magic Johnson: Nine Finals appearances, five titles, Hall of Famer, one of the most iconic players, ever. Johnson is revered for his Finals play, including his play at center in 1980 when Kareem-Abdul Jabbar went down with an ankle injury.

so Magic is 5/9
MJ is 6/6
KB 5/6

Kobe is 5/7 in the finals... I think the name you were thinking of is Tim Duncan who is actually 5/6. Best ratio other than Jordan and Russell. :eek: 4 as "The Man" which is also better than anyone else besides those two. How is this man not a GOAT candidate or at the very least even just a top 5 candidate? People really saying he's not even top 10? C'mon now. :oldlol:

New list, this thread has opened my eyes a bit...

#1 - Jordan - 6/6, GOAT. There's really no need to explain my reasoning for this placement.

#2 - Russell - 11/12, couldn't score, but greatest winner. One of the most impactul, if not the most, of all time. Did what his team needed of him to win as much as he could. Not really any reason to defend this placement either.

#3 - Duncan - 5/6, GOAT PF and one of the greatest 2-way players/defenders of all time. 4 "The Man" rings (only 2 above him have more), always did whatever his team needed to win similar to Russell or Bird, stacked conference, no top 10 teammate. Won his first 4 titles without another All-NBA player (everyone else could only do that once). Most consecutive 50 win seasons ever. Literally contended every single season of his career. in 2003 had one of the GOAT play off runs with one of the worst supporting casts to win a chip of all time. That + all his wins, wins as "The Man," top 3 GOAT longevity, one of the GOAT 2-way players of all time, one of the greatest leaders of all time, arguably GOAT intangibles and clutch play, etc make him worthy of this spot.

#4 - Bird - 3/5, one of, if not the GOAT shooters of all time and one of the GOAT scorers. Was considered better than Magic until '87 due to injuries, less stacked team, tougher conference, no top 10 teammate. He's below Duncan due to longevity, durability, rings, rings as "The Man," 2-way play (defense), etc.

#5 - Magic - 5/9, GOAT PG and arguably the GOAT leader. I don't think I have to argue why I have him below Jordan and Russell, but I have him below Duncan and Bird because those guys had to face a team with 2 top 10's during their primes with not as good rosters and still outplayed them plenty of times. Magic was only considered better than Bird after '87 when he hit his peak and Bird declined. Also, played in a weak conference compared to Bird's. Won all his titles with another top 10 all time, Duncan won his first 4 titles with not even another All-NBA teammate.

#6 - Kareem - 6/10, one of, if not the GOAT centers of all time, one of the greatest peaks of all time, GOAT college career. I'll just cut straight to the point here. He's below Magic because back in the 70's (which was the weakest era of all time) during his prime/peak he only won 1 title with #2 GOAT PG in Oscar Robertson. In that same weak era, he racked up almost all his MVP trophies. There were almost no other top 10 players during this time. The only one was an old Wilt in the early 70's. The level of competition just isn't high enough for his 70's accomplishments/performances to hold much weight. In fact, you could do the opposite and say the fact that he lost with HCA to players outside the top 10 with stacked rosters actually brings down his status. Then in the 80's a rookie Magic came along and instantly won him a chip that same season, even clinching the final game playing Center with 42 points while Kareem was sitting at home. During his time with Magic and the Lakers he only won arguably 1 ring as "The Man." The rest were Magic. Worthy even got a FMVP out of it. He also was on the most stacked roster of the era in a weak conference. Only had to face a team with 1 top 10 at any one point, never had to go through the 76'ers or Pistons until the finals. Didn't do what his team needed from him at all times. Stopped defending/rebounding as he got older. So to boil it all down: Magic is ahead of him because he's a greater winner. Won at least 2 chips with Kareem either not playing/or playing poorly, more rings as "The Man," achieved his MVP's in a tougher era with more competition/other top 10's, etc. Bird is over Kareem because he played his whole career in a tougher era, won all of his MVP's/chips in a tough era, won without another top 10 in a historically stacked conference, less stacked team, etc. Duncan is ahead of Kareem for the same reasons as Bird, tbh.

