PDA

View Full Version : Rings+Stats=GLORY? What else is there to the game?



Chronz
05-07-2010, 04:38 AM
Your beliefs on this stance, a players greatness can be boiled down to his stats+how many titles hes collected? If not Im sure most would agree, that much of a players legacy will be based on these 2 distinguishing factors.


Question being what else do you look at, obviously timing matters, a player winning a title as 12thman isnt very impressive but where do you draw that line? If 2 players are close statistically but one has a ring, does he get the nod 100/100 times? How do you define close stats anyways, Ive seen people compare Duncan to Antoine Walker and say they have "close" stats the reality being they werent very close at all, least not by objective measures.

To help answer these questions Im using real comparisons;

RINGS+STATS 1)Which was the better player based on what you know, 2) how much more do you need to know to have full confidence in your decision?



PlayerA VS PlayerB
21 PPG 22.1
12.5 REB 11.7
1.8 AST 3.9
.452 FG% .541
(16/1303) YRS/GP (16/1073)
1 Rings 0
(Title won during prime)

Playoff Averages
PlayerA: 23-13-2 46% 96GP
PlayerB: 23-13-4 51% 123GP



Who has the better resume?

abe_froman
05-07-2010, 04:43 AM
som e insight into peak would be nice

Chronz
05-07-2010, 04:55 AM
som e insight into peak would be nice
Peak in terms of efficiency, raw production, accolades?

Hard to say without knowing where you stand because depending on who you ask, Paul Pierce/D-Wades best season could be the year they played at their highest levels as individuals or the year their teams won more.

In terms of recognition outside of opinion, both were All-League first team caliber though only A has made an All-Defensive team. MVP criteria has changed over the years but only B has ever won the award.

montazingmvp
05-07-2010, 05:01 AM
Your beliefs on this stance, a players greatness can be boiled down to his stats+how many titles hes collected? If not Im sure most would agree, that much of a players legacy will be based on these 2 distinguishing factors.


Question being what else do you look at, obviously timing matters, a player winning a title as 12thman isnt very impressive but where do you draw that line? If 2 players are close statistically but one has a ring, does he get the nod 100/100 times? How do you define close stats anyways, Ive seen people compare Duncan to Antoine Walker and say they have "close" stats the reality being they werent very close at all, least not by objective measures.

To help answer these questions Im using real comparisons;

RINGS+STATS 1)Which was the better player based on what you know, 2) how much more do you need to know to have full confidence in your decision?



PlayerA VS PlayerB
21 PPG 22.1
12.5 REB 11.7
1.8 AST 3.9
.452 FG% .541
(16/1303) YRS/GP (16/1073)
1 Rings 0
(Title won during prime)

Playoff Averages
PlayerA: 23-13-2 46% 96GP
PlayerB: 23-13-4 51% 123GP



Who has the better resume?

i'll take player b...i'd bet my life (if these are real players) that player a had a lot of help getting that title...because he's apparently grossly inefficient, and probably a ball hog. player a on the other hand probably had weaker teams or was unfortunate to not win a title, likely getting close.

JiffyMix88
05-07-2010, 05:23 AM
ummm yes

thephoenixson28
05-07-2010, 05:28 AM
I think michael jordan wouldn't have been considered the G.O.A.T without rings, by the way people judge.

KnicksorBust
05-07-2010, 07:21 AM
I'm annoyed. I was only able to figure out the who Player B was but not who player A was. Guess that shows my age a little bit.

Anyway, in regards to question:

RINGS+STATS 1)Which was the better player based on what you know, 2) how much more do you need to know to have full confidence in your decision?

1. Just looking at what I see I would say player B because he is also a very good passer and is much much more effecient.
2. First, I would need to know what era both played in and what role did Player A play when his team won the championship. Was he the best player on the team? 2nd best? Then I would want to know much more about their advanced stats and more about their accomplishments and awards (all-nba teams = defensive and regular).

jimbobjarree
05-07-2010, 07:50 AM
whichever one got the most *****es

Stay_Swim
05-07-2010, 08:06 AM
Well everyone knows that to the youtube psd posting era, according to them it's all about the stats. Rings don't metter anymore in case you guys were wondering. Just ask any LBJ fan.

