Re: THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time
I've often asked the question, when ranking players why do only the "successful" seasons (i.e. Championships and MVPs) usually count? If a player played 14 seasons and won 4 titles, then if I am evaluating his greatness, I need to consider the other 10 also. If he won 3 MVPs then I need to consider the other 11 seasons that he didn't win MVPs also. This really becomes and issue when comparing two players whose careers and accomplishments are pretty close. Lets say if you have two players...X and Y...Again most of their accomplishments and awards are pretty even, and they both played 14 seasons...
Player X won 4 rings in 4 Finals
4 Finals MVPs
10 seasons not winning the title
2 losing seasons
1 season not making the playoffs
No conference Finals other than the 4 championship years
Player Y won 3 rings in 6 Finals
3 Finals MVPs
11 seasons not winning the title
No losing seasons
Never missed the playoffs
Made 7 conference Finals
Again, if the other parts of their resume' (stats, awards, etc.) are comparable, who is considered greater? Do we just look at the successful (i.e championship) seasons and throw the rest of their careers out of the window? Is player X truly a greater "winner" than player Y simply because of the extra ring?