Biggest problem in this forum: people mix up team accomplishments with players accomp

[nba_55]

Biggest problem in this forum: people mix up team accomplishments with players accomplishments when talking about individual rankings. I get that players contribute to the team accomplishments, but many in here overrate the effect of a single player on them. They overrate their contributions so much that team accomplishments become player accomplishments.

[ThatCoolKid]

If you want to be an all time great you need chips and MVPs. Chips are necessary to leave a legacy.

[nba_55]

If you want to be an all time great you need chips and MVPs. Chips are necessary to leave a legacy.

Hypothetically, if Jordan or Russell played on a team like last year sixers their whole life (with the same skills they had at their prime), they wouldn't be an all time great?

[Marchesk]

If you want to be an all time great you need chips and MVPs. Chips are necessary to leave a legacy.

Who do you have rated higher, Barkley or Hondo? Stockton or Sam Jones? Baylor or Pippen?

[KendrickPerkins]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

Those titles were team accomplishments. I cringe everytime someone uses 6 rings to argue for Michael.

They were almost as good without him. There are plenty of stars who could've gotten them over the hump.

MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.

[Mr. Jabbar]

you either are an all time great or you're not. no middle ground here.

sorry lebron fans.

[Quickening]

Its strange to me as well, I am a big football/soccer fan and if people are arguing who is a better player they never bring up league titles/championships etc, they will look at individual play, stats, eye test... only when arguing who is a better club/franchise do they bring up championships.

[knicksman]

Beta alert. Lol

Winners find a way to win. Even messi in football wins despite a player having less impact in that league than basketball. Maybe if bran/wilt were clutch and leaders then maybe we could say its a team game but those are the reasons why they are losers and not teammates. Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.

[Quickening]

Beta alert. Lol

Winners find a way to win. Even messi in football wins despite a player having less impact in that league than basketball. Maybe if bran/wilt were clutch and leaders then maybe we could say its a team game but those are the reasons why they are losers and not teammates. Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.

Messi is regarded as probably the best player ever, even though on the biggest stage in football, the world cup, he has failed.

That is because people in football understand that team accomplishments aren't reflective of an individual player.

[nzahir]

you either are an all time great or you're not. no middle ground here.

sorry lebron fans.
1 mvp for the bean, 4 for the king. I already know who is the better PLAYER.

[nzahir]

Messi is regarded as probably the best player ever, even though on the biggest stage in football, the world cup, he has failed.

That is because people in football understand that team accomplishments aren't reflective of an individual player.
:applause:
Well this forum is the worst forum out there but even in general many idiots think that a championship is the only important thing for a player...it is for the TEAM

[Marchesk]

Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.

How many FMVP votes did Curry receive? GS is a deep, talented team.

[knicksman]

Messi is regarded as probably the best player ever, even though on the biggest stage in football, the world cup, he has failed.

That is because people in football understand that team accomplishments aren't reflective of an individual player.


He almost made it. And world cup isnt the biggest stage just like fiba isnt the biggest stage. The best are in europe and he has proven in that league.

[KembaWalker]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

Those titles were team accomplishments. I cringe everytime someone uses 6 rings to argue for Michael.

They were almost as good without him. There are plenty of stars who could've gotten them over the hump.

MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.

Have you seen the team he had his rookie year or nah...

[knicksman]

How many FMVP votes did Curry receive? GS is a deep, talented team.

Bcoz curry isnt like wilt who would destroy team chemistry for stats. Curry isnt insecure to give a damn about fmvps. The guy is a born winner. Same breadth as duncan, russell who just want to win and not care if they are the mvp or not. People who think gs is just stack dont know shit about leadership. Curry has that aura that makes players want to play hard with him. Duncan has it. Russell has IT thats why theyre winners.

[superteamtheory]

How many FMVP votes did Curry receive? GS is a deep, talented team.

...and on top of that, going up against Bron and spare parts...

For the first 3 games of the series, Bron had a sidekick (1 full game of Kyrie, 2 full energy efforts from Delly) and the result was 2-1 with 1 tough OT loss on the road in an opening game that could have went either way (if say Shumpert's shot goes in or something).. Cavs were quietly dominating when closer to full strength ...

In 2014, the Heat were themselves for 1 game only really, game 2. They won that game with Bron's jumper sizzling on the road.

The last 2 Finals have been garbage where one team is a superteam and the other barely has a roster to march out there alongside The King.

Bron is 4-1 in Finals career so far (at least 1 maybe 2 more to go) when he has a a proper roster.
Kobe is 5-2 on whole career, he's stayin there..

But at least Kobe, like Bron, played in the ultra competitive superteam era. Whereas Jordan almost always had the roster advantage playing in the broken 90's system where it was unofficially agreed upon every team will only have 1 star ... unless you're the Bulls, then you can have the best in the game plus another star and when other teams get better (or have a dynamic duo), you can continue to stack the deck by adding a 2nd HOFamer to go with your 6th man..

Bron has never had a roster advantage once in his life, unlike Kobe or even more so Jordan, and Kobe only had it once again post-Shaq, in 2009 because injuries to Kevin Garnett and especially Tracy McGrady cleared the way for the Lakers to go on an easy run..

Bron's easiest path was 2011... In other words, his easiest path was: All you gotta do is beat this team that Kobe's champion team got swept by... with your extremely overrated slapped-together-overnight Heat roster that is basically just you, Wade and Bosh ... and if you fail, they will pin it on your for the rest of time, even Pat Riley will even though this one was definitely Pat Riley's fault for not being able to bring in more players to fill out the roster... as it will be again in 2014... because it's almost always front office's fault...

[Chief Keef]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

Those titles were team accomplishments. I cringe everytime someone uses 6 rings to argue for Michael.

They were almost as good without him. There are plenty of stars who could've gotten them over the hump.

MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.


I guess that's why the Bulls have so many rings without him

[Quickening]

He almost made it. And world cup isnt the biggest stage just like fiba isnt the biggest stage. The best are in europe and he has proven in that league.

lol at comparing fiba to the world cup... the pinnacle of any football players career would be winning the world cup, its the most watched sports event in the world, its actually an accomplishment to win it.

Saying that, Zidane is heralded as the best player of his generation, he only won 1 champions league (losing 2 finals) and 3 league titles... other great players have won far more than that. But no one cares because they understand that team accomplishments, are exactly that, a representation of the team, and not an individuals ability.

[Nash]

Beta alert. Lol

Winners find a way to win. Even messi in football wins despite a player having less impact in that league than basketball. Maybe if bran/wilt were clutch and leaders then maybe we could say its a team game but those are the reasons why they are losers and not teammates. Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.
'winners find a way to win'
kobe found shaq

[StephHamann]

Hypothetically, if Jordan or Russell played on a team like last year sixers their whole life (with the same skills they had at their prime), they wouldn't be an all time great?

Yes, if you don't improve the team you suck.

Larry Bird immediately transformed the Celtics into a title contender, helping them improve their win total by 32 games from the year before he was drafted

[SyRyanYang]

All time greats draw other great players to the team and make his teammates better, make his coach look great too. We've seen this over and over again. Winners find a way to win, period.

[uber]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

That's why they won a ring that year .. oh wait


MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.

:roll:

[superteamtheory]

Yes, if you don't improve the team you suck.

Larry Bird immediately transformed the Celtics into a title contender, helping them improve their win total by 32 games from the year before he was drafted

They also had Dave Cowens come back amongst other changes. (Did they get Tiny that year?)

Also, weaker era.

[superteamtheory]

'winners find a way to win'
kobe found shaq

no,

Jerry West ... found Kobe and Shaq.. Kobe was going to be a Hornet.

[knicksman]

lol at comparing fiba to the world cup... the pinnacle of any football players career would be winning the world cup, its the most watched sports event in the world, its actually an accomplishment to win it.

Saying that, Zidane is heralded as the best player of his generation, he only won 1 champions league (losing 2 finals) and 3 league titles... other great players have won far more than that. But no one cares because they understand that team accomplishments, are exactly that, a representation of the team, and not an individuals ability.

