How much winning justifies a “Winner” label?

[Kblaze8855]

Since I feel like consensus will get us to a “Depends on how good they’re supposed to be” point we can do it by tier.

Potential GOAT status

True legend status(let’s call that top 30ish all time)

Hall of famer

All star


What does a player need to prove winning wise to not be a loser at each of those levels?

Melo for example…obvious first ballot hall of famer. He’s the 9th all time leading scorer and a 10+ time all star. You probably consider him a loser though.

But if someone on his level(top 50-75 ish?) has to win a ring….there wouldn’t be enough to have won yet considering your likely GOAT requirement of winning several. Can’t call someone a loser for not winning a ring when there aren’t enough available years for all your potential winners to have won can you?

So what’s that levels requirement? A finals? That mean the people who call Melo a loser think AI was a winner? Tatum?

What do we do with Nash?

Nash a loser?

Is Lamarcus Aldridge a loser? What was he supposed to win in his tier? Is it enough he just made a bunch of playoffs?


Help me out. When you call someone a loser how much winning removes that label by tier? Or is being a “loser” more of a play style you believe makes teams more prone to lose?

Is it abstract?

[jlip]

He has to be a player that you like.

[Kblaze8855]

He has to be a player that you like.


I think we’re done here.

[StrongLurk]

For casuals, winner or loser simply means did you win a championship or not. It's that dumb for probably half the NBA fanbase.

The smart NBA fanbase realizes that winning players and losing players is not about talent, but about mentality and approach to the game.

James Harden is a great example of an all-time great player who I think is a loser (way too much foul baiting and chocking/underperformances in the playoffs).

Jimmy Butler is a great example of a "winner", even though he doesn't have any championships.

Melo is a tough choice for me because ultimately he did play extremely selfishly, never really expanded his game as a playmaker, wasn't a great defender, didn't really seem to be a "team leader/player" kind of guy...but he did compete for sure at a high level. I guess I'd say he's in the middle.

[GimmeThat]

the very concept of winner, is a bunch of people, dumping their finished work, saying you've won, and want you to complete that puzzle, before you dump it off to the next guy.

[tpols]

It's mostly just about circumstance.

[Dbrog]

It feels like a lot of the guys who lead "winning" teams such as multiple finals appearances or championships do tend to be good leaders. For instance it's not surprising to me that Chauncey Billups, despite having only a relatively few deep runs, was a driving force and brought a culture with him wherever he went. You could say the same about CP despite him being a "loser" by some but he has shown even when he went to the Thunder that he will bring a winning culture with him because he is a leader. Shaq and Kobe led in a much different way that Duncan but both led to success.

Let's compare this to someone like Rasheed who did actually win a chip but feels like he needed others to keep him in check. Ya maybe "both teams played hard" but let's be honest, Big Ben and Chauncey helped guide and hone his talent...him "leading" on the jailblazers was never going to work. Hell even Bron didn't really know how to lead until he met up with Wade who potentially learned how from Shaq.

[GimmeThat]

It feels like a lot of the guys who lead "winning" teams such as multiple finals appearances or championships do tend to be good leaders. For instance it's not surprising to me that Chauncey Billups, despite having only a relatively few deep runs, was a driving force and brought a culture with him wherever he went. You could say the same about CP despite him being a "loser" by some but he has shown even when he went to the Thunder that he will bring a winning culture with him because he is a leader. Shaq and Kobe led in a much different way that Duncan but both led to success.

Let's compare this to someone like Rasheed who did actually win a chip but feels like he needed others to keep him in check. Ya maybe "both teams played hard" but let's be honest, Big Ben and Chauncey helped guide and hone his talent...him "leading" on the jailblazers was never going to work. Hell even Bron didn't really know how to lead until he met up with Wade who potentially learned how from Shaq.

so I'm the professor who's still single because all my fans been sleeping with my assisstant instructor?

[Airupthere]

For casuals, winner or loser simply means did you win a championship or not. It's that dumb for probably half the NBA fanbase.

The smart NBA fanbase realizes that winning players and losing players is not about talent, but about mentality and approach to the game.

James Harden is a great example of an all-time great player who I think is a loser (way too much foul baiting and chocking/underperformances in the playoffs).

Jimmy Butler is a great example of a "winner", even though he doesn't have any championships.