Niro
05-07-2010, 08:09 AM
well that would be me

JordansBulls
05-07-2010, 08:43 AM
Your beliefs on this stance, a players greatness can be boiled down to his stats+how many titles hes collected? If not Im sure most would agree, that much of a players legacy will be based on these 2 distinguishing factors.


Question being what else do you look at, obviously timing matters, a player winning a title as 12thman isnt very impressive but where do you draw that line? If 2 players are close statistically but one has a ring, does he get the nod 100/100 times? How do you define close stats anyways, Ive seen people compare Duncan to Antoine Walker and say they have "close" stats the reality being they werent very close at all, least not by objective measures.

To help answer these questions Im using real comparisons;

RINGS+STATS 1)Which was the better player based on what you know, 2) how much more do you need to know to have full confidence in your decision?



PlayerA VS PlayerB
21 PPG 22.1
12.5 REB 11.7
1.8 AST 3.9
.452 FG% .541
(16/1303) YRS/GP (16/1073)
1 Rings 0
(Title won during prime)

Playoff Averages
PlayerA: 23-13-2 46% 96GP
PlayerB: 23-13-4 51% 123GP



Who has the better resume?

I'm sure most would say Barkley is better than Elvin Hayes.

arkanian215
05-07-2010, 09:23 AM
...

Nothing there shows me how good they are defensively (then again good defense is hard to quantify). Anyway I would go with player B assuming their defense is the same.

basketfan4life
05-07-2010, 09:56 AM
give me player A, i just want to win.

KnicksorBust
05-07-2010, 10:50 AM
I'm sure most would say Barkley is better than Elvin Hayes.

The real question is did you know that was Hayes without looking it up? I knew Barkley, had to cheat for Hayes.

Rentzias
05-07-2010, 10:54 AM
Nothing there shows me how good they are defensively (then again good defense is hard to quantify).

Exactly, aka the Shane Battier factor. It's not baseball, where the stats are much more compelling.

You could also make a similar case using Ray Allen (1 Ring) and Allen Iverson, where Iverson is the stronger lock for the HoF, which is a pretty good measure of glory. And Elgin Baylor also never won a championship.

IMHO, there's much, MUCH more than just those two factors: clutchness (noticeably absent in players like all-time great Wilt Chamberlain), team role/share, level of competition, era... etc.

J-Relo
05-07-2010, 10:58 AM
i pick the one with better % - so it's player B... give player A at least a bit higher % and he's my pick

Avenged
05-07-2010, 11:00 AM
It's not like player A is that bad. He has a ring and that's what ultimately basketball players play for.

ShockerArt
05-07-2010, 11:04 AM
It's not like player A is that bad. He has a ring and that's what ultimately basketball players play for.

But it's totally out of context. What if player A didn't win that title until he was a year away from retirement, and was relegated to a bench role?

Rentzias
05-07-2010, 11:37 AM
But it's totally out of context. What if player A didn't win that title until he was a year away from retirement, and was relegated to a bench role?

Agreed, context is huge. (btw, Hayes won it midway through his career, as the third or fourth leading scorer, leading rebounder, on his team.) They played in different eras as well, and the Hayes stats are pumped from his ballhog days early on.

PrettyBoyJ
05-07-2010, 11:41 AM
Having good stats is part of being a great player.. but winning is also part of the formula.. you never see an average player who won multiple rings but has had decent stats over the years mentioned as a great player..(Derick Fisher).. Winning is part of the game that is what evryone is playing for is to win a championship.. Now seeing how both players have similar stats Im goin to pick player a the player with the better resume.. Great players will always be remembered but champions are never forgotten.. ppl take lightly how not winning a championship is.. look how many great players didnt win a championship (Karl Malone) and how many great players from this era who will prob retire without winning one (Allenn Iverson).. they will always be remembered as a great player.. but being a champion goes down in the books... lets make a comparison btwn Karl Malone and Tim Duncan..2 elite pf Karl Malone has no rings but had crazy stats but tim duncan has 4 rings and has pretty good stats as well.. who has the better career??

