Re: Why do people rank players based on team achievements and not personal achievements?
I think a lot of people use it as a cop out because they aren't sophisticated enough to compare them one on one. Karl Malone thinks he's the best PF ever but says rings determine who is the greatest. I just think he's a combination of stupid and lazy. Rodman wasn't his equal, but to hear him tell it Rodman was greater. Tony Parker is the best player on SA but is he really the best point guard out there? In baseball people know Jeter isn't better than Pujols but in Basketball its a different standard. Gretsky wasn't the guy with the most rings during his tenure... But basketball its different.
Dwight Howard can win three rings and he's better than Hakeem - add another two and he's better than Shaq. Chris Paul has to win this year or he almost has no chance of being better than Tony Parker. It gets stupid after awhile. This winning as best player was something that used to be reserved only for One on One sports where it does make sense. But the second you start adding players, it loses validity. 10 players and 10 roles it's no longer a way say winning is the ultimate criteria in judging an individuals impact. If you have no analytical skills it works.