Melo is a tough choice for me because ultimately he did play extremely selfishly, never really expanded his game as a playmaker, wasn't a great defender, didn't really seem to be a "team leader/player" kind of guy...but he did compete for sure at a high level. I guess I'd say he's in the middle.

How would you categorize Iverson, Webber, Ewing, Barkley, Miller?

[Kblaze8855]

You’d think it would be as simple as “Did you win as much as you should?” but people will legit see you have a trash squad and call you a loser for losing with it anyway.

[AlternativeAcc.]

For casuals, winner or loser simply means did you win a championship or not. It's that dumb for probably half the NBA fanbase.

The smart NBA fanbase realizes that winning players and losing players is not about talent, but about mentality and approach to the game.

James Harden is a great example of an all-time great player who I think is a loser (way too much foul baiting and chocking/underperformances in the playoffs).

Jimmy Butler is a great example of a "winner", even though he doesn't have any championships.

Melo is a tough choice for me because ultimately he did play extremely selfishly, never really expanded his game as a playmaker, wasn't a great defender, didn't really seem to be a "team leader/player" kind of guy...but he did compete for sure at a high level. I guess I'd say he's in the middle.

I agree with most of this. You have to apply a lot of context and pay attention to traits.


Lillard to me is a winner despite never winning anything. He works hard and has shown up in big moments. Just has it.

Harden and Melo don't.

Iverson had it on the court but wasn't dedicated enough off of it. There's a lot of layers to this shit.

[GimmeThat]

You’d think it would be as simple as “Did you win as much as you should?” but people will legit see you have a trash squad and call you a loser for losing with it anyway.

opportunistic is death, who knew

[ArbitraryWater]

I think if you got the most out of the teams you were on


Butler is a winner

[FultzNationRISE]

To me the most clearly indicative measure is the combination of MVPs and FMVP. I believe something around the 4 MVP’s/4 FMVP’s benchmark is the gold standard. No more and no less. If you have less it tells me you didnt really dominate persistently. More than that however and I feel like it speaks to a low level of competition as opposed to an individual navigating a quest for greatness.

4 MVP/4 FMVP is the perfect balance to confirm a winning career.

[dankok8]

It's definitely very subjective. Reputations play a big part in it for sure.

[LAL]

To me the most clearly indicative measure is the combination of MVPs and FMVP. I believe something around the 4 MVP’s/4 FMVP’s benchmark is the gold standard. No more and no less. If you have less it tells me you didnt really dominate persistently. More than that however and I feel like it speaks to a low level of competition as opposed to an individual navigating a quest for greatness.

4 MVP/4 FMVP is the perfect balance to confirm a winning career.

:oldlol:

[warriorfan]

4+ chips to your original franchise is the benchmark for goat tier

(Magic, Jordan, Duncan, Kobe, Curry)

[GimmeThat]

It's definitely very subjective. Reputations play a big part in it for sure.

there's been lots of news about doctors abusing child at birth inside the hospital. I wonder how that's going to affect health insurance coverages.

[ILLsmak]

Its a mind set. Hard to define like clutch. Easiest way is when stuff goes bad people revert to loser tendencies. No accolades can make someone a winner, at least in a true sense. Winning isnt actually winning. Even most good college coaches will tell that.

Ooo perspective. That might be what makes a winner. Dudes like kawhi are winners day one cuz its just how they play. Probably when they take the L, they mourn, go over what they did wrong, and get back to it.

A loser is unstable and believes he must consistently prove he is the best. People put this on mj, but i think he was a winner even in college. Its will and perspective imo. Everyone blows it some time.

Sry for wak message, from phone. Ish malwaring my shit w intrusive advertising.

