PDA

View Full Version : Comparison of All-time Greats, in what order do you measure their greatness by .....



JordansBulls
08-28-2008, 02:53 PM
Comparison of All-time Greats, in what order do you measure their greatness by performance?

When you are comparing the all time greats, in what order do you examine their greatness?

Which is first, second and third when comparing a players greatness?

A) How they Performed in the NBA Finals
B) How they Performed in the NBA Playoffs
C) How they Performed in the NBA Regular Season

Which order do you consider their greatness?

NOTE: These are a few examples, not actual comparisons just something to think about. (When comparing Hakeem vs Shaq or Stockton vs Isiah how do you base it first)

Lakersfan2483
08-28-2008, 03:21 PM
I measure their greatness in terms of how they perfomed in the NBA finals, playoffs and then finally the regular season. The playoff and the finals gauge the greatness of a player. MJ, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, Magic, Bird are all players who come to mind that performed on the greatest stage i.e. the NBA finals.

MiamiHeat
08-28-2008, 03:28 PM
I measure their greatness in terms of how they perfomed in the NBA finals, playoffs and then finally the regular season. The playoff and the finals gauge the greatness of a player. MJ, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, Magic, Bird are all players who come to mind that performed on the greatest stage i.e. the NBA finals.

Dwyane Wade

JordansBulls
08-28-2008, 03:31 PM
Dwyane Wade

He did great when he was there, the other guys have been there more often.

MiamiHeat
08-28-2008, 03:34 PM
In the Finals and Playoffs are were the superstars are made
and were you separate the superstars and the rest.
Finals and Playoffs are the 2 main things and the Season is the last in my list
1. Finals
2. Playoffs
3. Regular Season

Lakersfan2483
08-28-2008, 03:34 PM
John Stockton and Malone were great players, but I would not rank them as high as let's say a player like: Shaq. The Diesel put up some astronomical type numbers during his first 3 title runs..... Malone didn't perform as well during the finals, but it doesn't discredit Karl, it just puts him behind guys like MJ, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, Magic, Kareem.

Lakersfan2483
08-28-2008, 03:36 PM
Top Finals performers: MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Isaiah, Duncan, Hakeem, Havlicek, Shaq, Worthy, M. Malone, Dr. J

Note: Havlicek and Worthy were 2nd option players, but performed great.

Lakersfan2483
08-28-2008, 03:40 PM
Dwyane Wade

Wade was great but he has only been to the finals once.

IndyRealist
08-28-2008, 03:58 PM
Finals, regular season, then playoffs. The Finals are the mainstage, but the regular season is a marathon. If you can't be consistently good, you're not great.

JordansBulls
08-28-2008, 04:07 PM
This is why the topic says how do you measure the greatness of all time greats. You wouldn't be an all time great if you didn't do well in the regular season.

J-N-M-ETS4LYF
08-28-2008, 04:32 PM
Yea finals are a the main stage but not everyone makes to the finals.. or even the playoffs... !

ANd the regualr season is the where they play most of their games.. ? Isn't it.. its the larger sample.. its the only type of game that every player must have played throughout their career.. It's the majority ... That has the biggest sample size.. It had to be the judge..

PLayers that make it.. You cant definitly use to seperate them from each other.. but the regular season is what counts.. its what makes the palyers career.

Lakersfan2483
08-28-2008, 04:38 PM
The playoffs and the Finals separate the really good players from the legends. Think of all the greats and how they were at their best when it mattered the most.

bogdanrom
08-28-2008, 04:59 PM
Yea finals are a the main stage but not everyone makes to the finals.. or even the playoffs... !
ANd the regualr season is the where they play most of their games.. ? Isn't it.. its the larger sample.. its the only type of game that every player must have played throughout their career.. It's the majority ... That has the biggest sample size.. It had to be the judge..

PLayers that make it.. You cant definitly use to seperate them from each other.. but the regular season is what counts.. its what makes the palyers career.

If you don't make it to the Finals or even the playoffs you shouldn't be in the discussion of the greatest. To be considered one of the greatest you have to win NBA Titles, make the playoffs, but also have good regular seasons.
1. NBA Finals
2. NBA Playoffs
3. Regular Season

thesparky33
08-28-2008, 06:26 PM
I'm almost opposite of everyone else here.