I mean olympics. Its really the same coz not all countries has the same focus on the sport. Basketball in us and soccer in europe. But put them in a fair league and winners find a way to win. Dirk proved it. Duncan proved it in 2005. And curry proved that you can win with role players. Maybe its a team sport if bran doesnt have abysmal record against 50+ win teams. Maybe its a team sport if bran doesnt constantly lose to underdog teams. Lol

[superteamtheory]

Dirk proved it. Duncan proved it in 2005. And curry proved that you can win with role players. Maybe its a team sport if bran doesnt have abysmal record against 50+ win teams. Maybe its a team sport if bran doesnt constantly lose to underdog teams. Lol

Dirk couldn't do it in 2006 without a better team like the one he had in 2011. (+1 HOFamer, +1 DPOY/allstar, + another former all-star Marion + depth that the Heat roster didn't have which was the crucial difference that year.)

Duncan had peak Ginobili as lead sidekick and a deep roster in 2005.

Curry has another allstar, plus a former allstar, plus 2 all defensive team players, plus a former 6th man and other depth.

And trade Curry and Bron, swap rosters, what happens in 2015? Or trade Bron and FMVP Kawhi in 2014 what happens?

It's a team sport.

[knicksman]

'winners find a way to win'
kobe found shaq

Yet he won with gasol, a player whos not even as good as bosh. he won as much as bran. Lol stop the excuses already bran stans. If you really understand this game, you would have realized already that bran is a born loser by just looking at stats and attitude. We have seen it with oscar and wilt. Its hard to produce those stats without sacrificing your team. Jordan did it too and he keeps on losing.

[knicksman]

Dirk couldn't do it in 2006 without a better team like the one he had in 2011. (+1 HOFamer, +1 DPOY/allstar, + another former all-star Marion + depth that the Heat roster didn't have which was the crucial difference that year.)

Duncan had peak Ginobili as lead sidekick and a deep roster in 2005.

Curry has another allstar, plus a former allstar, plus 2 all defensive team players, plus a former 6th man and other depth.

And trade Curry and Bron, swap rosters, what happens in 2015? Or trade Bron and FMVP Kawhi in 2014 what happens?

It's a team sport.


Swap bran with those players and we wont know who ginobili or iguodala is. Thats who bran is. A stats first, win second type of guy, aka beta or born loser.

[STATUTORY]

Hypothetically, if Jordan or Russell played on a team like last year sixers their whole life (with the same skills they had at their prime), they wouldn't be an all time great?

strawman argument, beause if Jordan or russell played on the sixers entire career, sixers wouldn't be a bottom dwelling team and would win multiple championships

put a guy like Jordan and Kobe on any team and they win 5 rings minimum

[ISHGoat]

strawman argument, beause if Jordan or russell played on the sixers entire career, sixers wouldn't be a bottom dwelling team and would win multiple championships

put a guy like Jordan and Kobe on any team and they win 5 rings minimum
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dro]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

Those titles were team accomplishments. I cringe everytime someone uses 6 rings to argue for Michael.

They were almost as good without him. There are plenty of stars who could've gotten them over the hump.

MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.
Oldest, lamest argument in the book and not remotely true.

[Blue&Orange]

Apparently playing with 10 teammates or 4 teammates your impact will be the same.

Lebrontards in full meltdown, damage control with no regard for intelligence.


...and on top of that, going up against Bron and spare parts...

For the first 3 games of the series, Bron had a sidekick (1 full game of Kyrie, 2 full energy efforts from Delly) and the result was 2-1 with 1 tough OT loss on the road in an opening game that could have went either way (if say Shumpert's shot goes in or something).. Cavs were quietly dominating when closer to full strength ...

In 2014, the Heat were themselves for 1 game only really, game 2. They won that game with Bron's jumper sizzling on the road.

The last 2 Finals have been garbage where one team is a superteam and the other barely has a roster to march out there alongside The King.

Bron is 4-1 in Finals career so far (at least 1 maybe 2 more to go) when he has a a proper roster.
Kobe is 5-2 on whole career, he's stayin there..

But at least Kobe, like Bron, played in the ultra competitive superteam era. Whereas Jordan almost always had the roster advantage playing in the broken 90's system where it was unofficially agreed upon every team will only have 1 star ... unless you're the Bulls, then you can have the best in the game plus another star and when other teams get better (or have a dynamic duo), you can continue to stack the deck by adding a 2nd HOFamer to go with your 6th man..

Bron has never had a roster advantage once in his life, unlike Kobe or even more so Jordan, and Kobe only had it once again post-Shaq, in 2009 because injuries to Kevin Garnett and especially Tracy McGrady cleared the way for the Lakers to go on an easy run..

Bron's easiest path was 2011... In other words, his easiest path was: All you gotta do is beat this team that Kobe's champion team got swept by... with your extremely overrated slapped-together-overnight Heat roster that is basically just you, Wade and Bosh ... and if you fail, they will pin it on your for the rest of time, even Pat Riley will even though this one was definitely Pat Riley's fault for not being able to bring in more players to fill out the roster... as it will be again in 2014... because it's almost always front office's fault...
Welcome retard, you will fit right in.

[ClipperRevival]

Sorry, but in bball where one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games, winning matters. There is no other sport like it in that regard. Transcending talents can impact the outcome of games. I'm sick of people talking about extreme circumstances like the 2015 finals where one team is clearly superior over another. That is why any sensible fan does not hold 2015 against Bron. It's about context. What supporting cast you had, who you faced and how you performed. And that is why people do hold 2011 against Bron cause he clearly played way below his normal self. You write your own legacy.

You can either rise to the occassion, play below your normal level of play or just play at your normal level. The guys who elevated their games when it mattered should be given credit just as guys who choke when it mattered should be downgraded.

[Prime_Shaq]

...and on top of that, going up against Bron and spare parts...

For the first 3 games of the series, Bron had a sidekick (1 full game of Kyrie, 2 full energy efforts from Delly) and the result was 2-1 with 1 tough OT loss on the road in an opening game that could have went either way (if say Shumpert's shot goes in or something).. Cavs were quietly dominating when closer to full strength ...

In 2014, the Heat were themselves for 1 game only really, game 2. They won that game with Bron's jumper sizzling on the road.

The last 2 Finals have been garbage where one team is a superteam and the other barely has a roster to march out there alongside The King.

Bron is 4-1 in Finals career so far (at least 1 maybe 2 more to go) when he has a a proper roster.
Kobe is 5-2 on whole career, he's stayin there..

But at least Kobe, like Bron, played in the ultra competitive superteam era. Whereas Jordan almost always had the roster advantage playing in the broken 90's system where it was unofficially agreed upon every team will only have 1 star ... unless you're the Bulls, then you can have the best in the game plus another star and when other teams get better (or have a dynamic duo), you can continue to stack the deck by adding a 2nd HOFamer to go with your 6th man..

Bron has never had a roster advantage once in his life, unlike Kobe or even more so Jordan, and Kobe only had it once again post-Shaq, in 2009 because injuries to Kevin Garnett and especially Tracy McGrady cleared the way for the Lakers to go on an easy run..

Bron's easiest path was 2011... In other words, his easiest path was: All you gotta do is beat this team that Kobe's champion team got swept by... with your extremely overrated slapped-together-overnight Heat roster that is basically just you, Wade and Bosh ... and if you fail, they will pin it on your for the rest of time, even Pat Riley will even though this one was definitely Pat Riley's fault for not being able to bring in more players to fill out the roster... as it will be again in 2014... because it's almost always front office's fault...
Doesnt work that way

[SouBeachTalents]

Beta alert. Lol

Winners find a way to win. Even messi in football wins despite a player having less impact in that league than basketball. Maybe if bran/wilt were clutch and leaders then maybe we could say its a team game but those are the reasons why they are losers and not teammates. Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.

Then the Knicks have had nothing but betas on their team for 40+ years

[nba_55]

Yes, if you don't improve the team you suck.

Larry Bird immediately transformed the Celtics into a title contender, helping them improve their win total by 32 games from the year before he was drafted

If you put Jordan on last year's sixers, he will improve them, but they wouldn't win the championship. Does that prevent him from being an all-time great?

[nba_55]

All time greats draw other great players to the team and make his teammates better, make his coach look great too. We've seen this over and over again. Winners find a way to win, period.