Toenail Clipper
05-07-2010, 12:30 PM
I'm really annoyed with your language. No offense.

Chronz
05-07-2010, 01:41 PM
I'm sure most would say Barkley is better than Elvin Hayes.
Yep but what makes it so? Dont we always go for the guy with the rings?

Chronz
05-07-2010, 01:47 PM
Having good stats is part of being a great player.. but winning is also part of the formula.. you never see an average player who won multiple rings but has had decent stats over the years mentioned as a great player..(Derick Fisher).. Winning is part of the game that is what evryone is playing for is to win a championship.. Now seeing how both players have similar stats Im goin to pick player a the player with the better resume.. Great players will always be remembered but champions are never forgotten.. ppl take lightly how not winning a championship is.. look how many great players didnt win a championship (Karl Malone) and how many great players from this era who will prob retire without winning one (Allenn Iverson).. they will always be remembered as a great player.. but being a champion goes down in the books... lets make a comparison btwn Karl Malone and Tim Duncan..2 elite pf Karl Malone has no rings but had crazy stats but tim duncan has 4 rings and has pretty good stats as well.. who has the better career??
Karl Malone can be in this example as well, he has the stats but Elvin Hayes has decent stats+the chip, so why do people consider Malone better?


But it's totally out of context. What if player A didn't win that title until he was a year away from retirement, and was relegated to a bench role?
I put alittle (Title won during prime) to sort that out.


Nothing there shows me how good they are defensively (then again good defense is hard to quantify). Anyway I would go with player B assuming their defense is the same.
Im with you, but are you consistent with your evaluation methods or do rings ever sway the argument in one direction?

Rentzias
05-07-2010, 01:51 PM
lets make a comparison btwn Karl Malone and Tim Duncan..2 elite pf Karl Malone has no rings but had crazy stats but tim duncan has 4 rings and has pretty good stats as well.. who has the better career??

OOT, but I'm a Nugget fan, and by extension hate the Spurs, but there should be ZERO comparison between Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. Even minus rings, Duncan is by far the superior PF, and even then, Elgin Baylor is still ahead of Malone in the Who Is The Greatest PF discussion.

That aside, it's never just one stat, not just "all about the championships." Stats HAVE to matter too. 1983 Philly Championship team: name me another person on that team other than Dr. J, Mo Cheeks and Moses. Why do you remember THEM? Because they have stats TOO.

Then again, you have players who are career 16.1 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.2 apg, 2.0 spg with 6 championships who are considered among the greatest of all time. Scottie Pippen anyone?

cr00zi3
05-07-2010, 01:56 PM
Even tho i dnt really like him...lebron
He has stats yes...but he has no rings. Lebron will forever be known as a great player even though his playoff success is slim. Maybe this year will be the year who knows but he has already been consider (by most) as the greatest player who ever played basketball..

tredigs
05-07-2010, 02:25 PM
(Though I know that this is Barkley and Hayes and have an opinion there) Based on what you gave, this is not enough information for me to make an objective pick as to who the better player is.

So, to answer your question... no. Rings + stats are not all that matters.

Chronz
05-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Who do you have ahead of the other? Throw Karl Malone in that mix too

FOBolous
05-07-2010, 02:49 PM
i think rings are overrated as a unit of measure of a player's ability. rings doesn't = the best PLAYER. rings = the better TEAM because basketball is a TEAM sport. you can't win championships by yourself or by being a ballhog. those who tried fail to achieve any success in both their career and the playoffs. saying rings = the better player is also unfair to all the other players that contributed on that TEAM.

streetballa
05-07-2010, 02:50 PM
I have a hard time to put rings in the argument for one reason...it takes a team to win a championship

There are few times a single player can win a championship and actually I am having a hard time thinking of a one man team that won. It takes a deep bench and good role players.

RadiantShot
05-07-2010, 02:50 PM
Rings help. That's all I'll say.

FOBolous
05-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Paul Pierce has a ring but if you ask me who i rather have...Paul Pierce (1 ring) or Lebron James (0 rings), ill take Lebron James.

Kevin Garnett have a right but if you ask me who i rather have...Garnett (1 ring) or Karl Malone (0 ring), i'll take Karl Malone.

