Will idiots ever stop using TEAM accomplishments over Player accomplishments

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Just the other day this CelticsGarlic fool told me Titles are the Nr.1 Priority AMONGST RANKING INDIDIUALS :facepalm

List of Players with most Rings: (Team)
Russell
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders


List of Players with most MVP's: (Individual)
Jabbar
Jordan
Russell
Wilt
LeBron

Pick a List.[/QUOTE]
The first group is a group led by maybe the best player in NBA history. Russell is mainly responsible for those other players having that many titles. The second group is a group of great players, whose MVP play impacted highly on their teams, since all those players in the 2nd group won multiple titles, and competed for many others.

My favorite player to discuss these matters in Dirk. Without the ring in 2011, he'd be forever labeled as a choker. Which may be unfair, but is partially true. As the best player on the Mavs he does share a lot of responsibility with those meltdowns in 2006/2007.

However, his ring in 2011 changed all of that. But let's focus on that ring. The ring doesn't just say he won a championship, it has deeper meaning. The ring means:

1. He led a team where nobody expected to come out of the 1st round to the finals

2. He came back from the devastating 4th quarter loss in Portland and wrapped up the series

3. He led the team that swept the Lakers. Not just any Laker squad. This was a 57 win, Phil Jackson coached, Kobe, Gasol, Bynum led Laker team. And the Mavs swept them.

4. He gave us one of the best playoff performances of all time against the OKC Thunder. A loaded Thunder team with who reaches the finals the very next year.

5. He destroyed the Miami Heat, coming up clutch time after time after time.

[B]See, it's great performances from the players to get to that ring which matters.
[/B]
It's the same reason why Lebron, while having won two rings while conspiring with Wade and Bosh, still has people questioning his place among the elite. It's probably the same reason why the OP created this thread in the first place.

If Lebron didn't quit against the Celtics, or the elbowgate. If he managed to get a championship without conspiring to team up with Wade and Bosh... then I'm quite sure he'd be held in more regard than he currently is.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]Because.... How do you judge how much a player adds to a basketball team? With stats? Is that your argument?

Stats are a relative number. They are not figures that stand in all circumstances for all time..Look at Evan Turner with the Sixers. For most of the year, he was averaging around 20ppg for the Sixers(at least until they completely lost morale), but is ET really a 20ppg scorer for a winning team?
I submit to you---no. There are many, many examples. Stats are a function of team structure, system, opportunity.

There are many, many examples of this. One of my favorite is Team USA in a international tournament. Let's say Lebron leads the US to the Gold averaging 17ppg while beating Lithuania. Meanwhile, Kleiza gets selected to the all-tournament team for averaging 25ppg, even though his team lost in the Quarters. So who was the better scorer? Which player had the most impact?

You see the best players adopt to their teammates, and embrace the team structure. Stats are merely a function of this. In the end, what counts is--did you lead your team to a win? And how crucial a role did you play?[/QUOTE]Just as stats can be dependent upon a given situation, so too may winning championships (or winning, period), as we covered. I feel there are many incredible players who adapt to their teammates and fully embrace the team structure but due to the circumstances with which they face, their team may never be able to be ultimately successful, even if the player affects his team more than nearly anyone in history.

I think that's one of the nice things about basketball, it's not always about how great one single player may be or how good he makes his teammates. It'll still always be about the sum of all parts. Like the James example, he may be able to double his team's wins (or more) but depending on his crew, that still may only lead to 35-45 wins, even with his incredible impact.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]Because.... How do you judge how much a player adds to a basketball team? With stats? Is that your argument?

Stats are a relative number. They are not figures that stand in all circumstances for all time..Look at Evan Turner with the Sixers. For most of the year, he was averaging around 20ppg for the Sixers(at least until they completely lost morale), but is ET really a 20ppg scorer for a winning team?
I submit to you---no. There are many, many examples. Stats are a function of team structure, system, opportunity.

There are many, many examples of this. One of my favorite is Team USA in a international tournament. Let's say Lebron leads the US to the Gold averaging 17ppg while beating Lithuania. Meanwhile, Kleiza gets selected to the all-tournament team for averaging 25ppg, even though his team lost in the Quarters. So who was the better scorer? Which player had the most impact?

You see the best players adopt to their teammates, and embrace the team structure. Stats are merely a function of this. In the end, what counts is--did you lead your team to a win? And how crucial a role did you play?[/QUOTE]

I don't expect the greatest player ever t lead a weak team to a title. IF like james you take a weak team and do what he did you are proving your greateness. Again I don't know why this is hard to grasp.

Really get tired of stats obsession. All great players have great stats. The real question is how much value it adds to a team. Looking at someones career it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

[QUOTE=Levity]or better yet, when will people get over their diehard propping up or belittling of players. Liking the best player in the league doesnt make you any better of a person, nor does liking the worst player make you a shitty person.

everyone on here is an adult version of kids arguing which power ranger, pokemon, digimon, or whatever you watched in your youth, is better. just really inane points.[/QUOTE]

Maybe worse because most kids can support a power ranger, but I don't think they actually take that power ranger's accomplishments and look at them as their own.

Nobody is saying "we" in those instances.

-Smak

Nope, the media will never allow it.

Why would anyone care about the Finals and the playoffs if player's legacies didn't depend on it?

And I agree, it's better this way. Everything would be kinda boring without rings being so important.

[QUOTE=TAZORAC]When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.[/QUOTE]
What a dumb niqqa :roll: :roll: do us all a favor and [B]DO NOT[/B] post again...

[QUOTE=TAZORAC]When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

[B]Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.[/B][/QUOTE]

And he'd be known as a choker & the best player to never win a ring.

Players play for championships, which are overall a team accomplishment, but we can evaluate each player's contributions to a title by looking at the statistics & what they did in the Playoffs to put together a championship run. You need great teammates to win, but there is always a leader, a man who every other player on that team looks up to & trusts to carry them to a title.

MVP is not an individual award either, it's voted by biased media members. It shows nothing about the player itself. Derrick Rose was not even a top 5 player in 2011. So, since he has as many MVPs as Shaq or Kobe, he must be on their level, right?

Steve Nash has as many as Kobe & Shaq combined, he must also have had a better career than either of them.

lebron denying miami in 2011 was a player accomplishment

[QUOTE=TAZORAC]
Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.[/QUOTE]

best joke of all time right here, hes not even with his asterisks

[QUOTE=TAZORAC]When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.[/QUOTE]

For real? Damn. :facepalm

RetORdedest thread of the year nominee.

:facepalm

[QUOTE=TAZORAC]When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://mavsmag.com/redirk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/photo-1-500x373.jpg[/IMG]

"greatest talent the nba has ever seen"

try harder op. maybe you can convince yourself next time.

OP is a fakkit.