Hypothetically, if Jordan or Russell played on a team like last year sixers their whole life (with the same skills they had at their prime), they wouldn't be an all time great?

[nba_55]

Here's a fun fact about this forum:

90% of the forum believe Wade would have been higher on their all-time list if Lebron played better in 2011 finals. :roll: :roll: :roll:

You guys don't see anything wrong with that?

[nba_55]

Beta alert. Lol

Winners find a way to win. Even messi in football wins despite a player having less impact in that league than basketball. Maybe if bran/wilt were clutch and leaders then maybe we could say its a team game but those are the reasons why they are losers and not teammates. Just look at curry, the guy is not the most athletic but he made it up by being the most skilled, able to step up when it matters, and a leader, thus a winner.

Then why are you hating Lebron for leaving Cavs and finding a way to win in Miami?

[branslowski]

Here's a fun fact about this forum:

90% of the forum believe Wade would have been higher on their all-time list if Lebron played better in 2011 finals. :roll: :roll: :roll:

You guys don't see anything wrong with that?

Cause LeBron started playing for the Mavs during the Finals:confusedshrug:

[nba_55]

Cause LeBron started playing for the Mavs during the Finals:confusedshrug:

Why does Lebron's play affect Wade's all-time ranking? It doesn't make sense. There's a huge flaw in the way most of you guys rank players.

[branslowski]

Why does Lebron's play affect Wade's all-time ranking? It doesn't make sense. There's a huge flaw in the way most of you guys rank players.

Well I don't care about Wade's rankings....But winning is something great players bring out of themselves and other players. You play to win the game...Whats the point of empty stats if they not leading to nothing? Everything a player plays for, every season a player plays, every game a player plays his objective is to win....Winning is a reflect upon what you do on the court.

I could stand infront of my girl swinging my d!ck around in circles, do a moonwalk and sing for her, but if I don't stick my cawk in and make her cvm then what would be the point of all my empty moves??

[Quickening]

Apparently playing with 10 teammates or 4 teammates your impact will be the same.

Lebrontards in full meltdown, damage control with no regard for intelligence.



Apparently playing 5v5 with numerous interchanges is the same as playing 1v1 :lol :roll:

[nba_55]

Well I don't care about Wade's rankings....But winning is something great players bring out of themselves and other players. You play to win the game...Whats the point of empty stats if they not leading to nothing? Everything a player plays for, every season a player plays, every game a player plays his objective is to win....Winning is a reflect upon what you do on the court.

I could stand infront of my girl swinging my d!ck around in circles, do a moonwalk and sing for her, but if I don't stick my cawk in and make her cvm then what would be the point of all my empty moves??

Well, you should care about wade's ranking and that particular scenario because you would see what's wrong with your way of thinking. Would you have Wade higher on all-time ranking list if Lebron played better and Heat won (wade played exactly the same way as he did originally)?

And you talk about winning and how important it is. Yes it is important, but let's not act like it's one player's doing. When you think about it, you would see there are more than 30 variables that contribute to a team winning. One player can't control all of those variables.

[colts19]

They also had Dave Cowens come back amongst other changes. (Did they get Tiny that year?)

Also, weaker era.

Rk Player Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% eFG% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Cedric Maxwell 23 80 2969 472 808 .584 472 808 .584 .584 574 716 .802 272 519 791 228 98 74 273 266 1518
2 Chris Ford 30 78 2629 525 1107 .474 525 1107 .474 .474 165 219 .753 115 141 256 369 114 24 200 200 1215
3 Dave Cowens 30 68 2517 488 1010 .483 488 1010 .483 .483 151 187 .807 152 500 652 242 76 51 174 263 1127
4 Tiny Archibald 30 69 1662 259 573 .452 259 573 .452 .452 242 307 .788 25 78 103 324 55 6 197 132 760
5 Jeff Judkins 22 81 1521 295 587 .503 295 587 .503 .503 119 146 .815 70 121 191 145 81 12 109 184 709
6 Jo Jo White 32 47 1455 255 596 .428 255 596 .428 .428 79 89 .888 22 106 128 214 54 4 142 100 589
7 Curtis Rowe 29 53 1222 151 346 .436 151 346 .436 .436 52 75 .693 79 163 242 69 15 13 88 105 354
8 Billy Knight 26 40 1119 219 436 .502 219 436 .502 .502 118 146 .808 41 132 173 66 31 3 129 86 556
9 Don Chaney 32 65 1074 174 414 .420 174 414 .420 .420 36 42 .857 63 78 141 75 72 11 65 167 384
10 Rick Robey 23 36 914 182 378 .481 182 378 .481 .481 84 103 .816 88 171 259 79 23 3 75 121 448
11 Marvin Barnes 26 38 796 133 271 .491 133 271 .491 .491 43 66 .652 57 120 177 53 38 39 68 144 309
12 Bob McAdoo 27 20 637 167 334 .500 167 334 .500 .500 77 115 .670 36 105 141 40 12 20 64 55 411
13 Earl Williams 27 20 273 54 123 .439 54 123 .439 .439 14 24 .583 41 64 105 12 12 9 20 41 122
14 Kevin Stacom 27 24 260 52 133 .391 52 133 .391 .391 13 19 .684 10 14 24 35 15 0 26 18 117
15 Dennis Awtrey 30 23 247 17 44 .386 17 44 .386 .386 16 20 .800 13 34 47 20 3 6 21 37 50
16 Frankie Sanders 22 24 216 55 119 .462 55 119 .462 .462 22 27 .815 22 29 51 17 7 3 23 25 132
17 Tom Barker 23 12 131 21 48 .438 21 48 .438 .438 11 15 .733 12 18 30 6 4 4 13 26 53
18 Earl Tatum 25 3 38 8 20 .400 8 20 .400 .400 4 5 .800 1 3 4 1 0 1 3 7 20
Team Totals 82 19680 3527 7347 .480 3527 7347 .480 .480 1820 2321 .784 1119 2396 3515 1995 710 283 1713 1977 8874
The year before Bird they had Cowen, Tiny, Maxwell Chris Ford,Rowe, Marvin Barnes, Bob Mcadoo. So Tell me Bird wasn't the reason they improved by 32 games. Weak era my ass the Greatest Division and Conference ever.

[STATUTORY]

Well, you should care about wade's ranking and that particular scenario because you would see what's wrong with your way of thinking. Would you have Wade higher on all-time ranking list if Lebron played better and Heat won (wade played exactly the same way as he did originally)?


well yes because team accomplishments is a factor in player rankings :biggums:

[nzahir]

Oldest, lamest argument in the book and not remotely true.
HOW IS IT NOT TRUE? They won 55 games the year after MJ...that is a FACT dumbass not an opinion.
Give them any other star to replace Mj and keep everyone else and theyll win some rings

[Smoke117]

1 mvp for the bean, 4 for the king. I already know who is the better PLAYER.

http://i42.tinypic.com/20tgsjc.gif

[nba_55]

well yes because team accomplishments is a factor in player rankings :biggums:

So Lebron's play influences Wade's ranking :biggums:

[nzahir]

So Lebron's play influences Wade's ranking :biggums:
Bro dont even try with these people, 90% of them dont understand anything or are too biased

[STATUTORY]

So Lebron's play influences Wade's ranking :biggums:


why are you surprised? basketball is not an individual sport

[nba_55]

why are you surprised? basketball is not an individual sport

In that case what's the point of individual rankings? It seems like we are ranking the teams.

[La Frescobaldi]

Who do you have rated higher, Barkley or Hondo? Stockton or Sam Jones? Baylor or Pippen?
Havlicek.

Tie. Depends on what that particular team needs because Stockton was a PG and Jones was a combo.

Pippin.

[La Frescobaldi]

In that case what's the point of individual rankings? It seems like we are ranking the teams.

You just pointed out one of Fresco's Rules:




Fact:
Not one single one of the all-time greatest NBA players has ever won even one single ring without an all-time stacked team.

Not even one.

Jordan, Bird, Russell, Shaq, West, Magic, Chamberlain, Jabbar.... put them all around a table and they don't have even one single ring among all of them except from a really heavily loaded team including coaches.