#7 - Shaq - 4/6, one of the greatest centers of all time and MDE during his peak. I don't think I really need to argue why he's below the other guys, but he's below Magic and Kareem because he also had the luxury of playing with another top 10 (as well as a top 5 SG all time) and didn't do as much. Sure, he 3peated, but less chips, less MVP's, more lazy, worse work ethic, etc. Had prime Kobe who was a legit 1b during the '01 and '02 runs. Even in '00 they wouldn't have won without Kobe's clutch play in that 7 game series vs. Portland. Obviously they wouldn't have won in '02 without his play in the Kings series. '01 was about as close as you'll ever see to a 1a/1b scenario. In '06 Wade put on one of the greatest displays of all time. Regardless, he won 3 as the man, but arguably so did everyone ahead of him and only 2 didn't do it with less talent surrounding them and those 2 won more/accomplished more individually.

#8 - Hakeem - 2/3, one of, if not the greatest 2-way and skilled big man of all time. I really wanted to put him higher, but was hard with only the 2 chips. I'm pretty sure I don't have to argue why he's below the other guys, but if I had to go a route I'd say all the 1st round exits and leave it at that. His two chips, though, he won with some of the least amount of help ever.

#9 - Kobe - 5/7, one of the greatest scorers and 2nd best 2 of all time. I have him below Hakeem because he won his 2 "The Man" titles with historically little help while Kobe won his with historically great help. His 2 chips in '09-'10, he had the best roster in the NBA both years. The only other that was close is Boston, but KG was injured '09, so that only leaves '10 and by that time, they were getting pretty old. He lucked out and played with the MDE during his absolute peak. It's hard to rank Kobe honestly. Only 1 MVP and it's arguable it should of been CP3's. Unwarranted All-NBA and All-Defensive teams. When he didn't have decent rosters around him/Phil Jackson either didn't make the play offs or got bounced in the first round.

#10 - LeBron - 2/5, one of best all-around players and athletic freaks of all time. 1st or 2nd best SF of all time. Hard for me to put him above the rest. Let me just argue him vs. Hakeem and Kobe since those are the only ones up for grabs, IMO. Hakeem won back-to-back as well and also has same number of chips and "The Man" titles. He's ahead of LeBron for having much worse rosters and still winning the same amount, impacting the game more, being a better defender (DPOY), etc. Kobe is ahead of LeBron for me because he legit was as close to a 1b in 1-2 of those Laker 3peat teams with Shaq as you can get, is not afraid to take over the game and attempt to win even if he costs his team a title, both had stacked teams during their title runs, but Kobe never left his team to join 2 other superstars in their prime. It's just kind of hard for me to give Bron full credit for those chips the way those teams were formed. Also, had the GOAT finals meltdown, lost in the finals by the worst point differential ever and was swept in the finals while shooting historically bad and turning the ball over at an unprecedented clip. Just an overall shaky finals performer.

#11 - Wilt - 2/6, possibly the GOAT peak (hard to rate considering the era/pace/rules/etc) and record holder, arguably the GOAT center and greatest scorer of all time. Wilt and Russell are hard to judge (Kareem to an extent, too). I guess the best way is to put everything into context of respective eras. My issues with Wilt are: his numbers dropped from the regular season to the post season to the finals. He's one of the worst finals performers (comparative to his regular season and the rest of the play offs) of all time. So many chokes and meltdowns, so many missed FT's in close 1-2 point Game 7's. It's just impossible to ignore. He is probably the GOAT regular season player by far, but for whatever reason he just couldn't put it together when he needed to the most. You really can't say the same for the other guys on this list (Kobe and Bron are barely above him for the same reasons).