Maybe I'm not talking about All-Time greats, but when I think of just how good certain players are, I judge them on how they perform in the regular season first, not just the postseason or Finals.

As a Timberwolf fan, I remember the playoffs in 2003, where Troy Hudson during the regular season was a decent starting PG, but in the playoff series against the Lakers, he played magnificent, although we wound up losing the series... but that wound up giving Hudson his big contract... are we supposed to judge him based on his great playoff series, or his crappy regular season statistics?

Is Tony Parker a better player than Steve Nash, just because he's performed better in the playoffs/Finals? Hell no.

If we go by Finals, then Playoffs, then Regular Season, then Robert Horry might as well be a top 5 GOAT...

thesparky33
08-28-2008, 06:31 PM
Also, I believe that no individual player can win a championship or even get their team into the playoffs, even Michael.

That very reason is why judging based on how they do in the Finals (because only those who are on great teams make the Finals) over the regular season isnt the greatest way to truly measure a player. Also, the Finals are 7 games long at best... what kind of a sample is that? I know it's "the biggest stage" and players "rise to the occasion", but it's the players who are consistent who are the greatest IMO... not just the ones who are good "when it counts"... cuz it's the consistent ones who get their teams to those games.

ARMIN12NBA
08-28-2008, 06:47 PM
Also, I believe that no individual player can win a championship or even get their team into the playoffs, even Michael.

That very reason is why judging based on how they do in the Finals (because only those who are on great teams make the Finals) over the regular season isnt the greatest way to truly measure a player. Also, the Finals are 7 games long at best... what kind of a sample is that? I know it's "the biggest stage" and players "rise to the occasion", but it's the players who are consistent who are the greatest IMO... not just the ones who are good "when it counts"... cuz it's the consistent ones who get their teams to those games.

Exactly. 4-7 game isn't a large enough sampling to determine greatness. The playoffs as a whole is a better way as well as the regular season.

Hawkeye15
08-28-2008, 06:50 PM
Dwyane Wade

for more than 4 games though

bogdanrom
08-28-2008, 07:09 PM
Actually I kind of change my answer. To be considered one of the greatest you have to do all three and be pretty successful at it too.You can't only have a regular season, and go to the playoffs.

_Sn1P3r_
08-28-2008, 07:50 PM
You gotta do all 3. You gotta have a good regular season that will get you to the playoffs, then a good playoff performance to get to the Finals, and lastly, a good Finals performance for the ring.

IversonIsKrazy
08-29-2008, 01:21 AM
hey we shouldda used this when we were examining the #3 SG today, no way t-mac shouldda bin rated over AI.

fredv
08-29-2008, 05:26 AM
They got to step up through the whole playoffs and not just show up in the Finals...

JordansBulls
08-29-2008, 11:33 AM
Exactly. 4-7 game isn't a large enough sampling to determine greatness. The playoffs as a whole is a better way as well as the regular season.


How is it not when we are talking about all time greats?

What the finals isn't good enough motivation for an alltime great to be measured? Should we measure them based on regular season games where the stakes aren't much?

The finals is what separates the greats from one another. The playoffs makes that name for you and the season is where you are expected to dominate to even be in the conversation.

agnine
08-29-2008, 11:46 AM
I think you have to take it on an individual bass. If Jordan was on the Clippers, he sure as hell wouldn't have won a title. You can be one of the greatest of all time without winning it all. If you have a totally **** team and don't make the playoffs for several years that doesn't mean that you aren't one of the greatest. Are any of the 2004 Pistons considered to be Top 50 players because that TEAM won a title? Elgin Baylor never won, does that diminish what he did on the court?

JordansBulls
08-29-2008, 11:50 AM
I think you have to take it on an individual bass. If Jordan was on the Clippers, he sure as hell wouldn't have won a title. You can be one of the greatest of all time without winning it all. If you have a totally **** team and don't make the playoffs for several years that doesn't mean that you aren't one of the greatest. Are any of the 2004 Pistons considered to be Top 50 players because that TEAM won a title? Elgin Baylor never won, does that diminish what he did on the court?

I don't think you get the premise of the thread. The thread simply is assumming each all time great has done well in the season, and has been in the playoffs and finals. It's not saying if a player never made the finals.
Besides when you look at any top 10-15 player all time, each one of them has been in the finals at least a few times.