[SouBeachTalents]

You just pointed out one of Fresco's Rules:

Hakeem in '94 & Duncan in '03 hardly had "stacked" teams

[DMAVS41]

You just pointed out one of Fresco's Rules:

But this is false.

Stacked in comparison to what?

The 94 Rockets, 03 Spurs, and 11 Mavs are 3 of the worst teams in terms of "talent" to ever win the title.

In what way are those teams "stacked"? In relation to what? The worst teams in the league?

There is no analysis that gets you to those teams being "stacked" in relation to elite teams in NBA history.

[La Frescobaldi]

Hakeem in '94 & Duncan in '03 hardly had "stacked" teams

Neither did Nowitski, nor Rick Barry, Bill Walton, or a half dozen more. DJ won a ring with maybe the weakest cast ever.

Are they all time greats like Bird or Jordan? Most, I think, would say "no.... they are lesser players because they didn't win more trophies."

I use the generally accepted list of greatest evers to point out that the very highest level of players struggled as much as any "lesser mortal" when they had weak or injured teams around them.

I agree about Duncan. Absolutely. But not Olajuwon who became 'greater' among fans after he retired than he ever was considered while he was actually playing.

[La Frescobaldi]

But this is false.

Stacked in comparison to what?

The 94 Rockets, 03 Spurs, and 11 Mavs are 3 of the worst teams in terms of "talent" to ever win the title.

In what way are those teams "stacked"? In relation to what? The worst teams in the league?

There is no analysis that gets you to those teams being "stacked" in relation to elite teams in NBA history.
See my answer to the other fellow: but now I see you are suddenly talking about teams that won rings, not individual players.
Which is, I think, what the OP was getting at.

[knicksman]

Then why are you hating Lebron for leaving Cavs and finding a way to win in Miami?

By cheating. Lol only weaklings cheat. And only fellow weaklings root for them

[Blue&Orange]

So Lebron's play influences Wade's ranking :biggums:
Just like Ray Allen influenced Lebron's when everyone was already leaving the arena. Just like Mike Miller and Battier influenced LEbron's by going ape shit from three while Lebron was on the bench with fake cramps after air balling.


Seriously is this Lebrontards new angle? Rings don't matter? That's hilarious because that's all Lebron got left... talent? he already showed that he is an average basketball player that lives of his body. Stats? Empty and impactless as they could be. Heart? lol

[knicksman]

Heres what winners will do:
1. Train someone to be the best defender and delegate that role to him despite winning dpoy.
2. Train someone to be the playmaker and delegate despite being able to avg 10apg
3. Do process 2 for rebounds despite being able to avg 10rpg.
Now he can just play off the ball to preserve his stamina, focus on the most difficult(scoring), and take over when needed. And the result is 6/6.

Now what losers will do:
1. Be the defender despite having another good defender.
2. Be the playmaker despite having as good as him as a playmaker same with rebounds.

He has to have all the stats coz if he focus only on scoring, he will be statless at the end of game. hes too easy to defend thats why 2/6 . They dont have a scorer but lots of redundant players. His teammates being rendered useless. But who cares, there are gullible fans who just look at stats and would still rank me better than jordan.:lol

[nba_55]

Just like Ray Allen influenced Lebron's when everyone was already leaving the arena. Just like Mike Miller and Battier influenced LEbron's by going ape shit from three while Lebron was on the bench with fake cramps after air balling.


Seriously is this Lebrontards new angle? Rings don't matter? That's hilarious because that's all Lebron got left... talent? he already showed that he is an average basketball player that lives of his body. Stats? Empty and impactless as they could be. Heart? lol

Quote me where I said rings don't matter.

[nba_55]

See my answer to the other fellow: but now I see you are suddenly talking about teams that won rings, not individual players.
Which is, I think, what the OP was getting at.

Exactly. :applause: :applause:

[nba_55]

Heres what winners will do:
1. Train someone to be the best defender and delegate that role to him despite winning dpoy.
2. Train someone to be the playmaker and delegate despite being able to avg 10apg
3. Do process 2 for rebounds despite being able to avg 10rpg.
Now he can just play off the ball to preserve his stamina, focus on the most difficult(scoring), and take over when needed. And the result is 6/6.

Now what losers will do:
1. Be the defender despite having another good defender.
2. Be the playmaker despite having as good as him as a playmaker same with rebounds.

He has to have all the stats coz if he focus only on scoring, he will be statless at the end of game. hes too easy to defend thats why 2/6 . They dont have a scorer but lots of redundant players. His teammates being rendered useless. But who cares, there are gullible fans who just look at stats and would still rank me better than jordan.:lol

What does all of this have to do with the topic? It seems like you are getting emotional for some unknown reason and responding with off-topic shit to get those emotions out .

[superteamtheory]

Neither did Nowitski, nor Rick Barry, Bill Walton, or a half dozen more. DJ won a ring with maybe the weakest cast ever.

Are they all time greats like Bird or Jordan? Most, I think, would say "no.... they are lesser players because they didn't win more trophies."

I use the generally accepted list of greatest evers to point out that the very highest level of players struggled as much as any "lesser mortal" when they had weak or injured teams around them.

I agree about Duncan. Absolutely. But not Olajuwon who became 'greater' among fans after he retired than he ever was considered while he was actually playing.

Nowitzki's 2011 team is underrated. Chandler shortly after became an all-star and DPOY, Marion was a former all-star who even made third all-team twice, Jason Terry a 6th man winner, Jason Kidd a HOFer however old, they also had depth (washed up Peja at the end of bench, career years from Barea, Stevenson) beyond those guys as well... They swept Kobe and the champ Lakers not by fluke but because they were a deep, highly functional roster and well coached.. Nowitzki is very great (not great, very great) but I'm not sure he really qualifies as a guy who did it on his own.

I think Olajuwon in 94 (before they added Drexler) is one of the only ones -- his roster was deep (you need that to win) but all role players. And he was fortunate that at the finish line was a Knicks squad that only had one major star, Ewing, mirroring his Rockets' situation...

Walton and Barry played in strange eras -- the 76ers only had one major star talked about today, Julius Erving, and Walton's game was dependent on team chemistry -- Blazermania teamwork etc. -- while Rick Barry played in a weird year, never came up against another major star unless Wes Unseld is a major star to you... (Swept him.)

To me, Tim Duncan is the only guy to truly do it. In 2003. Deep roster but no other all stars yet. They had to beat teams with as much talent or more. Duncan did the impossible when he took down Shaq and Kobe. That's why he's the GOAT bigman..

[knicksman]

What does all of this have to do with the topic? It seems like you are getting emotional for some unknown reason and responding with off-topic shit to get those emotions out .

Then youre dumber than i thought.

[DMAVS41]

Nowitzki's 2011 team is underrated. Chandler shortly after became an all-star and DPOY, Marion was a former all-star who even made third all-team twice, Jason Terry a 6th man winner, Jason Kidd a HOFer however old, they also had depth (washed up Peja at the end of bench, career years from Barea, Stevenson) beyond those guys as well... They swept Kobe and the champ Lakers not by fluke but because they were a deep, highly functional roster and well coached.. Nowitzki is very great (not great, very great) but I'm not sure he really qualifies as a guy who did it on his own.

I think Olajuwon in 94 (before they added Drexler) is one of the only ones -- his roster was deep (you need that to win) but all role players. And he was fortunate that at the finish line was a Knicks squad that only had one major star, Ewing, mirroring his Rockets' situation...

Walton and Barry played in strange eras -- the 76ers only had one major star talked about today, Julius Erving, and Walton's game was dependent on team chemistry -- Blazermania teamwork etc. -- while Rick Barry played in a weird year, never came up against another major star unless Wes Unseld is a major star to you... (Swept him.)

To me, Tim Duncan is the only guy to truly do it. In 2003. Deep roster but no other all stars yet. They had to beat teams with as much talent or more. Duncan did the impossible when he took down Shaq and Kobe. That's why he's the GOAT bigman..


Nobody "does it on their own"...if that is the standard...then I totally agree with the notion.

I was merely presenting times when all time greats won without stacked teams.

The teams I listed aren't stacked by any definition and actually grade out to be some of the worst teams to make the finals in the last 31 years.

[DMAVS41]

See my answer to the other fellow: but now I see you are suddenly talking about teams that won rings, not individual players.
Which is, I think, what the OP was getting at.