[LAZERUSS]

Kobe is 5/7 in the finals... I think the name you were thinking of is Tim Duncan who is actually 5/6. Best ratio other than Jordan and Russell. :eek: 4 as "The Man" which is also better than anyone else besides those two. How is this man not a GOAT candidate or at the very least even just a top 5 candidate? People really saying he's not even top 10? C'mon now. :oldlol:

New list, this thread has opened my eyes a bit...

#1 - Jordan - 6/6, GOAT. There's really no need to explain my reasoning for this placement.

#2 - Russell - 11/12, couldn't score, but greatest winner. One of the most impactul, if not the most, of all time. Did what his team needed of him to win as much as he could. Not really any reason to defend this placement either.

#3 - Duncan - 5/6, GOAT PF and one of the greatest 2-way players/defenders of all time. 4 "The Man" rings (only 2 above him have more), always did whatever his team needed to win similar to Russell or Bird, stacked conference, no top 10 teammate. Won his first 4 titles without another All-NBA player (everyone else could only do that once). Most consecutive 50 win seasons ever. Literally contended every single season of his career. in 2003 had one of the GOAT play off runs with one of the worst supporting casts to win a chip of all time. That + all his wins, wins as "The Man," top 3 GOAT longevity, one of the GOAT 2-way players of all time, one of the greatest leaders of all time, arguably GOAT intangibles and clutch play, etc make worthy of this spot.

#4 - Bird - 3/5, one of, if not the GOAT shooters of all time and one of the GOAT scorers. Was considered better than Magic until '87 due to injuries, less stacked team, tougher conference, no top 10 teammate. He's below Duncan due to longevity, durability, rings, rings as "The Man," 2-way play (defense), etc.

#5 - Magic - 5/9, GOAT PG and arguably the GOAT leader. I don't think I have to argue why I have him below Jordan and Russell, but I have him below Duncan and Bird because those guys had to face a team with 2 top 10's during their primes with not as good rosters and still outplayed them plenty of times. Magic was only considered better than Bird after '87 when he hit his peak and Bird declined. Also, played in a weak conference compared to Bird's. Won all his titles with another top 10 all time, Duncan won his first 4 titles with not even another All-NBA teammate.

#6 - Kareem - 6/10, one of, if not the GOAT centers of all time, one of the greatest peaks of all time, GOAT college career. I'll just cut straight to the point here. He's below Magic because back in the 70's (which was the weakest era of all time) during his prime/peak he only won 1 title with #2 GOAT PG in Oscar Robertson. In that same weak era, he racked up almost all his MVP trophies. There were almost no other top 10 players during this time. The only one was an old Wilt in the early 70's. The level of competition just isn't high enough for his 70's accomplishments/performances to hold much weight. In fact, you could do the opposite and say the fact that he lost with HCA to players outside the top 10 with stacked rosters actually brings down his status. Then in the 80's a rookie Magic came along and instantly won him a chip that same season, even clinching the final game playing Center with 42 points while Kareem was sitting at home. During his time with Magic and the Lakers he only won arguably 1 ring as "The Man." The rest were Magic. Worthy even got a FMVP out of it. He also was on the most stacked roster of the era in a weak conference. Only had to face a team with 1 top 10 at any one point, never had to go through the 76'ers or Pistons until the finals. Didn't do what his team needed from him at all times. Stopped defending/rebounding as he got older. So to boil it all down: Magic is ahead of him because he's a greater winner. Won at least 2 chips with Kareem either not playing/or playing poorly, more rings as "The Man," achieved his MVP's in a tougher era with more competition/other top 10's, etc. Bird is over Kareem because he played his whole career in a tougher era, won all of his MVP's/chips in a tough era, won without another top 10 in a historically stacked conference, less stacked team, etc. Duncan is ahead of Kareem for the same reasons as Bird, tbh.

