At what level is the question of "better" just about basketball skill?

[Kblaze8855]

Obviously when you get to a GOAT tier people cant do that. They go with legacy. Count how many of this or that. Those players will never have a simple accounting of ability be the deciding factor.

So how far down before it is?

If I ask you who is better between Junkyard Dog(Jerome Williams) and Brian Grant....or Harrison Barnes and Aaron Gordon.....you arent gonna come in here spouting off about who won what or any kinda "legacy". But if I ask about Jerry West vs Charles Barkley you would.

So when does that end? At what level?

Im gonna give you a few examples...id like to know which ones you feel a need to go past simple basketball and have a more abstract discussion on "greatness".



Rip Hamilton vs CJ Mccollum?


Bernard King vs Paul Pierce?


Rondo vs Deron Williams?


Robert Parish vs Patrick Ewing?


Lillard vs Tim Hardaway?


Mike Bibby vs Mo Williams?


Kyle Lowry vs Andre Miller?


Stephen Jackson vs Hedo?


Rasheed Wallace vs Jermaine Oneal?

Ray Allen vs Manu?

Dikembe Mutombo vs Ben Wallace?


Marbury vs Tony Parker?


Chris Mullin vs Joe Johnson?


Baron Davis vs Ben Simmons?


Would you feel a need to delve into accolades and team accomplishments and all to answer those questions or would you give me a strictly basketball answer based on your observations or understanding of how they played? And feel free to answer those questions of course. Im just wondering how you approach it. Am I about to read about how many times ____ was an all star or when ____ made a WCF run and the other guy never madeit past the second round? I dont need to get down into the depths of pure role players to hear you give me a basketball skill based opinion do I?

The kinda opinion you give me if I ask you about Patrick Beverly vs Kirk Hinrich. Is that not something I can have if either player was ever any kinda star? Like.....does winning a ring with the Pistons really factor into your opinion on if Rip is better than CJ? Is Rip low enough to just evaluate his game and leave what happened in his career out of it or as a distant secondary discussion?

[nayte]

Abstract.look at 3ball and round ball.

[iamgine]

Obviously when you get to a GOAT tier people cant do that. They go with legacy. Count how many of this or that. Those players will never have a simple accounting of ability be the deciding factor.

Certainly you can. George Mikan and Bill Russell was knocked down due to skill.

[Akeem34TheDream]

I think that boundary is being a first option at a contender. Almost none of those guys you named were that so you would focus on skills and ability when comparing them. But the moment you are a top 5 player or contender team's best player then accolades come into play. Even then you can argue that its stupid but it is what it is.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t know about that particular matchup since many fans didn’t even see Russell as skilled at the time(having no appreciation for non scoring aspects of the game)....but I get what you mean.

Its hard though. You need a dark agesvs more modern comparison to leave that stuff mostly out.

[Kblaze8855]

I think that boundary is being a first option at a contender. Almost none of those guys you named were that so you would focus on skills and ability when comparing them. But the moment you are a top 5 player or contender team's best player then accolades come into play. Even then you can argue that its stupid but it is what it is.


You could argue about 7 of those guys were that depending on what you call a contender.

And what you call a first option. Rik Smits was per minute the leader in shot attempts in the regular season and playoffs for a finals team. But he didn’t play the 41 minutes a game like Reggie and Rose did so.....there’s room to argue.

Then you have people like Ben Wallace who was a last option....but perhaps best player. It gets complicated.

[sbw19]

High potential of wining multiple titles building around said player means results will come under more scrutiny, and vice versa. Fans understand you aren't winning building around role players, or one-time allstars. So they don't look for results as evidence of valuation. I think once you're a perennial allstar winning will matter regardless of circumstances.

[STATUTORY]

skills as opposed to what? team success/championshiips or stats?

[Kblaze8855]

High potential of winning multiple titles? So how many players is that in all history? 12-15?

[Kblaze8855]

skills as opposed to what? team success/championshiips or stats?

Both I suppose. If I ask you Mike Bibby or Lou Williams do you even check for the stats or go off the kind of player you remember them being?

[sbw19]

Not many. Point being, that's the class that will bear the brunt of (relative) lack of success. And better/worse will always be somehow attached to that.

[Kblaze8855]

Ok so you have a dozen or maybe two dozen guys. Then thousands of others.

Would you need to rely on those methods for any of the players I asked about?

[LAL]

Ok so you have a dozen or maybe two dozen guys. Then thousands of others.

Would you need to rely on those methods for any of the players I asked about?

I'll answer for him. No.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If its player vs player?

First line of order in my head is dominance. How they competed vs peers and opponents, which includes skill.

Then I'll take most of that, and blend it with how well their play functioned in a team setting.

