Reply With Quote
Nonsense.
Horry > Jordan
Im reposting this from my realgm account so we can have a good discussion on this please no spam:
Whenever topics come up discussing G.O.A.T the rings argument always comes up. Why do rings have to determine the great players. Champions are won by teams and not individuals. Lets be real, if players like Ewing, Barkley, Kidd etc had stacked teams like the Bulls of the 90s or the Lakers of the 00s, you would think they'd have won a le or two.
Lets take a look at Tim Duncan, Im not trying to overrate him or anything but the guy has career averages of 21ppg 11rpg 3apg 2bpg. Those are pretty good stats. However I can get 10 other players in NBA history who's had numbers equal to his or better but they never won les because they weren't surrounded by talent he had. I would agree though that Duncan had intangibles that those other players didn't have however Would Duncan have won those les without Parker or Ginobili? Would Jordan have won those les without Pippen or Rodman? How about Shaq without Kobe or vice versa? Although we may never know the mere fact that we can ask these type of questions tells us that there is something wrong with using rings as the the main factor in determining greatness.
If we use stats and individual accomplishments such as All NBA team, All defensive teams, Defensive player of the year award, scoring les, rebounding les, etc. It gives us a better idea of greatness.
I'll give you an hypothetical example:
Player A has won 8 straight championships with career averages of 21 ppg 11rpg 3apg 2bpg. He is surrounded by really really good players a few possibly might get in the hall of fame, however Player A is the best out of them all. Because of his rings he is regarded by "today's standards" as the greatest power forward of all time. Now lets say another player (we'll call Player B) existed and has career averages of 50ppg 20rpg 10apg 10bpg but he has never made it out of the first round because he has had a team equivalent to the the 2010 New Jersey Nets. A bad team with a bad GM who fails to surround him with good solid players. As a result he has never got out of the first round and therefore isn't regarded as one of the greatest of all time despite his stats.
Now lets say the NBA all of a sudden decided to strip every team of all their players and put them in a draft like pool and allow each team to pick one at a time until every single player was picked. The team with the first pick who would they pick? Player A or Player B? Afterall player A is regarded as the greatest power forward of all time and Player B has never made it out of the first round? You would be a fool to pick player A over player B. Without a doubt the team with the first pick will chose the guy putting up steroid stats. So that would refute player B as being the greatest of all time other wise he would have been chosen first.
I just think theres more to being a great player than the number of rings you have. Its all about stats. When you compare 2 players you have to put them in an even playing field (ex: stats vs stats, accomplishments vs accomplishments etc) Not rings vs rings because there are variables that cant be accounted for such as one player with a stacked team and another with a mediocre team.
We all have seen players suddenly get respect after going to good teams even though they haven't played better at all. They just went to a better team. That is just ridiculous. Kevin Garnett didn't become better when he joined the Celtics, but because he won a ring there he's a better basketball player than he was before? That logic is absurd. Is it Patrick Ewing's fault that John Starks just failed miserably in that game 7 going 0-17? If you're going to rank them, rank them based on basketball players and not based on their team achievements.
Nonsense.
Horry > Jordan
That is the most flawed argument out there. Horry wasn't the leader or even the best player on any of the teams he's won a championship with.
in other words you stole it from someone there, right Tacker?
lol plagiarism
Since this is all hypothetical, what do you think Duncan's stats would look like if he was on a bad team that had no other options?
How about you send me a PM to Bullsfan88 dumbass.
lol plagiarism
Most likely he would have still put up his normal numbers.
The OP made me think you're re ed, this post sealed the deal.
When I say normal numbers Im talking about putting up his normal career averages? Why you really think he would have posted steroid numbers? Again youre missing the whole point. Im not in no way trying to overrated Duncan. I still think he is great. The whole point is about using rings to determine greatness I just used Duncan in an example.
If Duncan was on a ty team like the T-Wolves he'd average more than 20 points.
And no rings do not = Greatness. Adam Morrison > Karl Malone?
Thats my point.
Oh, I misunderstood. My bad.
This ruminating/obsessing over Bryant and those 4 rin, I mean 5 rings is just adorable.
What's your point Tacker. We know that you think Duncan is overrated, so what exactly are you trying to convey Ashraf?
Jordan is the GOAT because he has 6 Finals MVP's along with his other credentials, but imo a player (among winners atleast) should be judged by their Finals performance. That is another reason why Shaq will probably go down as a better player than Kobe in NBA history. And oh he put up 37/15/3 along the way in that 3 peat.Those numbers will never be matched by another player on the Finals stage.
BTW Pop's system will never allow a player to post 30ppg in a series. I think the closet a player came to posting 30ppg was Duncan and the Lakers annihilated them in 2001 & 2002. Duncan did return the favor in 2003 though. Doc River's coaching style will also not allow a player avg 30ppg and the speed of the tempo is another reason why it's not possible. Phil's on the other hand is a lot more up temp and the triangle has always benefited Big Men down low and SG's.
Scan, huffin' & puffin' blurts!
You mean those 2 rings, oh sorry you're tagging the 3 Shaq piggybacked Kobe to.
BTW Cul, are you excited to go to battle against the San Anton Heats this coming season?
Scan, catchin' his breath blurts.
RealGM is a ty website.
abusive moderators
Hey that's how i see greatness and i bet Jordan cherishes his 6 Bill Russell's the most...
BTW i'm glad we don't have Walter Brown anywhere on that Championship trophy.
Why, did you get banned?
Rarely do people use only rings to argue who the GOAT is.
Otherwise, Bill Russell would always be first, Jordan second (if you talk about "best player" on championship teams). But quite often, Wilt Chamberlain are ahead of guys like Magic and Bird, who have more championships than Wilt.
And you use extremes to make a point, but misconstrue and misrepresent how people would really evaluate those extremes. If there was a player that averaged 50/20/10/10 and didn't win any rings, he would still be considered one of the greatest of all time even if he never got out of the first round. He'd very likely be viewed as a top 5 player all time.
So let me get this straight, you honestly think that Duncan couldn't have won in '99 and '03 without Ginobili and Parker playing great basketball? Tell me what's wrong with that argument.
And lol @ listing Wilt's numbers for any sort of argument, what a joke.
I knew I should have used another example instead of Duncan. This thread just turned into a Duncan thread and thats not my point. Im just arguing that rings shouldn't be a factor in determining G.O.A.Ts
Scoring les les, popularity contests and political MVP and ALL NBA votes are a much better way to determine greatness.
Yes, (i think) is dumb enough to use rings alone.
But if Mj just had 2 (for example) I would NOT give him the edge over Magic or Kareem but being only 1 less from Bird I could still give him the edge.
The reason why I can give MJ the nod over Russell because I think his 6 are close enough, his stats are great AND he came through in the playoffs and Finals.
THAT is why MJ is the GOAT
I think you need to win at least 2 to get in the conversation of the greatest players ...
YOu need at least 4 to be in GOAT conversation ...
I know there are greats that have not one, 2 or 4 but IMHO without rings to validate your greatness ...in the big scheme of things you aint ...
The BEST of the best win les ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