#7 - Shaq - 4/6, one of the greatest centers of all time and MDE during his peak. I don't think I really need to argue why he's below the other guys, but he's below Magic and Kareem because he also had the luxury of playing with another top 10 (as well as a top 5 SG all time) and didn't do as much. Sure, he 3peated, but less chips, less MVP's, more lazy, worse work ethic, etc. Had prime Kobe who was a legit 1b during the '01 and '02 runs. Even in '00 they wouldn't have won without Kobe's clutch play in that 7 game series vs. Portland. Obviously they wouldn't have won in '02 without his play in the Kings series. '01 was about as close as you'll ever see to a 1a/1b scenario. In '06 Wade put on one of the greatest displays of all time. Regardless, he won 3 as the man, but arguably so did everyone ahead of him and only 2 didn't do it with less talent surrounding them and those 2 won more/accomplished more individually.

#8 - Hakeem - 2/3, one of, if not the greatest 2-way and skilled big man of all time. I really wanted to put him higher, bu was hard with only the 2 chips. I'm pretty I don't have to argue why he's below the other guys, but if I had to go a route I'd say all the 1st round exits and leave it at that. His two chips, though, he won with some of the least amount of help ever.

#9 - Kobe - 5/7, one of the greatest scorers and 2nd best 2 of all time. I have him below Hakeem because won his 2 "The Man" titles with historically little help while Kobe won his with historically great help. His 2 chips in '09-'10, he had the best roster in the NBA both years. The only other that was close is Boston, but KG was injured '09, so that only leaves '10 and by that time, they were getting pretty old. He lucked out and played with the MDE during his absolute peak. It's hard to rank Kobe honestly. Only 1 MVP and it's arguable it should of been CP3's. Unwarranted All-NBA and All-Defensive teams. When he didn't have decent rosters around him/Phil Jackson either didn't make the play offs or got bounced in the first round.

#10 - LeBron - 2/5, one of best all-around players and athletic freaks of all time. 1st or 2nd best SF of all time. Hard for me to put him above the rest. Let me just argue him vs. Hakeem and Kobe since those are the only ones up for grabs, IMO. Hakeem won back-to-back as well and also has same number of chips and "The Man" titles. He's ahead of LeBron for having much worse rosters and still winning the same amount, impacting the game more, being a better defender (DPOY), etc. Kobe is ahead of LeBron for me because legit was as close to a 1b in 1-2 of those Laker 3peat teams with Shaq as you can get, is not afraid to take over the game and attempt to win even if he costs his team a title, both had stacked teams during their title runs, but Kobe never left his team to join 2 other superstars in their prime. It's just kind of hard for me to give Bron full credit for those chips the way those teams were formed. Also, had the GOAT finals meltdown, lost in the finals by the worst point differential ever and was swept in the finals while shooting historically bad and turning the ball over at an unprecedented clip. Just an overall shaky finals performer.

#11 - Wilt - 2/6, possibly the GOAT peak (hard to rate considering the era/pace/rules/etc) and record holder, arguably the GOAT center and greatest scorer of all time. Wilt and Russell are hard to judge (Kareem to an extent, too). I guess the best way is to put everything into context of respective eras. My issues with Wilt are: his numbers dropped from the regular season to the post season to the finals. He's one of the worst finals performers (comparative to his regular season the rest of the play offs) of all time. So many chokes and meltdowns, so many missed FT's in close 1-2 point Game 7's. It's just impossible to ignore. He is probably the GOAT regular season player by far, but for whatever reason he just couldn't put it together when he needed to the most. You really can't say the same for the other guys on this list (Kobe and Bron are barely above him for the same reasons).

Wilt's TEAMS lost to your #2 FOUR times in GAME SEVEN's, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...in series in which Chamberlain either outplayed him, or downright crushed him.

Oh, and then in another one, with a roster that was finally the equal of Russell's, and healthy, they destroyed Russell's eight-time defending champions (they were four points away from a sweep)...in a series in which Chamberlain carpet-bombed Russell in every conceivable fashion.

If Russell is your #2, then Wilt has to be right behind him. THEN, ask yourself this...swap rosters and coaches in their ten seasons in the league together, and you tell us all here how many rings both players would have?