I was responding to your assertion:

Not one single one of the all-time greatest NBA players has ever won even one single ring without an all-time stacked team.

If you don't want to include Hakeem and Dirk in that list of all time great players....that is fine. I disagree, but that is fine.

If you don't include Duncan in a list of all-time greatest NBA players....I don't really know how any conversation can proceed.

So do you retract that statement?

[DMAVS41]

Exactly. :applause: :applause:

Exactly what?

Duncan, Hakeem, and Dirk are all...all-time great players and all won without stacked teams.

LOL...what are you talking about?

[OnFire]

Messi is regarded as probably the best player ever, even though on the biggest stage in football, the world cup, he has failed.

That is because people in football understand that team accomplishments aren't reflective of an individual player.

1 player has more impact in basketball. simple.

[houston]

Nowitzki's 2011 team is underrated. Chandler shortly after became an all-star and DPOY, Marion was a former all-star who even made third all-team twice, Jason Terry a 6th man winner, Jason Kidd a HOFer however old, they also had depth (washed up Peja at the end of bench, career years from Barea, Stevenson) beyond those guys as well... They swept Kobe and the champ Lakers not by fluke but because they were a deep, highly functional roster and well coached.. Nowitzki is very great (not great, very great) but I'm not sure he really qualifies as a guy who did it on his own.

I think Olajuwon in 94 (before they added Drexler) is one of the only ones -- his roster was deep (you need that to win) but all role players. And he was fortunate that at the finish line was a Knicks squad that only had one major star, Ewing, mirroring his Rockets' situation...

Walton and Barry played in strange eras -- the 76ers only had one major star talked about today, Julius Erving, and Walton's game was dependent on team chemistry -- Blazermania teamwork etc. -- while Rick Barry played in a weird year, never came up against another major star unless Wes Unseld is a major star to you... (Swept him.)

To me, Tim Duncan is the only guy to truly do it. In 2003. Deep roster but no other all stars yet. They had to beat teams with as much talent or more. Duncan did the impossible when he took down Shaq and Kobe. That's why he's the GOAT bigman..



Man all you need two all-star quality teammates to win. All the teams you just name had all-star teammates that won.


94 = Dream and O.T.

77 = big redhead and mo lucas

75 = Barry with ROY Wilkes plus he had Jeff Mullins still was in roation Butch Beard and Bill Bridges

Duncan had HOF player with all his championship teams. he wasn't by himself

[La Frescobaldi]

I was responding to your assertion:

Not one single one of the all-time greatest NBA players has ever won even one single ring without an all-time stacked team.

If you don't want to include Hakeem and Dirk in that list of all time great players....that is fine. I disagree, but that is fine.

If you don't include Duncan in a list of all-time greatest NBA players....I don't really know how any conversation can proceed.

So do you retract that statement?

Of course I'm not retracting the statement LOL.
Read more carefully.
I gave the list of players. Do you really think it's a complete list of ATGs? Where is Oscar Robertson or Stockton? Not ATGs?
I listed the most common names of the very top greatest-evers.

I thought hard about putting Elvin Hayes for example, on the list - who was like the Nowitski of his day, in a way - but he isn't in the same tier as the guys I listed.
I don't talk about the careers of players who are active, so for example James, Bryant, Duncan, Nowitski are not mentioned.

Olajuwon was not at the level of the guys I mentioned. Sorry if you think he is, because he wasn't. As I've said for years, Moses Malone was greater than Olajuwon; and nor do you see his name on that list either even though he won 3 MVPs.

[superteamtheory]

Man all you need two all-star quality teammates to win. All the teams you just name had all-star teammates that won.

94 = Dream and O.T.

77 = big redhead and mo lucas

75 = Barry with ROY Wilkes plus he had Jeff Mullins still was in roation Butch Beard and Bill Bridges

Duncan had HOF player with all his championship teams. he wasn't by himself

I stand corrected :cheers: I'm with ya man and I'm definitely on the cynical side of the argument about how important rosters are to championships... was just trying to give Hakeem, Walton, Barry some credit for doing it with the relatively least...

But Duncan actually did do it IMO ... I agree, Parker & Ginobili are special players right from the getgo, Robinson may be old but he's wise... but none of these guys were in their prime in 2003, only Duncan was, it's the closest anybody has come to doing it all on their own. Heck, I think it legit qualifies...

but he did have a deep roster...
and that's the thing, you must have a deep roster. it cannot be done without a deep, highly functional roster.

[DMAVS41]

Of course I'm not retracting the statement LOL.
Read more carefully.
I gave the list of players. Do you really think it's a complete list of ATGs? Where is Oscar Robertson or Stockton? Not ATGs?
I listed the most common names of the very top greatest-evers.

I thought hard about putting Elvin Hayes for example, on the list - who was like the Nowitski of his day, in a way - but he isn't in the same tier as the guys I listed.
I don't talk about the careers of players who are active, so for example James, Bryant, Duncan, Nowitski are not mentioned.

Olajuwon was not at the level of the guys I mentioned. Sorry if you think he is, because he wasn't. As I've said for years, Moses Malone was greater than Olajuwon; and nor do you see his name on that list either even though he won 3 MVPs.

Hahah. Okay...then just don't make the point you are trying to make. You can't list an arbitrary subset of players to make a point that is just false.

Your point is that it always takes a stacked team for even the best players of all time...and that is false.

What point are you trying to make if your point is:

"for these 6 guys...it always took a stacked team"?????

Seems pointless and incoherent.

Also, again, it's just a false claim. By any definition Hakeem would be one of the greatest players ever unless you are only talking about like 5 guys.

But even then...Jordan is clearly on your list. And the 91 Bulls were hardly an all time stacked team. You might think they were because of Jordan, but the talent rating of the supporting cast is absolutely not all time stacked.

In fact, in the 538 talent rating analysis...they graded out as the 10th worst talent rated supporting cast to make the finals in the last 31 years. So out of the 62 teams to make the finals in the last 31 years....that 91 Bulls supporting cast ranked number 52 out of 62.

I don't see how that gets you all time stacked when they are far below the average team to make the finals on talent.

And why won't you talk about Duncan? He's clearly in that group you listed and he's factually won without an all time stacked team...

Just seems like you are ignoring evidence so you can stand by your flawed conclusion. A very poor epistemology...

[Dro]

HOW IS IT NOT TRUE? They won 55 games the year after MJ...that is a FACT dumbass not an opinion.
Give them any other star to replace Mj and keep everyone else and theyll win some rings
So because a team has ONE good year, in the REGULAR SEASON, they're on par with MJ's Bulls? GTFOH. Its a lame argument that people use to hate on Jordan, either that or 1-9, they don't have any other ammo. The fact that you just admitted that team would still need MJ or ANOTHER STAR tells you that team was not on par, dumbass....

Yet you fools sit up here and say, oh MJ wasn't that important, blah, blah, his team was stacked. Its dumbest, stupidest sh*t ever. You dudes will hate on anybody with the most ridiculous arguments. Fukin children.......

[GimmeThat]

What does all of this have to do with the topic? It seems like you are getting emotional for some unknown reason and responding with off-topic shit to get those emotions out .

Because it's about how many teammates, minutes of the game, and how many scattered plays you can figure out.

What team accomplishment?

[GimmeThat]

Biggest problem in this forum: people mix up team accomplishments with players accomplishments when talking about individual rankings. I get that players contribute to the team accomplishments, but many in here overrate the effect of a single player on them. They overrate their contributions so much that team accomplishments become player accomplishments.

And you just set up the mitch richmond argument, games played. As the only reason you would say team accomplishments, its because its including the factor of the playoffs.

As for the Wilt argument, you want to play 1 on 5, just don't lose playing 1 on 5.

[Hey Yo]

Well I don't care about Wade's rankings....But winning is something great players bring out of themselves and other players. You play to win the game...Whats the point of empty stats if they not leading to nothing? Everything a player plays for, every season a player plays, every game a player plays his objective is to win....Winning is a reflect upon what you do on the court.

I could stand infront of my girl swinging my d!ck around in circles, do a moonwalk and sing for her, but if I don't stick my cawk in and make her cvm then what would be the point of all my empty moves??
That's what Kobe was asking himself right after getting bounced in the first round for the 2nd consecutive year by PHX.

