Originally Posted by FourthTenor
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?
Larry Bird and Magic Johnson for example. Both great players who played in great teams. Both are very similar players (minus the few exceptions, Bird was a better shooter and Magic a better passer, they are a lot more similar than what people think). So how do you rank those guys?
Wouldnt you use the ring factor in this case? They went head-to-head 3 times, and Magic won 2 times. Both had their primes in the 80s, but Magic played in 7 NBA Finals (im not going to count 1991 since Bird was already retired) and won 5. On the other hand, Bird played in 5 NBA Finals and won 3.
Considering they are both very similar players in terms of talent, and had similar talent surrounding them, wouldnt you rank Magic ahead of Bird because of the rings factor?