KnicksorBust
05-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Yep but what makes it so? Dont we always go for the guy with the rings?

There's no exactly formula. It's not like:

1 ring = 4 more ppg, 2 rpg, 1 apg , and 2 all-nba first teams.

You have a lot of things to look at. Personally, when comparing players I always look at them offensively, defensively, their team success, and their ability to raise their game in big situations.

If the first two categories are relatively even, then you have to look at the bigger picture. If someone is disproportionately stronger in one of the categories, that can also effect the comparison.

PrettyBoyJ
05-07-2010, 03:16 PM
OOT, but I'm a Nugget fan, and by extension hate the Spurs, but there should be ZERO comparison between Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. Even minus rings, Duncan is by far the superior PF, and even then, Elgin Baylor is still ahead of Malone in the Who Is The Greatest PF discussion.

That aside, it's never just one stat, not just "all about the championships." Stats HAVE to matter too. 1983 Philly Championship team: name me another person on that team other than Dr. J, Mo Cheeks and Moses. Why do you remember THEM? Because they have stats TOO.

Then again, you have players who are career 16.1 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.2 apg, 2.0 spg with 6 championships who are considered among the greatest of all time. Scottie Pippen anyone?

I agree with you tim being the better player.. but minus the rings? I dont think so..

karl Malone Career Stats- 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 51%FG, 3.6 Apg., 1.4 spg .70 bpg.. 36,928 career points... 2 MVP Awards..


Tim Duncan Career Stats- 21.1 ppg, 11.6 rpg, 50% FG, 3.2 Apg, .08 spg, 2.3 bpg... 20,641 career points.. 2 MVP Awards...

This is minus the championships.. Malone is clearly better if you take away timmy's hardware...

PrettyBoyJ
05-07-2010, 03:23 PM
Paul Pierce has a ring but if you ask me who i rather have...Paul Pierce (1 ring) or Lebron James (0 rings), ill take Paul Pierce.

Kevin Garnett have a right but if you ask me who i rather have...Garnett (1 ring) or Karl Malone (0 ring), i'll take Karl Malone.

Paul Pierce Over Lebron?!??!!??? not in any life time no way can u compare there career and and paul's come even remotely close to Lebron.. and Lebron is 25...

ballpd05
05-07-2010, 03:25 PM
Paul Pierce has a ring but if you ask me who i rather have...Paul Pierce (1 ring) or Lebron James (0 rings), ill take Paul Pierce.

Kevin Garnett have a right but if you ask me who i rather have...Garnett (1 ring) or Karl Malone (0 ring), i'll take Karl Malone.

:facepalm:

RadiantShot
05-07-2010, 03:26 PM
^
x2

Rentzias
05-07-2010, 03:36 PM
I agree with you tim being the better player.. but minus the rings? I dont think so..

karl Malone Career Stats- 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 51%FG, 3.6 Apg., 1.4 spg .70 bpg.. 36,928 career points... 2 MVP Awards..


Tim Duncan Career Stats- 21.1 ppg, 11.6 rpg, 50% FG, 3.2 Apg, .08 spg, 2.3 bpg... 20,641 career points.. 2 MVP Awards...

This is minus the championships.. Malone is clearly better if you take away timmy's hardware...

Which goes back to my point that there are too many intangibles in basketball to measure, and with THOSE factored in, minus rings, Tim Duncan is by far the better PF.

Duncan: Has been All-NBA and All-NBA Defensive every year of his career, including 8 consecutive All-NBA Defensive 1st teams; this is the first year he has been on a 3RD team anything. 3x Finals MVP as well.

Malone: 4 NBA All Defensive; won 1 MVP when Jordan led his team to four more wins with comparable stats.

To read between the lines shows that Duncan is a significantly better defender (3x more blocks career than Malone); his Finals MVPs are also in stark contrast to Malone's infamous FT choke in the finals.

And Duncan still has time left. Point being, there are way too many factors as to a player's legacy, more than just rings + stats, although you can use those to infer things about that player. Plus Malone drives an RV.

Rentzias
05-07-2010, 03:37 PM
Paul Pierce has a ring but if you ask me who i rather have...Paul Pierce (1 ring) or Lebron James (0 rings), ill take Paul Pierce.

Kevin Garnett have a right but if you ask me who i rather have...Garnett (1 ring) or Karl Malone (0 ring), i'll take Karl Malone.

Follow your sig line: Do not do what you are doing now.

Chronz
05-07-2010, 03:43 PM
There's no exactly formula. It's not like:

1 ring = 4 more ppg, 2 rpg, 1 apg , and 2 all-nba first teams.

You have a lot of things to look at. Personally, when comparing players I always look at them offensively, defensively, their team success, and their ability to raise their game in big situations.

If the first two categories are relatively even, then you have to look at the bigger picture. If someone is disproportionately stronger in one of the categories, that can also effect the comparison.
Yea I guess its as if Im asking for an exact formula, but even in this scenario the raw stats are pretty close (which is what most fans relate to) he has the ring (another thing fans relate to) yet hes still not mentioned in the conversation with the BIG3 (Malone, Chuck, McHale).

Whats prevented you from putting him on that pedestal?

SteveNash
05-07-2010, 04:09 PM
When ranking players, why would you look at stats only?

Chronz
05-07-2010, 04:15 PM
The point of the thread is about what ELSE do you look at, because heres a case of somewhat close stats and a ring, yet most people see Chuck as the better player. What else are all those people looking into?

Raoul Duke
05-07-2010, 04:38 PM
There is absolutely no substitute for actually watching a guy play.

SteveNash
05-07-2010, 04:38 PM
The point of the thread is about what ELSE do you look at, because heres a case of somewhat close stats and a ring, yet most people see Chuck as the better player. What else are all those people looking into?

Based on what you posted, you can't determine who was a better player.

You have to look at the big picture. We know that Barkley and Hayes were both selfish players are career losers. Hayes ring came when he was playing alongside a superior player in Unseld, and that Unseld is better than both even though he only won a championship and put up "worse" stats.

heathonater
05-07-2010, 05:09 PM
beyond stats, you have to look at the impact a player has on the defensive end. the fact is that good defense in the playoffs wins rings. in particular, big men that post good numbers but dont play good defense are over valued. in order to win an nba title, you need good interior defense, which starts with having strong defenders at the pf and c spots.

FOBolous
05-07-2010, 06:12 PM
Paul Pierce Over Lebron?!??!!??? not in any life time no way can u compare there career and and paul's come even remotely close to Lebron.. and Lebron is 25...

LOL THAT WAS A I TYPO. I MEANT LEBRON JAMES. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT ON HOW RINGS ARE THE BEST MEASURE OF THE "BETTER" PLAYER!!!

the post is fixed now :p

madiaz3
05-07-2010, 06:19 PM
nvm

SteveNash
05-07-2010, 06:31 PM
beyond stats, you have to look at the impact a player has on the defensive end. the fact is that good defense in the playoffs wins rings. in particular, big men that post good numbers but dont play good defense are over valued. in order to win an nba title, you need good interior defense, which starts with having strong defenders at the pf and c spots.

The only team that won a ring in recent years without a post scorer was Detroit and they had Rasheed and were pretty much an aberration.

PrettyBoyJ
05-07-2010, 07:26 PM
Which goes back to my point that there are too many intangibles in basketball to measure, and with THOSE factored in, minus rings, Tim Duncan is by far the better PF.

Duncan: Has been All-NBA and All-NBA Defensive every year of his career, including 8 consecutive All-NBA Defensive 1st teams; this is the first year he has been on a 3RD team anything. 3x Finals MVP as well.

Malone: 4 NBA All Defensive; won 1 MVP when Jordan led his team to four more wins with comparable stats.

To read between the lines shows that Duncan is a significantly better defender (3x more blocks career than Malone); his Finals MVPs are also in stark contrast to Malone's infamous FT choke in the finals.

And Duncan still has time left. Point being, there are way too many factors as to a player's legacy, more than just rings + stats, although you can use those to infer things about that player. Plus Malone drives an RV.


MINUS RINGS how is Tim Duncan A better pf.. He has a slight edge in blocks and Malone the edge in scoring apart from that they're numbers are similar across the board.. And so is there resume..

Tim Duncan-
# 2 NBA Most Valuable Player (20022003)
# NBA Rookie of the Year (1998)
# 12 NBA All-Star (1998, 20002010)
# 9 All-NBA First Team (19982005, 2007)
# 3 All-NBA Second Team (2006, 20082009)
# All-NBA Third Team (2010)
# 8 All-Defensive First Team (19992003, 2005, 20072008)
# 5 All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 20092010)
# NBA All-Rookie First Team (1998)
# NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)


Karl Malone-
* 2x NBA MVP (1997, 1999)
* 13x NBA All-Star (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001)
* 11x All-NBA First Team Selection (1989-1999)
* 2x All-NBA Second Team Selection (1988, 2000)
* 1x All-NBA Third Team Selection (2001)
* 3x NBA All-Defensive First Team Selection (1997-1999)
* 1x NBA All-Defensive Second Team Selection (1988)
* 1986 NBA All-Rookie Team
* 2x NBA All-Star MVP (1989, 1993)
* NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team


If Timmy had no rings they're I dont think he would be the better pf

Voodoo Alchemy
05-07-2010, 08:12 PM
jordan = the greatest player to ever live.

magichatnumber9
05-07-2010, 08:28 PM
It also doesn't hurt to be a decent human being.

ko8e24
05-07-2010, 10:54 PM
You know the one thing I feel what makes a man's career glorious?.....

Creating memories for the fans of the game of basketball. As a fan, I hold that with great importance. Yes, stats and awards and rings and all of that bring glory. But when you're capable of creating memorable moments along with that, then you have had a glorious career.

rabzouz 96
05-07-2010, 11:23 PM
The point of the thread is about what ELSE do you look at, because heres a case of somewhat close stats and a ring, yet most people see Chuck as the better player. What else are all those people looking into?

you have to look at the situation the player played in, who was on his team and playing with him that led to him getting/not getting the ring.
also, there are certain parts of the game/stats that a player of a certain position should bring, like an elite pf/c should get a high field goal percentage, get more than 10 rpg and blocks. he doesnt need a good 3 pt percentage because when shooting threes hell be away from the basket which usually hurts a team with title ambitions.
similar to that you want your elite pg to get points and dish out assists. he should either be a good distance shooter or a hard nosed defender and have a good turnover/assist ratio. his rebounding is usually not that important.

arkanian215
05-07-2010, 11:44 PM
Im with you, but are you consistent with your evaluation methods or do rings ever sway the argument in one direction?

In my opinion, rings don't define how great a player is/was. There's always going to be circumstances where stars go without getting a ring but put in great efforts along the way. If it happens, good for them but I don't think the presence or lack of a ring defines how great a player was. Let's say Deron Williams decides to stay in Utah for his entire career. Chances are he won't win a ring. Same goes for CP3 if he decides to stay in New Orleans. They're on a limited budget and don't have the cap space to lure a difference maker to that team. Year after year they'll get a mid first to mid 20's pick. That doesn't give you much to build on. Does that mean they're worse than Rondo who already has a ring and is putting up stellar numbers? Not in my book.

Chronz
05-08-2010, 04:09 AM
Based on what you posted, you can't determine who was a better player.

You have to look at the big picture. We know that Barkley and Hayes were both selfish players are career losers. Hayes ring came when he was playing alongside a superior player in Unseld, and that Unseld is better than both even though he only won a championship and put up "worse" stats.
So your saying titles won as 2nd in command arent notable achievements, is this why you disgrace Kareem so much?

As for Chuck, you do realize your talking about a guy who is at worst a top 4 PF in the history of the game (Counting Duncan at his rightful position). Just sayin, show some respect, both players couldve been so much more, but once you get past that its not that big a deal.

SteveNash
05-08-2010, 01:47 PM
So your saying titles won as 2nd in command arent notable achievements, is this why you disgrace Kareem so much?

As for Chuck, you do realize your talking about a guy who is at worst a top 4 PF in the history of the game (Counting Duncan at his rightful position). Just sayin, show some respect, both players couldve been so much more, but once you get past that its not that big a deal.

Titles in general aren't a great indicator when comparing players as almost any all star when surrounded by enough talent can win multiple titles.

Hayes, Kareem, and Barkley have a lot of things in common. They were soft, choke artists, lazy, and alienated teammates.

RipVW
05-08-2010, 03:21 PM
Yep but what makes it so? Dont we always go for the guy with the rings?

No, people go for players who won and vied for rings. In baseball, what makes the 56 game hitting streak more impressive or more well known than the record for the most consecutive games hitting a triple? Is it the record itself, or does the record have significance because Joe DiMaggio is the one who has the record?

Rentzias
05-10-2010, 09:18 AM
MINUS RINGS how is Tim Duncan A better pf.. He has a slight edge in blocks and Malone the edge in scoring apart from that they're numbers are similar across the board.. And so is there resume..

Tim Duncan-

# 8 All-Defensive First Team (19992003, 2005, 20072008)
# 5 All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 20092010)


Karl Malone-

* 3x NBA All-Defensive First Team Selection (1997-1999)
* 1x NBA All-Defensive Second Team Selection (1988)


If Timmy had no rings they're I dont think he would be the better pf

I think that says it all right there. Who's the more, by far, complete player? If I built a team today, from the all-time greats, I'd have Timmmaayyy! as my starting PF.

RipVW
05-10-2010, 10:35 AM
I think that says it all right there. Who's the more, by far, complete player? If I built a team today, from the all-time greats, I'd have Timmmaayyy! as my starting PF.

To me, Tim Duncan plays more like a center. Karl Malone was a little more mobile, so I think of Malone as being a truer power forward.

mser58
05-10-2010, 10:56 AM
Look at Lebron yesterday during the Celtics game, my viewing party was literally yelling at the screen for him to take the ball to the rack and be the hero.

He didn't. He needs the MJ/Kobe killer instinct get it done and he doesn't have it.

KnicksorBust
05-10-2010, 11:24 AM
In my opinion, rings don't define how great a player is/was. There's always going to be circumstances where stars go without getting a ring but put in great efforts along the way. If it happens, good for them but I don't think the presence or lack of a ring defines how great a player was. Let's say Deron Williams decides to stay in Utah for his entire career. Chances are he won't win a ring. Same goes for CP3 if he decides to stay in New Orleans. They're on a limited budget and don't have the cap space to lure a difference maker to that team. Year after year they'll get a mid first to mid 20's pick. That doesn't give you much to build on. Does that mean they're worse than Rondo who already has a ring and is putting up stellar numbers? Not in my book.

But that's only looking at the comparison on such a basic level. If Deron Williams leads the Jazz to a comeback over the Lakers and they win the title this year. Then he'll be better than CP3 until Paul does the same thing. Because the two of them are already comparable players. Rings don't guarantee you are/were better but they definately add to the argument.

Rentzias
05-10-2010, 01:17 PM
To me, Tim Duncan plays more like a center. Karl Malone was a little more mobile, so I think of Malone as being a truer power forward.

Good point, but Nowitzki is also a non-traditional PF, yet he's in that role. I actually agree that TD is more of a C than a PF, even though they perennially put him in the PF spot for All-Star Games if they can, but even when it comes down to sheer player-vs-player, position aside, I'll take TD as a complete player over Malone. In a game, averaging 4 more ppg counts for much less than shutting down your opponent.

Chronz
05-10-2010, 01:40 PM
You know the one thing I feel what makes a man's career glorious?.....

Creating memories for the fans of the game of basketball. As a fan, I hold that with great importance. Yes, stats and awards and rings and all of that bring glory. But when you're capable of creating memorable moments along with that, then you have had a glorious career.
Reggie Miller fan Im guessing.

MrFastBreak
05-10-2010, 07:35 PM
But that's only looking at the comparison on such a basic level. If Deron Williams leads the Jazz to a comeback over the Lakers and they win the title this year. Then he'll be better than CP3 until Paul does the same thing. Because the two of them are already comparable players. Rings don't guarantee you are/were better but they definately add to the argument.

Why would he be better? If that ever happens, Dwill's team would be the reason for that. Dwill is just not capable of that and it has shown. Not until CP3 gets a squad around him capable of complementing his talents will people realize how he's the MUCH better player.

For the thread question, you look at how important he was to his team's wins/success or was he a big factor when it came to winning a title. Ya know, what was his role? How were they doing when he was in as opposed to when he was out? Who had the higher efficiency when he shouldered the bigger load or who was the better defensive/offensive player? Who had the more vast, positive impact on his teammates? Who showed up when it counted? Who was more effective in doing the things that won games? Ask questions like that when youre comparing two players with similar stats and one has a ring. That can help paint a brighter picture for you to determine who's better, which is, by the way, Barkley.

ko8e24
05-10-2010, 07:50 PM
Reggie Miller fan Im guessing.

Well yes, I am a huge Reggie Miller fan. His 3's in the playoffs, 8 pts in 7 seconds against the Knicks, when he showed the "choke sign" to Spike Lee, his fights with MJ and Kobe.

Now of course my favorite player is Kobe Bean Bryant. And of course I will always love and cherish of watching those moments when he won his championships.....but that's not all.


When I'm old, and I look back at reminisce at the greatest basketball moments that I've watched in my life, I will always remember Kobe's 81 and him pointing up to the fans up in the air, or his 62 in 3 qtrs, or his double spin baseline corner 3 against the Blazers in 2007 in that game where he scored 65 pts in double OT, or the MSG baseline windmill dunk on Sprewell, or him sucking the gravity out of the target center with the windmill baseline dunk over KG, or the "what did I just see" dunk on Vincent Yarborough, or the dunk on Yao Ming, or the personal challenges he took on the basketball court against the opposing player, or all the game winners like the "Bang!" in game 4 of the playoffs against the Suns, or all 6 games winners of this season, or the portland game of 2004 when he was double clutch and hit the shot at the buzzer to win the Pacific Division, or Kobe's alleyhoop to Shaq in game 7 against Portland, or Kobe's swagger everytime he stepped on the court, the way he dunked on people while havin that stylish afro, poppin the jersey to show up the road crowd, his breakaway tomahawk and 360 dunks, his 51 pt duel with the Warriors Antawn Jamison, when he jumped in Shaq's arms when they won their first title together, when he and Fish hugged each other when they won their 4th title last season, when young Kobe took over in game 4 of the Finals @ Indiana, when he returned from the Colorado court and took a flight back to LA coming to the game in the 2nd qtr and nailing the game winner at the end against the Nuggets, dropping 55 on His Airness's final visit to LA, his NBA record 12 3 pters made against GP and the Sonics, his facial dunks on Arvydas Sabonis, his one-on-one battles with AI, TMAC and Vinsanity, the way he (not foul and traveling violation prone Shaq against Robinson and TD) used to Kill the Spurs in the playoffs during those 3-peat yrs, the "**** it, I'm gonna score 50+ in 4 straight games" mentality", his 9 straight games of 40+ in the 2002-2003 season, when he said that he was nervous in front of the media for the 1st time in his life when he won league mvp, when he won all-star game mvp with shaq in "the reunion", when he got booed in his hometown of Phili in the 02 All-star game after being named the MVP, etc.


Yea, that's what I'll remember about Kobe Bryant. And the best part about it is that there's still this season's and the next 6 season's memories to look forward to.

arkanian215
05-14-2010, 08:46 AM
But that's only looking at the comparison on such a basic level. If Deron Williams leads the Jazz to a comeback over the Lakers and they win the title this year. Then he'll be better than CP3 until Paul does the same thing. Because the two of them are already comparable players. Rings don't guarantee you are/were better but they definately add to the argument.

If Deron can single handedly lead the Jazz back and win the ring then sure he would be considered better. But if he just leads his team back against the Lakers, a lot of it luster of the comeback will be taken away by the lack of a supporting cast for CP3 if we're comparing the two PG's. How often do great players manage to lead a team that lacks talent around him to a championship in this basketball era?

MaHaRaJaH
05-14-2010, 04:25 PM
it also doesn't hurt to be a decent human being.

+1