[GimmeThat]

That's what Kobe was asking himself right after getting bounced in the first round for the 2nd consecutive year by PHX.

And so if I were to follow up on my post above about the stats on assists with team plays.

Professional athletes might be percieved by the public, to be receiving millions of dollars to perform. And I suppose it defers differently between franchises, but companies also expect players to be part of their team, as they ought not to be crazy enough to even say culture.

Look at Pop resting his players for the post season.


Even if you were to include defense, at a professional level, I am certain the league could still find a way where in season roster adjustments could be so free flow, that every players stats can be inflated.

So then, the rest is locker room impact, if putting the best blueprint for success is the coach's responsibility.

[ISHGoat]

And so if I were to follow up on my post above about the stats on assists with team plays.

Professional athletes might be percieved by the public, to be receiving millions of dollars to perform. And I suppose it defers differently between franchises, but companies also expect players to be part of their team, as they ought not to be crazy enough to even say culture.

Look at Pop resting his players for the post season.


Even if you were to include defense, at a professional level, I am certain the league could still find a way where in season roster adjustments could be so free flow, that every players stats can be inflated.

So then, the rest is locker room impact, if putting the best blueprint for success is the coach's responsibility.


Wtf ***** you trippin

[The Iron Fist]

Its strange to me as well, I am a big football/soccer fan and if people are arguing who is a better player they never bring up league titles/championships etc, they will look at individual play, stats, eye test... only when arguing who is a better club/franchise do they bring up championships.
The eye test clearly says Kobe>>>>lebron.

[SteelerKobeFan]

So let me get this straight....an accomplishment that is directly related to how well a BASKETBALL player plays ON the basketball court, both as an individuall and as a part of a unit (the team), now means less than an award VOTED on by the media?!

So the media has no biases? The league doesnt have any rooting interest in influencing the media to push its agenda? So Nash was legitimately the best player in the L twice?

If you truly believe any of thos three questions,, PM me, i have a beach house to sell you in Idaho...

Seriously tho OP, is this about Lebron? If you like Bran's style of play, fvck what others say. Rank him where you want.

But dont try to convince others (like myself) that rings dont matter and being a great player is not about LEADING a TEAM to the chip. It has been the standard for years. Now that Bran isnt looking so good in that category, you want to change the criteria?

It doesnt work like that. Stop trying to move the goal posts to fit your own agenda.

[R.I.P.]

Messi is regarded as probably the best player ever, even though on the biggest stage in football, the world cup, he has failed.

That is because people in football understand that team accomplishments aren't reflective of an individual player.

When your country is Argentina it does reflect to a certain extent.

[superteamtheory]

So the media has no biases? The league doesnt have any rooting interest in influencing the media to push its agenda? So Nash was legitimately the best player in the L twice?


For the league voters, best record = MVP and who else you have on your roster doesn't factor in unless it's, say, Shaq.

I mean, I think Allen Iverson was the league's best talent in 2005, but the media will of course never be to handle that one because he plays on a mediocre team that year, so it's gotta be Nash who is playing with Stoudemire, Marion etc., or Shaq playing with Wade, or Duncan with Parker-Gino, or even Nowitzki with a deep roster. (And anybody but fallen star Kobe of course.)

In 2006 it should have been Kobe or Dirk.

Nash was never a bad choice but there was definitely some Old School Good Guy agenda being pushed, the league had temporarily tired of the offcourt dramas of an A.I. or Kobe.. they were looking more for guys like Duncan, Nash..

And around and around it goes... It's wacky that Kobe leaves with only 1 MVP but maybe it just speaks to how competitive his era was. (And that it overlapped with LeBron.)

[nba_55]

So let me get this straight....an accomplishment that is directly related to how well a BASKETBALL player plays ON the basketball court, both as an individuall and as a part of a unit (the team), now means less than an award VOTED on by the media?!

So the media has no biases? The league doesnt have any rooting interest in influencing the media to push its agenda? So Nash was legitimately the best player in the L twice?

If you truly believe any of thos three questions,, PM me, i have a beach house to sell you in Idaho...

Seriously tho OP, is this about Lebron? If you like Bran's style of play, fvck what others say. Rank him where you want.

But dont try to convince others (like myself) that rings dont matter and being a great player is not about LEADING a TEAM to the chip. It has been the standard for years. Now that Bran isnt looking so good in that category, you want to change the criteria?

It doesnt work like that. Stop trying to move the goal posts to fit your own agenda.

1. I never said championships meant less than awards that media vote on. Quote me where I said that. I don't get why people keep making up shit and go off-topic for no reason.

2. Why are you talking about media and nash getting MVP? I never mentioned those things in the OP. You are again going off-topic for no reason.

3. No, this thread is not about Lebron. It's about members giving too much importance to championships when rating and ranking players. Let me explain to you this more clearly with an example:

Year 1:
Player A averages 30 ppg on 60 % FG with 10 rbs and 5ass in the playoffs, but because his teammates didn't play very well and because his opponents were very good, his team lost in conference finals.

Year 2:
Player A averages 25 ppg on 48 % FG with 9 rbs and 2 ass in the playoffs. That year, his teammates played extremly well, his opponents not so well and they won the championship.

The problem with this forum is members in here would consider year 2 as a year more positive to the player A's career than year 1 only because his team won, even if himself played better in year 1. They mix up team rankings with player rankings.

I hope it's more clear.

[nba_55]

The eye test clearly says Kobe>>>>lebron.

Eye test is subjective, it changes from one person to another.

[nba_55]

And i don't get the obsession with awards voted by other people. Get a mind of your own and decide by yourself who is the most valuable player during the season or during the finals. Some people give too much importance to other people's opinions. Have some self respect and stand by your own opinions.

[Wade's Rings]

And i don't get the obsession with awards voted by other people. Get a mind of your own and decide by yourself who is the most valuable player during the season or during the finals. Some people give too much importance to other people's opinions. Have some self respect and stand by your own opinions.

You Bron Stans are the ones always propping up MVPs :confusedshrug:


1 mvp for the bean, 4 for the king. I already know who is the better PLAYER.

[Wade's Rings]

For the league voters, best record = MVP and who else you have on your roster doesn't factor in unless it's, say, Shaq.

I mean, I think Allen Iverson was the league's best talent in 2005, but the media will of course never be to handle that one because he plays on a mediocre team that year, so it's gotta be Nash who is playing with Stoudemire, Marion etc., or Shaq playing with Wade, or Duncan with Parker-Gino, or even Nowitzki with a deep roster. (And anybody but fallen star Kobe of course.)

In 2006 it should have been Kobe or Dirk.

Nash was never a bad choice but there was definitely some Old School Good Guy agenda being pushed, the league had temporarily tired of the offcourt dramas of an A.I. or Kobe.. they were looking more for guys like Duncan, Nash..

And around and around it goes... It's wacky that Kobe leaves with only 1 MVP but maybe it just speaks to how competitive his era was. (And that it overlapped with LeBron.)

So Wade should've won the 2009 MVP :applause:

[nba_55]

You Bron Stans are the ones always propping up MVPs :confusedshrug:

I am 1 person, not a group.

[rmt]

Man all you need two all-star quality teammates to win. All the teams you just name had all-star teammates that won.


94 = Dream and O.T.

77 = big redhead and mo lucas

75 = Barry with ROY Wilkes plus he had Jeff Mullins still was in roation Butch Beard and Bill Bridges

Duncan had HOF player with all his championship teams. he wasn't by himself

Which of Duncan's team mates were performing at HOF or all-star or all-nba level in 2003? None.

2003 Playoffs
Duncan 24.7 pts / 15.4 rebs / 5.3 asst / 3.3 blks 52.9%FG
Parker 14.7 pts / 3.5 assts 40.3%
SJax 12.8 pts / 4.1 rebs / 2.7 asst 41.4%
Manu 9.4 pts / 3.8 rebs / 2.9 asst 38.6%
DRob 7.8 pts / 6.6 rebs 54.2%

[superteamtheory]

Which of Duncan's team mates were performing at HOF or all-star or all-nba level in 2003? None.