Oh, and in the four years that a way-past-his-prime Wilt and a peak Kareem were in the league together, Chamberlain had considerably more team success. Of course, using your "Finals" logic, Wilt is punished for going 1/3 in his Finals, while Kareem went 1/1 in his. Losing in the previous rounds, and to lessor teams (and to teams that Wilt would rout, or take much further against) is a "positive" for Kareem in your scenario.

In fact, in his 10 prime seasons, all before Magic arrived...Kareem went to two Finals, won one, lost with HCA in other Finals, lost with HCA in the first round of another, lost to two Sonic teams that had far less talent than his own team, and missed the playoffs altogether two more times.

[LAZERUSS]

Kobe is 5/7 in the finals... I think the name you were thinking of is Tim Duncan who is actually 5/6. Best ratio other than Jordan and Russell. :eek: 4 as "The Man" which is also better than anyone else besides those two. How is this man not a GOAT candidate or at the very least even just a top 5 candidate? People really saying he's not even top 10? C'mon now. :oldlol:

New list, this thread has opened my eyes a bit...


#8 - Hakeem - 2/3, one of, if not the greatest 2-way and skilled big man of all time. I really wanted to put him higher, bu was hard with only the 2 chips. I'm pretty I don't have to argue why he's below the other guys, but if I had to go a route I'd say all the 1st round exits and leave it at that. His two chips, though, he won with some of the least amount of help ever.

#9 - Kobe - 5/7, one of the greatest scorers and 2nd best 2 of all time. I have him below Hakeem because won his 2 "The Man" titles with historically little help while Kobe won his with historically great help. His 2 chips in '09-'10, he had the best roster in the NBA both years. The only other that was close is Boston, but KG was injured '09, so that only leaves '10 and by that time, they were getting pretty old. He lucked out and played with the MDE during his absolute peak. It's hard to rank Kobe honestly. Only 1 MVP and it's arguable it should of been CP3's. Unwarranted All-NBA and All-Defensive teams. When he didn't have decent rosters around him/Phil Jackson either didn't make the play offs or got bounced in the first round.

.

Hakeem played 18 seasons in his career. He went to three finals, and won two of them. In one of the Finals in which his team won, the best player in the league took the year off, and that team still went 55-27 without him, and gave the Knicks the same amount of problems in the playoffs, as that Knicks team would give the Rockets in the Finals. In his next Finals, h was ouitplayed by a young Shaq, and in fact, his teammates shot a much higher eFG% and TS% than Hakeem, himself did. If it hadn't been for Hakeem's TEAMMATES massively outplaying Shaq's, he would be minus yet another ring.

The rest of his post-season career? EIGHT FIRST ROUND LOSSES..most of them BLOW-OUTS. Played on only five teams that won 50+ games, with a high of 58.


Kobe...are you talking FINALS here?


99-00
Regular season 22.5 ppg .468 FG%
Finals 15.6 ppg .367 FG%
Last Game of Series .296 FG%

00-01
Regular season 28.5 ppg .464 FG%
Finals 24.6 ppg .415 FG%
Last Game of Series .389 FG%

01-02
Regular season 25.2 ppg .469
Finals 26.8 ppg .514 FG%
Last Game of Series .438 FG%

03-04
Regular season 24.0 ppg .438 FG%
Finals 22.6 ppg .381 FG%
Last Game of Series .333 FG%

07-08
Regular season 28.3 ppg .459 FG%
Finals 25.7 ppg .405 FG%
Last Game of Series .318 FG%

08-09
Regular season 26.8 ppg .467 FG%
Finals 32.4 ppg .430 FG%
Last Game of Series .435 FG%

09-10
Regular season 27.0 ppg .456 FG%
Finals 28.6 ppg .405 FG%
Last Game of Series .250 FG%


Other noteables:


