Originally Posted by Javat_90
Take Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett for example. Both arguably have very similar primes in terms of basketball talent, both share a lot of traits: defense, team-ball, efficient offense, good passing...etc. But there has to be some factor we can use to rank them properly, well this is the ring factor. What im trying to say is that people should not focus everything on rings, but the ring factor is still a valid one if used in the proper context.
I still don't see what you think the justification is for this.
You could compare the ways in which Duncan and Garnett score, because they both score. You can compare their efficiency, free throw shooting, usage rate etc. because its strictly an apples-to-apples comparison.
You can compare their rebounding because they both rebound. You can compare their passing because they both pass. Defense, minutes per game, etc.
But they didnt have the same coach. They didnt have the same teammates. They didnt play on teams with equal payrolls. These things are huge factors in playoff success.
So why would you even bring that up if you're comparing them? It's nothing they can control and its no measure of them as players. It's just an excuse for people who are too lazy or too incompetent to compare them in the aforementioned ways.
There's literally no place for it. Even in a sport like basketball the team FAR outweighs the individual. History proves it. So leave the team achievements out. If you cant make a comparison based on the players themselves, then just excuse yourself from the argument. It's not that hard. Ya know?