2003 Playoffs
Duncan 24.7 pts / 15.4 rebs / 5.3 asst / 3.3 blks 52.9%FG
Parker 14.7 pts / 3.5 assts 40.3%
SJax 12.8 pts / 4.1 rebs / 2.7 asst 41.4%
Manu 9.4 pts / 3.8 rebs / 2.9 asst 38.6%
DRob 7.8 pts / 6.6 rebs 54.2%

exactly. and by your profile pic you look like a Spurs fan... i normally hate you guys but :cheers: you had the only player to ever do it as the lone giant... !!

not sure why more isn't made of this, it's kind of a big deal..

[Doranku]

exactly. and by your profile pic you look like a Spurs fan... i normally hate you guys but :cheers: you had the only player to ever do it as the lone giant... !!

not sure why more isn't made of this, it's kind of a big deal..

That run is kind of overrated honestly. Beat an average 44 win Suns team in the first round, the Lakers coming off a 3-peat and Kobe with a torn labrum in his shoulder, the Dirk-less Mavs, and the token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets. :confusedshrug:

[hateraid]

Bulls winning 55 without MJ is all the proof we need.

Those titles were team accomplishments. I cringe everytime someone uses 6 rings to argue for Michael.

They were almost as good without him. There are plenty of stars who could've gotten them over the hump.

MJ fell into the perfect situation. One of the luckiest athletes ever.
Bingo.
The Jordaneers are the predominant abusers of this notion. Yet fail to recognize the accomplishments of Russell in those regards. The failure of also recognizing that an MJ less Bulls was still a championship contender boggles my mind. The idea of flipping by saying the Bulls didn't win without him is such poor logic.

[kennethgriffin]

regular season mvps are dependant on team achievements

nobody wins on a team that doesnt have a top 3 record... its happened only a few times


an mvp is basically a "best player on a possible championship team"

its basically a hypothetical finals mvp

[Hey Yo]

That run is kind of overrated honestly. Beat an average 44 win Suns team in the first round, the Lakers coming off a 3-peat and Kobe with a torn labrum in his shoulder, the Dirk-less Mavs, and the token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets. :confusedshrug:
Why is Kobe's torn Labrum an excuse but when Dwight played with one for LA...... he was looked at as soft by Lakers fans who wanted more production from him?

[Smoke117]

regular season mvps are dependant on team achievements

nobody wins on a team that doesnt have a top 3 record... its happened only a few times


an mvp is basically a "best player on a possible championship team"

its basically a hypothetical finals mvp




Lebron: 4 mvp's, Kobrick: 1 (gifted... we all know CP3 was the real one that season ) mvp. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Heavincent]

Lebron: 4 mvp's, Kobrick: 1 (gifted... we all know CP3 was the real one that season ) mvp. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Chris Paul, the same guy who scored 4 points in a 58 point playoff loss at home? Against the same team Kobe averaged 34/6/6 against?

Good luck convincing anybody of that one shithead.

[La Frescobaldi]

Hahah. Okay...then just don't make the point you are trying to make. You can't list an arbitrary subset of players to make a point that is just false.

Your point is that it always takes a stacked team for even the best players of all time...and that is false.

What point are you trying to make if your point is:

"for these 6 guys...it always took a stacked team"?????

Seems pointless and incoherent.

Also, again, it's just a false claim. By any definition Hakeem would be one of the greatest players ever unless you are only talking about like 5 guys.

But even then...Jordan is clearly on your list. And the 91 Bulls were hardly an all time stacked team. You might think they were because of Jordan, but the talent rating of the supporting cast is absolutely not all time stacked.

In fact, in the 538 talent rating analysis...they graded out as the 10th worst talent rated supporting cast to make the finals in the last 31 years. So out of the 62 teams to make the finals in the last 31 years....that 91 Bulls supporting cast ranked number 52 out of 62.

I don't see how that gets you all time stacked when they are far below the average team to make the finals on talent.

And why won't you talk about Duncan? He's clearly in that group you listed and he's factually won without an all time stacked team...

Just seems like you are ignoring evidence so you can stand by your flawed conclusion. A very poor epistemology...
I just got through telling you I don't talk about the careers of players still in the league. Did Timmy retire and I missed it?
The only other point you have in all that is about Jordan in '91 but those stats don't measure coaches. That Bulls team was loaded.

Have a good one bro, I see eventually we are going inquire about things like whether Barkley or Karl Malone were ATG. You've completely missed the point.

[DMAVS41]

I just got through telling you I don't talk about the careers of players still in the league. Did Timmy retire and I missed it?
The only other point you have in all that is about Jordan in '91 but those stats don't measure coaches. That Bulls team was loaded.

Have a good one bro, I see eventually we are going inquire about things like whether Barkley or Karl Malone were ATG. You've completely missed the point.

Malone and Barkley didn't win. So I don't see the relevance.

I know you don't speak of current players, but that is because it goes against your false conclusion. Think about it...you make a statement that no all time great player has ever won without a stacked team...and when people bring certain things up...your response is:

Hakeem wasn't all time great...and Duncan doesn't count.

Which is just ignoring evidence to further your conclusion. So what? You are going to just completely change your tune when Duncan retires next year? If so...what is the point you are trying to make?

And just no the 91 Bulls. They weren't an all time stacked team. Outside of MJ...that is simply a subpar championship supporting cast based on talent.

Again you ignore evidence to further a conclusion that is just false at this point.

Wouldn't it just be easier to alter your statement than it is to jump through hoops to make it work? You are clearly starting with the conclusion you want...and then working back from that. Again...it's a faulty epistemology.

Have a good one.

[superteamtheory]

That run is kind of overrated honestly. Beat an average 44 win Suns team in the first round, the Lakers coming off a 3-peat and Kobe with a torn labrum in his shoulder, the Dirk-less Mavs, and the token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets. :confusedshrug:

Great point / fair enough.. It was something akin to the Warriors' 2015 run (but even Spurs-horseshoe luckier)..

You sell the Nets short but you do explain how Duncan was able to do it then and while I still think it's a big accomplishment for him considering he didn't have much backup, I guess there is no great mystery to how it went down..

Also makes me wonder what happens if Kobe or Dirk isn't injured.. I'd have much preferred a Lakers or Mavs championship that year.. Lakers means Kobe would have 6, Mavs means Nash would at least have 1.. that would be a better world for all I'm sure of it...

[DMAVS41]

Great point / fair enough.. It was something akin to the Warriors' 2015 run (but even Spurs-horseshoe luckier)..

You sell the Nets short but you do explain how Duncan was able to do it then and while I still think it's a big accomplishment for him considering he didn't have much backup, I guess there is no great mystery to how it went down..

Also makes me wonder what happens if Kobe or Dirk isn't injured.. I'd have much preferred a Lakers or Mavs championship that year.. Lakers means Kobe would have 6, Mavs means Nash would at least have 1.. that would be a better world for all I'm sure of it...


Lets tap the brakes here a bit.

Kobe might not have been 100%, but it's not like he was out there not able to go. Dude scored 32 a game and played like 43 minutes a game. There was a lot more going on with that team other than Kobe's health. He and Shaq weren't in line fully...and Kobe clearly wanted to take the team over. Also, why would we think Kobe is gonna play much better than he did?

32/5/4 53% TS...that is right in his wheelhouse as a player and absolutely not indicative of him unable to play well.



As for Dirk. The Spurs were up 2-1 essentially before Dirk got hurt. I do think that series is a toss up with a healthy Dirk (Mavs still took it to 6 and were up huge going into the 4th without Dirk in game 6)...but lets not act like the Spurs still weren't favored here. Duncan was a two way monster in a way the game has rarely seen on that team.

Taking away from that because of the above is a bit silly.

[Rocketswin2013]

Malone and Barkley didn't win. So I don't see the relevance.

I know you don't speak of current players, but that is because it goes against your false conclusion. Think about it...you make a statement that no all time great player has ever won without a stacked team...and when people bring certain things up...your response is:

Hakeem wasn't all time great...and Duncan doesn't count.

Which is just ignoring evidence to further your conclusion. So what? You are going to just completely change your tune when Duncan retires next year? If so...what is the point you are trying to make?