-Smak

[GimmeThat]

4+ chips to your original franchise is the benchmark for goat tier

(Magic, Jordan, Duncan, Kobe, Curry)

unaware if that's nessecarily the benchmark where player being greater than the owner similar to the movie Gladiator

because again, why wouldn't you want to take out multiple owners if you were a slave

[hateraid]

It's bandwagon mentality. Whatever is the shiny new toy is what people get behind. Once it's worn out people migrate. Sheep mentality

There was a time 2 or 3 years in people had Melo over Lebron. Same scenario when people had Deron Williams over Chris Paul. Public influence is the #1 criteria

[ILLsmak]

I also legit believe melo is a winner. He never got frustrated thru all the stuff and won in college. Melo is fun to shit on but early melo was def a winner. He is a ball stopper tho for sure. His style might not be conducive to winning but i remm watching him grill bron on a game winner. It really is just how people are wired. I cant explain it. Def met losers tho. Most people are in between kinda following, but some like said harden... and maybe if he didnt fail early, even tho imo his failure off bench in okc wasnt a big deal. They had no chance. But he def reverts to loser tendencies, pouts, etc.

-Smak

[GimmeThat]

It's bandwagon mentality. Whatever is the shiny new toy is what people get behind. Once it's worn out people migrate. Sheep mentality



thought it was a "I wonder how much crap I can get away with" mentality, with the answer being, "why would you, we've been feeding you muscle milk since the day you were born."

[Real Men Wear Green]

Most people don't think about it but there is a difference between a winner and a great player. I wouldn't call Melo a loser but on the NBA level he's not what we think of as a winner either because he didn't win a championship. I would call him a winner personally for what he did in college but many fans won't care. Conversely Derek Fisher is definitely a winner but wasn't a great player by NBA standard at all.

[GimmeThat]

Most people don't think about it but there is a difference between a winner and a great player. I wouldn't call Melo a loser but on the NBA level he's not what we think of as a winner either because he didn't win a championship. I would call him a winner personally for what he did in college but many fans won't care. Conversely Derek Fisher is definitely a winner but wasn't a great player by NBA standard at all.

this IS the same lecture about how some people weren't born with a golden spoon in their mouth so they have to work harder, isn't it

[Full Court]

In my opinion, it's a matter of proportion to how much losing you've done.

[GimmeThat]

In my opinion, it's a matter of proportion to how much losing you've done.

now Bronie fluffers are just lost

[Axe]

When madonna picks you over him.

[Real Men Wear Green]

In my opinion, it's a matter of proportion to how much losing you've done.

Lebron james had won 73% of his games so no that is not your opinion. You try to justify it by pointing out that James had a losing record and ignore that most superstars retire without any championships at all while James has 4.

[Axe]

Lebron james had won 73% of his games so no that is not your opinion. You try to justify it by pointing out that James had a losing record and ignore that most superstars retire without any championships at all while James has 4.
https://media.tenor.com/sys3weVzjJMAAAAC/wow-kevin-garnett.gif

[L.Kizzle]

Someone in this thread said James Harden is a loser and Jimmy Butler is a winner ...
So is being a great individual player being a loser because I see thsy alot.

[GimmeThat]

When madonna picks you over him.

hehehe

[FultzNationRISE]

Someone in this thread said James Harden is a loser and Jimmy Butler is a winner ...
So is being a great individual player being a loser because I see thsy alot.

I think it’s mainly about how much you make winning a priority in what youre doing.

Harden has a lot of talent when it comes to dribbling the ball and shooting it.

Thats got nothing to do with how much he wants to win.

Some players make the league on talent, some make it with drive, and the top players have both.

Harden is a talent only guy. He has no competitive drive.

[LeGoat4Life]

4+ chips to your original franchise is the benchmark for goat tier

(Magic, Jordan, Duncan, Kobe, Curry)

That’s the benchmark to get in the top 10 goats

[SouBeachTalents]

While obv one should put it to rest, once you get to 3 you’d have to be an idiot to still not consider that a winner. After that you’re just hating.

[GimmeThat]

Someone in this thread said James Harden is a loser and Jimmy Butler is a winner ...
So is being a great individual player being a loser because I see thsy alot.

your wife isn't going to think of you as a loser, so you're just gonna have to lose it for them

[Axe]

While obv one should put it to rest, once you get to 3 you’d have to be an idiot to still not consider that a winner. After that you’re just hating.
:eek:

[dirkdiggler41]

For casuals, winner or loser simply means did you win a championship or not. It's that dumb for probably half the NBA fanbase.

The smart NBA fanbase realizes that winning players and losing players is not about talent, but about mentality and approach to the game.

James Harden is a great example of an all-time great player who I think is a loser (way too much foul baiting and chocking/underperformances in the playoffs).

Jimmy Butler is a great example of a "winner", even though he doesn't have any championships.