So to answer your question, for me SKILL follows individual impact immediately.

[Axe]

Abstract.look at 3ball and round ball.
Lmao two notorious posters making copypasta festivals of several threads, most esp. if it involves mj and pippen. 😂

[HoopsNY]

I think everyone has different methods when considering this topic. You can say a player is very skilled, but what about leadership, dominance, and the clutch factor? You're spot on when it comes to how we compare the all-time greats. When you go past #15 on the all time list, suddenly we focus on skill more than we do on accolades. I think part of the reason for that is that we assume the greatest players of all time already have the skills, so it kinda goes without saying.

Case in point: Patrick Ewing

On the outset, he seems like one of the greatest centers of all time. Great low-post scorer, solid rebounder, great defender, mid-range game, longevity, etc.

But given leadership, clutch factor, and dominance against peers, how does he really stack up? And basketball dynamics is, as I've always stated, never a plug and play. Ben Wallace has little to no offensive players, but depending on the team, he might be a better fit than Patrick Ewing. The same can be said with Dennis Rodman vs. a lot of other SFs in NBA history.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good question. This came up implicitly in another thread where a guy pointed out Boozer or Brand had similar prime numbers to Bosh.

Stats can be misleading because every team is going to have scores, boards, assists to be had. Even the worst teams will have 1-2 productive players on the stat sheet. Zach Lavine went 26/5/4 this year and no one even noticed. Does that production mean Lavine is this great player? The other main issues with stats is players on good teams will have their stats deflated and bad teams inflated. So you can't compare a player on a championship team's stats with a guy on a 30 win team.

I think stats are only relevant to players within the same tier. Your examples are good. Parish and Ewing are both HOF but everyone would agree Ewing was better because he was on a different tier. Ewing was a superstar, Parish a star.

[Phoenix]

I think everyone has different methods when considering this topic. You can say a player is very skilled, but what about leadership, dominance, and the clutch factor? You're spot on when it comes to how we compare the all-time greats. When you go past #15 on the all time list, suddenly we focus on skill more than we do on accolades. I think part of the reason for that is that we assume the greatest players of all time already have the skills, so it kinda goes without saying.

.

I think its because when you look at the top 12 or so players, you're looking at guys who are multiple time MVPs( regular and/or finals), multiple championships, and occupy the top of the statistical charts in different categories. So their net results become moreso the barometer by which you compare and nitpick. They're the easiest way to quantity 'greatness' and make for low hanging fruit debate.

That second tier may have an MVP, some really great stats, but only won once or came on the cusp of winning but didnt quite get there. When you start analysing why it's less about throwing out basketball reference arguments and breaking down exactly what made them slightly less successful, and then you'll start getting more into skills, what they had or didn't have, and harder to measure intangibles( heart, leadership, poise and so forth).

Unfortunately the more time passes, and the more data we have, the conversation has kind of simplified into a zero sum affair of whether you won or didn't and ring counting. There's a ton of circumstances beyond 'skills' like front office, coaching, teammates, health, luck, matchups that create ones 'legacy'.

[Roundball_Rock]

Unfortunately the more time passes, and the more data we have, the conversation has kind of simplified into a zero sum affair of whether you won or didn't and ring counting. There's a ton of circumstances beyond 'skills' like front office, coaching, teammates, health, luck, matchups that create ones 'legacy'.

It mostly is a basketball world affliction but it is starting to seep into football, at least with QB's. In baseball Trout hasn't even won a playoff series but no one holds it against him so they are holding the line in baseball.

Yeah and Ewing, who was mentioned a few times in this thread, is a good example. It is Ewing's fault he choked in the 94' finals; it is not his fault his front office failed to give him offensive support in his prime. Starks had to have been one of the worst second options on a perennial contender of all-time. It also isn't his fault that he got hurt in 99' when the team made the finals. He was past his prime but still a quality player and who knows what happens if he plays.

[LAL]

It mostly is a basketball world affliction but it is starting to seep into football, at least with QB's. In baseball Trout hasn't even won a playoff series but no one holds it against him so they are holding the line in baseball.

Yeah and Ewing, who was mentioned a few times in this thread, is a good example. It is Ewing's fault he choked in the 94' finals; it is not his fault his front office failed to give him offensive support in his prime. Starks had to have been one of the worst second options on a perennial contender of all-time. It also isn't his fault that he got hurt in 99' when the team made the finals. He was past his prime but still a quality player and who knows what happens if he plays.

I think you're a good example of who op is talking about.

[iamgine]

Also OP

"Better" is about overall on court impact at any level. Especially impact in important moments like the playoff.

When we talk about "Greater", then we can talk about legacy. Rings, accolades, longevity, etc.