Will idiots ever stop using TEAM accomplishments over Player accomplishments

[Dr.J4ever]

This whole thread is ridiculous. Basketball is a TEAM sport with 5 players going up against another 5, not 1 on 1.

And yet, only one player has the ball at any one time. So the person who has the ball has enormous influence on what happens during that particular time.
The point of playing basketball is to win. You produce stats for the purpose of winning, and not the other way around. Ultimately, the team that wins have the better players since they are doing what the purpose of the game intended for them to do.

Stats count, but you have to win MORE THAN YOU LOSE, otherwise, you are a failure. If you are a player that helps your team win more than it loses, you are a winner, and players that make their team win titles are the ultimate winners. Simple logic, and this logic answers the question of how good players like Barkley, Miller, Ewing are compared to Jordan.

Anyone who thinks stats can be taken in ISOLATION to team success hasn't really played the game.

[Rake2204]

This whole thread is ridiculous. Basketball is a TEAM sport with 5 players going up against another 5, not 1 on 1.

And yet, only one player has the ball at any one time. So the person who has the ball has enormous influence on what happens during that particular time.
The point of playing basketball is to win. You produce stats for the purpose of winning, and not the other way around. Ultimately, the team that wins have the better players since they are doing what the purpose of the game intended for them to do.

Stats count, but you have to win MORE THAN YOU LOSE, otherwise, you are a failure. If you are a player that helps your team win more than it loses, you are a winner, and players that make their team win titles are the ultimate winners. Simple logic, and this logic answers the question of how good players like Barkley, Miller, Ewing are compared to Jordan.

Anyone who thinks stats can be taken in ISOLATION to team success hasn't really played the game.

It is my belief that a great player can heavily influence his team. However, I don't believe that single player greatness always directly correlates to championships.

For instance, I believe LeBron James to be one of the greatest players of all-time. I also feel he's been one of the all-time greats for the vast majority of his career. However, like any player, James alone cannot win an NBA championship, but I believe he can heavily influence any team for which he is a part in a very positive fashion. And I think that's the sign of a great player.

As an example, the 2003 Cavaliers won 17 games. The following season, James' rookie year, they more than doubled their win total with a similarly talented roster (save for the addition of James). They then won 42 games the next year and as the roster surrounding James slowly improved (along with James' skills), the wins kept growing and growing, until the Cavs were a regular 60-win ball club with championship aspirations.

Point being, James would have never been able to lead the 2004 Cavaliers to a championship. Yet, if he were stuck with that '04 roster his entire career, I don't think it would have made him any less great. He had a serious, serious effect on that squad, it's just that at some point, the team must pull its own respective weight (as it began to do later in the 2000's).

In that same vein, I sometimes like to imagine Michael Jordan playing for the 1993 Mavericks (11 game winners). Adding '93 Jordan to that roster would have led to a doubling, tripling, or perhaps quadrupling of wins. But they would have never won a championship. I don't think that would have made Jordan any less of a great player and I wouldn't find it fair to negatively judge him for the shortcomings of his teammates (Sean Rooks, Walter Bond and company).

In conclusion, I do not find your logic very simple at all. In contrast, I actually commend the likes of Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, and Reggie Miller for affecting their teams as positively as they did. Those squads would have been nowhere near as good (however good they were) without those legends asserting their impact. But again, sometimes teams can only go as far as the collective whole may allow.

[Dr.J4ever]

It is my belief that a great player can heavily influence his team. However, I don't believe that single player greatness always directly correlates to championships.

For instance, I believe LeBron James to be one of the greatest players of all-time. I also feel he's been one of the all-time greats for the vast majority of his career. However, like any player, James alone cannot win an NBA championship, but I believe he can heavily influence any team for which he is a part in a very positive fashion. And I think that's the sign of a great player.

As an example, the 2003 Cavaliers won 17 games. The following season, James' rookie year, they more than doubled their win total with a similarly talented roster (save for the addition of James). They then won 42 games the next year and as the roster surrounding James slowly improved (along with James' skills), the wins kept growing and growing, until the Cavs were a regular 60-win ball club with championship aspirations.

Point being, James would have never been able to lead the 2004 Cavaliers to a championship. Yet, if he were stuck with that '04 roster his entire career, I don't think it would have made him any less great. He had a serious, serious effect on that squad, it's just that at some point, the team must pull its own respective weight (as it began to do later in the 2000's).

In that same vein, I sometimes like to imagine Michael Jordan playing for the 1993 Mavericks (11 game winners). Adding '93 Jordan to that roster would have led to a doubling, tripling, or perhaps quadrupling of wins. But they would have never won a championship. I don't think that would have made Jordan any less of a great player and I wouldn't find it fair to negatively judge him for the shortcomings of his teammates (Sean Rooks, Walter Bond and company).

In conclusion, I do not find your logic very simple at all. In contrast, I actually commend the likes of Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, and Reggie Miller for affecting their teams as positively as they did. Those squads would have been nowhere near as good (however good they were) without those legends asserting their impact. But again, sometimes teams can only go as far as the collective whole may allow.

I think I put in caps what i meant for a reason. To be even considered a great player, you have to win more than you lose, at the very least. Miller, Charles, Ewing were great players because they did that.. Now, you are correct---Lebron would have been considered great even if he never joined Miami, and played for a good, but not great Cleveland team his whole career.

Would Lebron ever be considered top 10 if he never won a title? Probably not.
The benefit of the doubt will have to fall on the winning teams. It would really depend on the individual situation, but in a long career, it would be hard to believe a great player like a Lebron would never figure out to win a title even once. Even with a little luck, like an injury with a top player from a favored team, it should happen even once in a 15 year career.

[Rake2204]

I think I put in caps what i meant for a reason. To be even considered a great player, you have to win more than you lose, at the very least. Miller, Charles, Ewing were great players because they did that.. Now, you are correct---Lebron would have been considered great even if he never joined Miami, and played for a good, but not great Cleveland team his whole career.

Would Lebron ever be considered top 10 if he never won a title? Probably not.
The benefit of the doubt will have to fall on the winning teams. It would really depend on the individual situation, but in a long career, it would be hard to believe a great player like a Lebron would never figure out to win a title even once. Even with a little luck, like an injury with a top player from a favored team, it should happen even once in a 15 year career.

I see where you are coming from, but I still believe my opinion may differ. I believe LeBron James should have been considered an all-time top 10 player regardless of whether his team was ever good enough to win an NBA championship. I believe when you're a great player, you're a great player. But again, at some point, there's a limit as to how far any single player can take a team (even the greatest of all-time).

LeBron James' influence on any team he played for was strong enough to vastly improve his squad's chances of winning any time he stepped on the court. However, like in the case of his rookie squad, that might just mean improving their chances to win from 14% to 38%. On a team that actually had some solid players (Ilgauskas, Williams, Wallace, Szczerbiak) and cohesion, he may have lifted them from being a .500 or less squad to being an .800 or greater championship competitor.

All that said, I still do not believe that means James himself would have been solely responsible for finding a way for his team to play good enough collectively to win a championship just so he could be deemed an all-time great. Perhaps his greatness pushed them to the absolute limit, which was to nearly win 70 games and fall victim to a white hot shooting opponent in the conference finals.

Further, you mention luck, and I think that can play a role, but so can bad fortune. Just as we'd hope James could have somehow lucked into a ring in Cleveland (or as some believe he may have done via Allen's shot in Miami), I think it's just as possible that James could have been unlucky and that could have resulted in coming up short (say, losing the ECF in six games, one loss coming in OT and another on a wide up midrange miss at the buzzer). Those are the breaks of the game sometimes and again, I'm not sure I'd have them define a player's individual skill or greatness.

[Dr.J4ever]

I see where you are coming from, but I still believe my opinion may differ. I believe LeBron James should have been considered an all-time top 10 player regardless of whether his team was ever good enough to win an NBA championship. I believe when you're a great player, you're a great player. But again, at some point, there's a limit as to how far any single player can take a team (even the greatest of all-time).

LeBron James' influence on any team he played for was strong enough to vastly improve his squad's chances of winning any time he stepped on the court. However, like in the case of his rookie squad, that might just mean improving their chances to win from 14% to 38%. On a team that actually had some solid players (Ilgauskas, Williams, Wallace, Szczerbiak) and cohesion, he may have lifted them from being a .500 or less squad to being an .800 or greater championship competitor.

All that said, I still do not believe that means James himself would have been solely responsible for finding a way for his team to play good enough collectively to win a championship just so he could be deemed an all-time great. Perhaps his greatness pushed them to the absolute limit, which was to nearly win 70 games and fall victim to a white hot shooting opponent in the conference finals.

Further, you mention luck, and I think that can play a role, but so can bad fortune. Just as we'd hope James could have somehow lucked into a ring in Cleveland (or as some believe he may have done via Allen's shot in Miami), I think it's just as possible that James could have been unlucky and that could have resulted in coming up short (say, losing the ECF in six games, one loss coming in OT and another on a wide up midrange miss at the buzzer). Those are the breaks of the game sometimes and again, I'm not sure I'd have them define a player's individual skill or greatness.

Yes, luck can surely play a part in winning titles. This is why you never look at just 1 year. HOF or GOAT qualifications will have to look at the totality of one's career. Were there mitigating circumstances that prevented you from winning? Did you have a bad GM? Did your top shooter always get injured in title runs? Or did the other team's best player break his knee? These are all factors.

This is why the ultimate respect needs to be given to players who were the nucleus of their teams, and yet won again and again. Case in point---Bill Russell. I heard it said Russell had great teammates, but I also heard it said that Russell won without all the great teammates he ever had. Meaning, he won without Cousy. He won without Havlicek. He won without Sam Jones. So on and so forth.

Something to think about if you are looking at obstacles and great players overcoming them.

[Rake2204]

Yes, luck can surely play a part in winning titles. This is why you never look at just 1 year. HOF or GOAT qualifications will have to look at the totality of one's career. Were there mitigating circumstances that prevented you from winning? Did you have a bad GM? Did your top shooter always get injured in title runs? Or did the other team's best player break his knee? These are all factors.

This is why the ultimate respect needs to be given to players who were the nucleus of their teams, and yet won again and again. Case in point---Bill Russell. I heard it said Russell had great teammates, but I also heard it said that Russell won without all the great teammates he ever had. Meaning, he won without Cousy. He won without Havlicek. He won without Sam Jones. So on and so forth.

Something to think about if you are looking at obstacles and great players overcoming them.

I would agree with your first paragraph. As it stands, however, I feel as though many people do not take circumstance into account. It just becomes, "Yeah well, so-and-so have ____ rings." For instance, I believe there's many stars whose teams won championships despite that player's unusually poor play in the playoffs or finals. Folks say, "a ring is a ring" and that in and of itself is true, but again, I just do not believe it necessarily speaks toward a single player's individual skill level or ability.

As for Russell, I must admit I do not know enough about his teams year to year to offer much feedback in that regard. All signs point to Bill Russell being a spectacular player regardless of championships though, yes? It also seems Russell frequently really did have a lot of outstanding teammates throughout most of his career. Again, I'd have to look closer, but when he'd win without Cousy, he'd have Havlicek. When his team would lose one, he seemed to pick up a worthy replacement.

But as you said, I'd agree each championship probably had its own circumstances, luck, and reasoning.

[rmt]

IMO, it is very difficult to separate individual from team accomplishments. Had Lebron stayed in CLE and never won a championship, he'd never break GOAT top 10 no matter how many MVPs, all-nba, all-defensive awards he wins or how he dominates the league simply because others have the individual awards and ALSO have won championships. The goal of the game is to win. Ask Dirk how bittersweet collecting a MVP trophy is while having lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Case in point, look how close Lebron was (28 seconds away) from being labelled loser, choker, 1 in 4 Finals, etc. Instead, some idiots will be giving him GOAT top 5 status should he win this year.

[stanlove1111]

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.

Agreed. What James did in Cleveland is just as impressive as what Kobe did with the stacked lakers.

What Wilt did on some weak teams is just as impressive as others winning titles with stacked teams. Problem with Wilt when compared to Russell or Jordan is what he failed to do with his teams from 65-73. That's why they are 1 and 2 and he is top

Not sure what greatest talent has to do with anything. The only thing a player should be judged on is how much value he adds to a basketball team. Oscar was a great talent but his value to a team lacks when compaed to some others.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp for so many.

[Dr.J4ever]

Agreed. What James did in Cleveland is just as impressive as what Kobe did with the stacked lakers.

What Wilt did on some weak teams is just as impressive as others winning titles with stacked teams. Problem with Wilt when compared to Russell or Jordan is what he failed to do with his teams from 65-73. That's why they are 1 and 2 and he is top

Not sure what greatest talent has to do with anything. The only thing a player should be judged on is how much value he adds to a basketball team. Oscar was a great talent but his value to a team lacks when compaed to some others.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp for so many.

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?

[ArbitraryWater]

Just the other day this CelticsGarlic fool told me Titles are the Nr.1 Priority AMONGST RANKING INDIDIUALS

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.

[Dr.J4ever]

Just the other day this CelticsGarlic fool told me Titles are the Nr.1 Priority AMONGST RANKING INDIDIUALS

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.

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.

[gasolina]

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.

See, it's great performances from the players to get to that ring which matters.

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.

[Rake2204]

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?

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.

[stanlove1111]

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?

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.

[ILLsmak]

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.

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