Melo is a tough choice for me because ultimately he did play extremely selfishly, never really expanded his game as a playmaker, wasn't a great defender, didn't really seem to be a "team leader/player" kind of guy...but he did compete for sure at a high level. I guess I'd say he's in the middle.

It's funny you would call James Harden a loser considering he has only lost in the first round 4 times and been in the playoffs 13 years in a row. He even got 160+ playoff games.

[GimmeThat]

:eek:

fool me once, shame on them, fool me twice, shame on you, fool me thrice, shame on me

[Axe]

fool me once, shame on them, fool me twice, shame on you, fool me thrice, shame on me
Damn you if you do, damn you if you don't. :ohwell:

[GimmeThat]

Damn you if you do, damn you if you don't. :ohwell:

the consequence of not taking a leak at a urinal

[ILLsmak]

It's funny you would call James Harden a loser considering he has only lost in the first round 4 times and been in the playoffs 13 years in a row. He even got 160+ playoff games.

Nobody, not even Jamie, thinks heÂ’s a winner haha. ItÂ’s like that shot for ur life or build a team to win or you die. You can take atg players, random 10 of recent all nbas, and nobody is picking harden. Well some people might but they gone dieee.

Yes ai is a winner btw to dude who mentioned him. He has an indomitable will. So does Westbrook but he gets frustrated and resorts to loser tendencies.

You wanna know who the winners are look at the people who are getting it in, finding ways to do something, anything even when their team is being demolished. Shaq is a winner cuz he was like 39 or something and said put me back in, in a blow out elimination game and tried his hardest.

ItÂ’s as much poker as chess. A winner is easily distinguished from a loser imo, but there is a big d fishy middle ground. Dudes who just do it. Although otoh I think horry is definitely a winner. So is posey. So are some of those wild shooters Bron played with like James jones. Fish had that one playoffs where he went nuts, but heÂ’s a stabilizing force. HeÂ’s a winning player, but not a winner in the sense he inspires a culture of winning. A winner can make an ass team believe they have a chance.

There are just too many variables to judge on results. Obviously, they overlap, but itÂ’s not only an eye test thing but itÂ’s something people who play with or against them can tell, too. Losing then requesting a trade is not a winner move.

I thought kyrie was a winner but he went off the rails and IÂ’m pretty sure he sold in Boston. HeÂ’s got some problems. IÂ’d be wary of taking him on my ride or die team. In 2016 tho IÂ’d take him no question. ThatÂ’s why these are interesting discussions because so much happens, so many ups and downs. Raise your hand if u thought kawhi was gonna win in Toronto yknow.

We need yes or no to come in and just go thru player by player, every one in nba history, get it settled once and for all.

-Smak

[hateraid]

Lebron james had won 73% of his games so no that is not your opinion. You try to justify it by pointing out that James had a losing record and ignore that most superstars retire without any championships at all while James has 4.

Exactly this. Jordaneers however are delusional and have to defend their insecurities by being hypocritical

[iamgine]

Being a winner or loser is just a matter of your own expectation of their performance. Has nothing to do with winning.

Nash for most people already exceed his expectation. Therefore, not a loser.

Harden often does not fulfill expectation in the playoff. Therefore, a loser.

Wilt Chamberlain was so extraordinary that he was a loser for 'only' winning 2. I swear if Bill Russell only won 2 titles no one gonna call him a loser.

[DMAVS41]

You’d think it would be as simple as “Did you win as much as you should?” but people will legit see you have a trash squad and call you a loser for losing with it anyway.

I think this is it. How much would you expect said player to win or have success given their circumstances. Hard to assess accurately because of all of our biases, but the obvious example is KG in Minny. Expecting him to win a title or do much with those rosters wasn't realistic, but expecting him to win and have success on Boston was.

Durant, for example, as I have argued...I would have expected him to have more success on his non Warriors years if he truly was one of the 10 to 15 best players ever.

Where it gets hard is when great players don't get much of a shot and you don't get to see how they perform as leaders of a team with legit title support.

Nick Wright, going hard on Jokic the last couple years for not winning in the playoffs...in my opinion, was idiotic and dishonest. He had very little to work with during that time...but judging him on success in the playoffs this year, given his help, makes more sense.