97-98
Swept by Utah 4-0.
Kobe averages 10.0 ppg on a .367 FG%

98-99
Swept by San Antonio 4-0
Last game of the series : Kobe 16 points on a .438 FG%

02-03
Lose to Spurs in WCF's, 4-2.
Last game loss by a score of 110-82 (Kobe with 20 points in a season in which he averaged 30 ppg)

03-04 Finals
Heavily favored Lakers lose to Pistons, 4-1.
In the clinching game five loss Kobe shoots .333 in a 100-87 loss (and LA was down 23 going into 4th quarter)

04-05
Team goes 34-48 and misses playoffs

05-06
Regular season 35.4 ppg .450
Playoffs 27.9 ppg .497
Last game (7) 24 points in a 121-90 loss (after blowing a 3-1 series lead)

06-07
Team goes 42-40
Loses in first round to Suns, 4-1.
Last game of that series, Kobe shoots .394 from the floor

07-08
Lakers are blown out by Celts in Finals.
In game four the Lakers blow a 23 point lead, and lose, in a game in which Kobe shot .316 from the field.
In the clinching game six loss, the Lakers lose by a Finals record margin of 131-92. Kobe shoots .318 from the floor.

10-11
Lakers with HCA are swept by the Mavs, 4-0.
In the clinching game four loss, LA loses 122-86. Kobe shoots .389 from the field.

[LAZERUSS]

#4 - Bird - 3/5, one of, if not the GOAT shooters of all time and one of the GOAT scorers. Was considered better than Magic until '87 due to injuries, less stacked team, tougher conference, no top 10 teammate. He's below Duncan due to longevity, durability, rings, rings as "The Man," 2-way play (defense), etc.

#5 - Magic - 5/9, GOAT PG and arguably the GOAT leader. I don't think I have to argue why I have him below Jordan and Russell, but I have him below Duncan and Bird because those guys had to face a team with 2 top 10's during their primes with not as good rosters and still outplayed them plenty of times. Magic was only considered better than Bird after '87 when he hit his peak and Bird declined. Also, played in a weak conference compared to Bird's. Won all his titles with another top 10 all time, Duncan won his first 4 titles with not even another All-NBA teammate.

Magic beat Bird H2H, 2-1, and even Bird admitted that the '84 Lakers should have swept the Celtics. It's safe to say that Magic was a better player H2H. BTW, for those that would claim that Bird was a better scorer...in their career H2H's, guess who had the two highest scoring games?

Magic had a better post-season resume in theses years:

'80, '82, '83, '85, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '91. Bird had a slightly better resume in '81 and '84. The only clear-cut edge was in '86.

Magic won more FMVPs (and should have won another one in '88.)

Magic's overall career was better.

I might give Bird's peak a SLIGHT edge ('84 to '86, over Magic's '87 to '89), but after that Magic pulls away. Magic had a better five-year peak ('85-'89), than Bird's '84-88. And after that it is a clear cut rout. Magic career from '80 thru '91 just blows away Bird's career in that same span.

BTW, here is an interesting take on Bird's post-season career (thanks to Colts 18)...


Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures while Dirk improves his play in the postseason:

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I may adjust my list further, but a few things about the Magic/Bird comparison, especially the early 80's ('80-'83). Magic played in the Western Conference which was much weaker than the Eastern Conference during that era. Kareem was also still a very good player and close, if not still in his prime during that span. Of course Bird had less success during that time, he had to face the Dr. J and Moses lead 76'ers BEFORE the finals, something Magic NEVER had to do. Also, if you had gone through the trouble of reading my posts about Duncan and Bird fully, you would have seen that I put a lot of weight on the rosters surrounding these players, not just their "H2H."

