Also, Russell's Celtics owned more depth advantages across the board than any team in history has ever had. The current Heat and Lakers only wish they were as relatively better than the rest of the league as the old Celtics were.
Mikan was a scrub. Tallest and biggest man to ever play and with a tiny key to work in, he shot 40%. Basketball was evolving back then. Give credit to the old Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics for figuring it out, but by the 80's, so did the rest of the league.
You already posted that.
See my post that disproves that theory. For the early and middle part of the 60s, that might've been somewhat true, but not for the late 60s.
The 68 and 69 Lakers were actually more talented than Russell's Celtics and still failed to win a championship.
MY 15 GREATEST OF ALL TIME:
CHamberlain at center
Russell at power forward/center
Larry Bird at small forward
Magic at point
Jordan at off guard
Shaq at center
Duncan at power forward
Rodman as defensive small forward
Kobe at off guard
Pippen as point forward
Arvydas Sabonis as point center (he can hit the three also)
Kareem as offensive power forward/center
Paul Presssey as point forward
Manu Ginobili at off guard
Oscar Robertson at point.
I love point forwards!
Since a championship is a championship, and using your statement, the ones with the most les are the greatest no matter when they are won, let me ask you this:
Who are the greatest college football teams of all time?
So, let's see, let's name a few collegiate powerhouses:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, USC, Florida, Texas, Penn State, LSU, Miami, Georgia.....
Hate to break it to you pal, but Princeton (28 les) and Harvard (26 les) should be the greatest because they have more les than any other college. Please convince us they are the greatest. then get laughed off the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College...Division_I_FBS
That's great. But we're talking about the NBA here, which has a much shorter history.
And anyhow, to someone who is a 1000 years old, Princeton and Harvard just might be the greatest programs of all time. We ascribe more importance to events that occur closer to our lifetimes.
By your logic, if the game evolves another significant step in 100 years (say they allow performance enhancing drugs that are far more advanced than steroids, or if the technology is there, cybernetic augmentation) and the Clippers win 10 championships during this period, while the Lakers stay stuck at 16 or 17, the Clippers should be considered the greater franchise because they won a significant amount of championships during "a more evolved era."
Also by your logic, the Bulls are the greater franchise than the Celtics, because they won all of their championships in the "modern era" while the Celtics have only won 5.
You just can't discount history because something evolves. The United States could obliterate medieval England, but we are not relatively the more dominant empire.
Oh, and quit strawmanning me.
I never equivocally stated that the franchises with the most championships are automatically the greatest.
This is what I said:
Doesn't matter. A championship is a championship, no matter the era in which it was won. When we're comparing franchises, you compare their entire existence with one another.
And yes, it's somewhat important to consider qualitative issues such as the era in which a championship was won, but the value assigned to those championships is a matter of opinion.
You misunderstand my logic and yours is messed up. You state most means best, I don't. It's crystal clear Harvard and Princeton aren't the best. Your logic would say to always apply most as meaning best and that falls apart when you compare players and their rings.
All you want to do is put down the Lakers, we know your schtick. You can win some arguments, and you can lose some arguments. What happened 50 years ago in the NBA is already ancient history in relation to how the game has evolved, and simply has less relevance. Exact same thing with Harvard's and Princeton's les. It doesn't matter they are different sports, all of them evolve.
The future? We will watch it unfold before us.
I never stated such. If you missed it, see my post above your most recent.
How can you determine this a priori? To the fans who witnessed those championships being won, it was just as important and meaningful as any championships being won currently. Just because we weren't there and the game wasn't as sophisticated back then doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of those championships.It's crystal clear Harvard and Princeton aren't the best. Your logic would say to always apply most as meaning best and that falls apart when you compare players and their rings.
Furthermore, your skewed logic would suggest that an NBDL le is more important than a Minneapolis Lakers le, because the NBDL is a "more evolved league."
Say that out loud and laugh at how ridiculous it sounds.
Ok, let's get off this argument, and I'll ask you another question.
What was worse, even though both players won les:
A) Jerry West shooting 30% in 1972 playoffs versus Milwaukee and the Knicks (11 games)
B) Kobe shooting 6-24 in game 7 against the Celtics in game 7, 2010.
The comparison doesn't make any sense.
If we're going to compare their relative performances, we should compare their respective playoff runs or Finals series against each other.