And just no the 91 Bulls. They weren't an all time stacked team. Outside of MJ...that is simply a subpar championship supporting cast based on talent.

Again you ignore evidence to further a conclusion that is just false at this point.

Wouldn't it just be easier to alter your statement than it is to jump through hoops to make it work? You are clearly starting with the conclusion you want...and then working back from that. Again...it's a faulty epistemology.

Have a good one.
...In the '91 playoffs, Pippen was better than guys like..'12 & ''13 Wade, '00 & '02 Kobe.

22/9/6/2.5/1.1/, .564 TS%. Elite defense(led postseason in DWS).

[Wade's Rings]

Chris Paul, the same guy who scored 4 points in a 58 point playoff loss at home? Against the same team Kobe averaged 34/6/6 against?

Good luck convincing anybody of that one shithead.

Kobe won the MVP in 2008. CP3 & Kobe faced the Nuggets in 2009.

Edit: The Playoffs don't decide the MVP.

[superteamtheory]

Lets tap the brakes here a bit.

Kobe might not have been 100%, but it's not like he was out there not able to go. Dude scored 32 a game and played like 43 minutes a game. There was a lot more going on with that team other than Kobe's health. He and Shaq weren't in line fully...and Kobe clearly wanted to take the team over. Also, why would we think Kobe is gonna play much better than he did?

32/5/4 53% TS...that is right in his wheelhouse as a player and absolutely not indicative of him unable to play well.



As for Dirk. The Spurs were up 2-1 essentially before Dirk got hurt. I do think that series is a toss up with a healthy Dirk (Mavs still took it to 6 and were up huge going into the 4th without Dirk in game 6)...but lets not act like the Spurs still weren't favored here. Duncan was a two way monster in a way the game has rarely seen on that team.

Taking away from that because of the above is a bit silly.


Oh Duncan was a beast no doubt about that. You don't have to sell me on Duncan ... :bowdown: ...and this 2003 run is a big part of why I think so highly of him.. I don't mean to "take away"..

but I'm assuming that Kobe's injury may have affected his defence somewhat... It was a problem in the series, guys of his like Bowen, Jackson or Gino were scoring, lessening the impact of what he was doing... He was also turning the ball over a fair bit... And Shaq was mostly playing up to Duncan's numbers... They needed Kobe to score a bit more or shoot a bit better to pull it off. Their "other issues" wasn't Kobe & Shaq drama but a lack of depth beyond them that they had been able to overcome (whether weaker competition or guys stepping up more) in previous years.. Kobe disappears a bit in the close out game.. I dunno, you gotta wonder, no injury what happens..

And as you say, the Mavs is a toss up.

And they take 6 games to take down the Nets.. So while Duncan deserves all the praise, absolutely, and he still is the only guy to ever accomplish the feat of truly being the lone star, it's not like this team was totally dominant..

[ISHGoat]

regular season mvps are dependant on team achievements

nobody wins on a team that doesnt have a top 3 record... its happened only a few times


an mvp is basically a "best player on a possible championship team"

its basically a hypothetical finals mvp




regular season MVPs are much less dependent on teams than winning a ring is.

how many players in the history of the game have won MVP that are not top 50 players of all time?

how many players have won rings that are not top 50 players of all time?

so if we want to foolishly evaluate a player based solely one metric, MVPs should hold far more weight than rings.

boiled down, lebron is a better player than kobe. 4 mvps > 1 mvp and basically every stat, basic and advanced, agree with this.

kobe has been on better teams though, so that is why 5 rings > 2 rings. that is why kobe currently has a better resume and some people place him above lebron on the all time list. it is because of resume and accomplishments, not greatness as a player, in which most sensible fans of the game would agree lebron > kobe

[LAZERUSS]

Oh Duncan was a beast no doubt about that. You don't have to sell me on Duncan ... :bowdown: ...and this 2003 run is a big part of why I think so highly of him.. I don't mean to "take away"..

but I'm assuming that Kobe's injury may have affected his defence somewhat... It was a problem in the series, guys of his like Bowen, Jackson or Gino were scoring, lessening the impact of what he was doing... He was also turning the ball over a fair bit... And Shaq was mostly playing up to Duncan's numbers... They needed Kobe to score a bit more or shoot a bit better to pull it off. Their "other issues" wasn't Kobe & Shaq drama but a lack of depth beyond them that they had been able to overcome (whether weaker competition or guys stepping up more) in previous years.. Kobe disappears a bit in the close out game.. I dunno, you gotta wonder, no injury what happens..

And as you say, the Mavs is a toss up.

And they take 6 games to take down the Nets.. So while Duncan deserves all the praise, absolutely, and he still is the only guy to ever accomplish the feat of truly being the lone star, it's not like this team was totally dominant..

I just have to say it again...it is so refreshing to actually DISCUSS basketball, and it's history, with someone as knowledgeable as yourself. You are already among the best posters here.

:cheers:

[superteamtheory]

I just have to say it again...it is so refreshing to actually DISCUSS basketball, and it's history, with someone as knowledgeable as yourself. You are already among the best posters here.

:cheers:

thanks man... I've been called one of the best and the dumbest poster here (courtesy, 3Ball) in a span of 24 hours tho...

If it's worth anything, as a lurker of the forum for a few months, you're one of the best posters here easily..

[rmt]

That run is kind of overrated honestly. Beat an average 44 win Suns team in the first round, the Lakers coming off a 3-peat and Kobe with a torn labrum in his shoulder, the Dirk-less Mavs, and the token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets. :confusedshrug:

Do you mean the same "token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets" with a playoff run to the Finals and a year more experience than vs Lakers the previous year? Funny how shitty those Nets were when Spurs beat them but they weren't shitty when the Lakers beat them the year before - lol.

[ISHGoat]

thanks man... I've been called one of the best and the dumbest poster here (courtesy, 3Ball) in a span of 24 hours tho...

If it's worth anything, as a lurker of the forum for a few months, you're one of the best posters here easily..

lazarus and cuckftw are great posters but unfortunately they are also mindless wilt stans

[superteamtheory]

Do you mean the same "token shitty Eastern Conference team in the Nets" with a playoff run to the Finals and a year more experience than vs Lakers the previous year? Funny how shitty those Nets were when Spurs beat them but they weren't shitty when the Lakers beat them the year before - lol.

they weren't shitty.. they were a very good team and were verging on greatness (because of more experience) when they played the Spurs .. they wouldn't have made it to 6 games if not.

but yes, the Lakers defeat of them in 2002 is overhyped... the real Finals that year was the Kings series... which we probably shouldn't dig back up or we might get sniped..

[nba_55]

Exactly what?

Duncan, Hakeem, and Dirk are all...all-time great players and all won without stacked teams.

LOL...what are you talking about?

He didn't mention Duncan, Hakeem and Dirk in the post of him that I quoted. And I don't want to talk about who had stacked teams and who didn't. This is not what this thread is about. Those things have been discussed multiples times in this forum, and don't worry, they will be discussed several more times. People in here like to talk about the same things over and over again.

[La Frescobaldi]

Malone and Barkley didn't win. So I don't see the relevance.

I know you don't speak of current players, but that is because it goes against your false conclusion. Think about it...you make a statement that no all time great player has ever won without a stacked team...and when people bring certain things up...your response is:

Hakeem wasn't all time great...and Duncan doesn't count.

Which is just ignoring evidence to further your conclusion. So what? You are going to just completely change your tune when Duncan retires next year? If so...what is the point you are trying to make?

And just no the 91 Bulls. They weren't an all time stacked team. Outside of MJ...that is simply a subpar championship supporting cast based on talent.

Again you ignore evidence to further a conclusion that is just false at this point.

Wouldn't it just be easier to alter your statement than it is to jump through hoops to make it work? You are clearly starting with the conclusion you want...and then working back from that. Again...it's a faulty epistemology.

Have a good one.
I see. You are saying Olajuwon and Duncan are as great as the list I gave.
Sorry, we wont agree on that. Lots of rings have been won by lots of great players - but the greatest players all failed without great teams.
Nor will we agree about '91.

[sportjames23]

lazarus and cuckftw are great posters but unfortunately they are also mindless wilt stans


:roll: :roll: :roll: