When ranking players immediately we go to the seasons where they either won a championship, MVP, statistical title, ROY, DPOY, etc. For instance, Kareem and MJ won 6 titles a piece. What about the other 14 and 9 seasons respectively? Are we not judging these players' entire careers or just the "successful ones"? IMO Kareem immediately turning the expansion Bucks into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a title is equally as impressive as winning a title on the loaded '85 Lakers. Same with Bird. Turning the Celtics immediately into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a championship that season is just as impressive as winning on the loaded '86 team.
If we look at someone like Shaq, his resume' says that he has only 2 scoring titles, ('95 and '00) which is correct. But what about '94, '98, and '99 where he finished 2nd in three of the closest races in NBA history that were basically determined on the last day of the season? Again his list of "accomplishments" will read..."2 scoring titles". It will ignore that he missed having 5 by a combined 1.4 points. Are those 3 seasons not part of his career and figure into what type of player he was?
I could include other examples involving other players, but hopefully you get the point. I'm just simply wondering why more attention is not paid to a players entire career as opposed to just the seasons where he won an MVP, title, statistical crown, etc. I know that it's easier to itemize the stuff he won and/or came first in, but if I have two players with otherwise equal talents and resume's, and one (Player A) won 3 finals in 3 finals appearances while another (Player B) won 2 in 5 appearances, I don't think that I can just discount the fact that player B led his team to 2 more Finals just beause player A won 1 more.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
When ranking players immediately we go to the seasons where they either won a championship, MVP, statistical title, ROY, DPOY, etc. For instance, Kareem and MJ won 6 titles a piece. What about the other 13 and 9 seasons respectively? Are we not judging these players' entire careers or just the "successful ones"? IMO Kareem immediately turning the expansion Bucks into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a title is equally as impressive as winning a title on the loaded '85 Lakers. Same with Bird. Turning the Celtics immediately into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a championship that season is just as impressive as winning on the loaded '86 team.
If we look at someone like Shaq, his resume' says that he has only 2 scoring titles, ('95 and '00) which is correct. But what about '94, '98, and '99 where he finished 2nd in three of the closest races in NBA history that were basically determined on the last day of the season? Again his list of "accomplishments" will read..."2 scoring titles". It will ignore that he missed having 5 by a combined 1.4 points. Are those 3 seasons not part of his career and figure into what type of player he was?
I could include other examples involving other players, but hopefully you get the point. I'm just simply wondering why more attention is not paid to a players entire career as opposed to just the seasons where he won an MVP, title, statistical crown, etc. I know that it's easier to itemize the stuff he won and/or came first in, but if I have two players with otherwise equal talents and resume's, and one (Player A) won 3 finals in 3 finals appearances while another (Player B) won 2 in 5 appearances, I don't think that I can just discount the fact that player B led his team to 2 more Finals just beause player A won 1 more.
I agree with this. I'm a firm believer in looking at each players circumstances. Id say about 95% of the time, a player wins cuz he's on the best team.
Its why I feel scottie pippens 95 (not 94) season is as impressive as anyones. Especially when yoou look at context. He literraly had to do everything that year and had the bulls on pace to win about 45 games. I can't think of another player that did more with the same amount of talent or less.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
I'm just simply wondering why more attention is not paid to a players entire career as opposed to just the seasons where he won an MVP, title, statistical crown, etc.
Because people don't really do an in-depth year by year look at a player's career. All this, "he won 5 scoring titles compared to so and so's 2 scoring titles" or "he made 8X all defensive teams and 7 All-NBA second compared to so and so's 5X all defensive team and 5X All-NBA first" is dumb IMO (and doing this sort of comparison across different eras mind you, making it even more stupid). It's nice to mention it in passing to show how the player rated in his time, but using that to analyze players across different eras makes little sense to me. I used to look at careers this way...when I knew a lot less than I know now. It's basically a way to cover up gaps of knowledge people have about a player and is the laziest way of comparing players I've seen.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97 bulls
I agree with this. I'm a firm believer in looking at each players circumstances. Id say about 95% of the time, a player wins cuz he's on the best team.
Its why I feel scottie pippens 95 (not 94) season is as impressive as anyones. Especially when yoou look at context. He literraly had to do everything that year and had the bulls on pace to win about 45 games. I can't think of another player that did more with the same amount of talent or less.
Pippen was not as good defensively as Jordan or Payton, otherwise he'd have a DPOY.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
When ranking players immediately we go to the seasons where they either won a championship, MVP, statistical title, ROY, DPOY, etc. For instance, Kareem and MJ won 6 titles a piece. What about the other 14 and 9 seasons respectively? Are we not judging these players' entire careers or just the "successful ones"? IMO Kareem immediately turning the expansion Bucks into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a title is equally as impressive as winning a title on the loaded '85 Lakers. Same with Bird. Turning the Celtics immediately into contenders his rookie season despite not winning a championship that season is just as impressive as winning on the loaded '86 team.
I'm totally acclimatised to ISH now. I can see how Jordan fans would see a hidden agenda here. Maybe I can play devil's advocate and point out that Jordan's Bulls were garbage before him and then with him in his first year. Kareem and Bird automatically made their teams relevant. Match point, Kareem and Bird.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
I'm totally acclimatised to ISH now. I can see how Jordan fans would see a hidden agenda here. Maybe I can play devil's advocate and point out that Jordan's Bulls were garbage before him and then with him in his first year. Kareem and Bird automatically made their teams relevant. Match point, Kareem and Bird.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
I could include other examples involving other players, but hopefully you get the point. I'm just simply wondering why more attention is not paid to a players entire career as opposed to just the seasons where he won an MVP, title, statistical crown, etc. I know that it's easier to itemize the stuff he won and/or came first in, but if I have two players with otherwise equal talents and resume's, and one (Player A) won 3 finals in 3 finals appearances while another (Player B) won 2 in 5 appearances, I don't think that I can just discount the fact that player B led his team to 2 more Finals just beause player A won 1 more.
Call it the Magic phenomena. He was always competing. Duncan is the even better example.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
I'm totally acclimatised to ISH now. I can see how Jordan fans would see a hidden agenda here. Maybe I can play devil's advocate and point out that Jordan's Bulls were garbage before him and then with him in his first year. Kareem and Bird automatically made their teams relevant. Match point, Kareem and Bird.
I've said this before, but when your best player is a volume scorer on a bad team who doesn't have quite as developed of an all-around game, as Jordan was in his first few years, you're most likely not going to win very much until his supporting cast starts to put the pieces together.
Bird and Kareem did have a bigger impact on their team as rookies, as did guys like Magic and Duncan, but I don't think it's the fairest comparison.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiiu
Pro Lebrick Agenda.
/Cantfoolme
WOW! Seriously. You looked at this thread, and the first thing that came to your mind was...Lebron? For real? Dude, you need a hobby, vacation, or something. The fact that a man can be on your mind this much is just plain sad. This thread has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Lebron.
Re: Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaSwagg3r
Yo OP, who is currently better to you, Wade or LeBron?
I will answer this question in another thread. I don't want to derail this thread into some redundant debate about the same players which every other thread turns into.
Go to your "win a playoff series thread" for my reply.
Ranking players and the neglected "other" seasons