Looking at the stats, Kobe's 2010 playoff run was far better than West's, who shot a dismal .376 from the field.
I'm not gonna hate. I really want to say something mean, but I won't.
You have no control over the face you're born with, and I have to praise the girl for trying her hardest to look the best she can.
West shot well versus Chicago. I don't have his stats in the last two series, but I recall they were about 30%, including something like 1-14 in game 1 versus the Bucks. Chamberlain and Goodrich carried the team, and topped finals MVP voting order. The point is, both Jerry and Kobe admitted they got caught up in the hype. West entered that season ready to quit. Lakers won the first 37 games he played in, going 2-3 early in the year without him when he sprained an ankle. Baylor gave up, then a 33 game winning streak ensued. As the playoffs dawned West expected to win a championship but couldn't perform, and he admitted that when it was all over. I believe Kobe expected to win going into game 7 vs. Boston and admitted while getting his MVP trophy, the hype got the best of him.
Clearly West's performance was the worst, whether you compare the criteria in my original post, or the entire playoffs. Yet, few talked then or now about West's poor showing, just as no one will talk about 6-24 in the future. (Except you and H-Ho) What really matters is a le. West finally got his, and Kobe actually beat the Celtics, something West would have also done had Boston not been upset by the Knicks in the ECF who were without Willis Reed.
Of course, because the media likes to gloss over facts when hyping up their most popular cash cows.
At the end of the day, rings are a TEAM accomplishment. Kobe was not the best player in the league during the past two seasons, nor do I believe Duncan was the best player in the league in '07, but by virtue of a little luck and strong supporting casts, they were able to win despite not being the best.
Trolling aside, I hate top ten player lists and the like, and honestly, I don't care about player vs. player comparisons. It's objectively impossible to determine, because how can you compare single players when so much of who they are is dependent on what kind of teammates they have, what system they're in, who the coach is, etc...
There's simply too many variables at work, and truthfully, it's a meaningless argument. Basketball is a TEAM game after all.
Exactly, I find it hard to compare players as well. Some had the right teammates and won les. Some languished in lottery land and never won squat. For what it's worth, West still did other things on the court in the 1972 playoffs. He dished for assists and provided leadership.
I like the NBA's list of top 50 at 50 years and have it narrowed down to a top 20 of my own opinion, but truth is,TI don't know exactly who should be added to that list from the last 14 years. Tim and Kobe should be, maybe it's too soon for LeBron, Wade, Carmelo,Nowitkzki, et al....Shaq is the only player on that list still active, and I am not certain he should be a top 10 player. His career just hasn't been consistent enough and we all know Shaq can't win without Kobe/D.Wade. LOL, had to throw that in...
Kobe can't win without Shaq. Well, finally wrong.
Wade can't win without Shaq. probably will hold true, lol.
But, Kobe wasn't white, at least after Colorado.
tee, hee.
She looks like Jimmie Durante's grand-daughter, or, she's eating a banana.
Spot on, there.
daam, u should be banned for smth like dat tbh.
dwade = bron > larry>> kobe
Larry Bird is a tough comparison (if you're trying to draw the comparison between him and Duncan) in terms of how their legacies should be viewed. You look what prevented the Larry Bird Celtics from winning back-to-back championships in Larry's prime. The Celtics went to 4 straight NBA Finals from 1984 to 1987. What prevented them from going back-to-back were the Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers who would end up winning 5 les in that era.
The best chance for Duncan's Spurs to go back-to-back would have been in either 2004 or 2006. In 2004, they lost to a great Lakers squad with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Gary Payton. In 2006, they lost in 7 games to the Dallas Mavericks. But it's important to note that neither opponent went on to win the le that year and both losses were in the second round of the playoffs.
Personally, I don't buy the "back-to-back" argument making a great player less of a great player for not going back-to-back, because it's so hard to do and everything has to go right, including staying healthy and getting lucky bounces along the way. But, if you're going to make the argument against it, I don't think Larry Bird is a very relevant comparison to make to help support the argument. Bird in his prime went to four straight NBA Finals and it was one of the greatest teams of all time and greatest players of all time in Magic and the Lakeshow that kept Bird from going back-to-back.
Well, pish posh.
Of course you don't how else would you explain those one-hit mo-town wonders...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