For instance, I can't give as much value to Shaq & Kobe beating Duncan those years since one team had 2 top 10's on ONE team both in their prime, while the other had 1 top 10 in his prime (Parker didn't show up until AFTER the 3peat and still took years to develop, Manu didn't show up until the end and wasn't the player he would become either until later). Same with Bird vs. Magic. I can't give Magic too much credit for having a more stacked roster in a weaker conference and playing with another top 10. Like you say with Wilt and Russell, how about we take Bird and throw him on those Lakers squads instead of Magic in '80 with a still MVP caliber Kareem? They really don't win a chip those years, too? Really? Maybe even more? I will admit, you do raise some good points, though, with regards to Wilt vs. Russell. I may have Russell too high/Wilt too low. I'll have to ponder this further...

Another thing, Russell was NOT a scorer, so whenever you always try to compare them points wise, it always makes me cringe and wreaks of bias. Of course Wilt was able to outscore Russell, Russell wasn't a scorer. Regardless of whether he could or couldn't score, he did what was asked of him and what his team needed him to do, which was defend and rebound at a GOAT level. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

[LAZERUSS]

I may adjust my list further, but a few things about the Magic/Bird comparison, especially the early 80's ('80-'83). Magic played in the Western Conference which was much weaker than the Eastern Conference during that era. Kareem was also still a very good player and close, if not still in his prime during that span. Of course Bird had less success during that time, he had to face the Dr. J and Moses lead 76'ers BEFORE the finals, something Magic NEVER had to do. Also, if you had gone through the trouble of reading my posts about Duncan and Bird fully, you would have seen that I put a lot of weight on the rosters surrounding these players, not just their "H2H."

For instance, I can't give as much value to Shaq & Kobe beating Duncan those years since one team had 2 top 10's on ONE team both in their prime, while the other had 1 top 10 in his prime (Parker didn't show up until AFTER the 3peat and still took years to develop, Manu didn't show up until the end and wasn't the player he would become either until later). Same with Bird vs. Magic. I can't give Magic too much credit for having a more stacked roster in a weaker conference and playing with another top 10. Like you say with Wilt and Russell, how about we take Bird and throw him on those Lakers squads instead of Magic in '80 with a still MVP caliber Kareem? They really don't win a chip those years, too? Really? Maybe even more? I will admit, you do raise some good points, though, with regards to Wilt vs. Russell. I may have Russell too high/Wilt too low. I'll have to ponder this further...

Another thing, Russell was NOT a scorer, so whenever you always try to compare them points wise, it always makes me cringe and wreaks of bias. Of course Wilt was able to outscore Russell, Russell wasn't a scorer. Regardless of whether he could or couldn't score, he did what was asked of him and what his team needed him to do, which was defend and rebound at a GOAT level. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

From '80 thru '83, Magic's teams had considerably more success against the Eastern "powerhouses" in the post-season than Bird's Celtics.

Bird was surrounded with HOFers his entire career. Didn't do as much with them, as Magic did with his.

BTW, Magic's career W-L% was .740. Without Kareem... .742. And IN the decade in which in which he played with Kareem...in games in which KAJ misses... a .750 winning percentage. In that same span, Kareem without Magic? .604.




Wilt was either nearly the equal, or the equal of Russell defensively, and a FAR greater scorer, on an OVRWHELMINGLY higher efficiency, a MUCH better rebounder, and a significantly better passer...including H2H. Is it fair to Wilt, when all Russell had to do was defend, and wasn't even close to the rebounder that Wilt was?

Now, give me an honest answer: Swap rosters and coaches in their 10 years in the league together, and how many rings do Russell and Wilt win?

I could argue that Wilt would have won all 10. But, even if he "only" won 6 in that span...which means Russell would have won six less in his career, and leaving him with six...and adding Wilt's '72 ring....that would mean that Chamberlain would have won SEVEN. Where does a Wilt, with SEVEN rings, rank among the all-time greats?

BTW, Russell feasted on the Lakers in the Finals FIVE times in his career (actually six, but he hardly feasted against Wilt in that sixth one)...

just what do you think Wilt's post-season numbers would have looked like had he faced the Lakers FIVE times (BTW, he never faced them even ONCE)?

I'll help out here...


And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

Just some food for thought...