PDA

View Full Version : How much does winning distort legacies?



Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 12:11 AM
I was thinking bout a bunch of questions that revolve around this issue.
How better players can fall into oblivion because of TEAM success.

questions like these.

Was Worhty better than Dominique wilkins?

Is Parish better than Artis Gilmore ?

Is russell better than ewing?

Is Dirk better than Karl Malone?

Is KObe -Pau a better combo than Stockton-malone?

Is Lamar Odom a better player than Kiki Vandeweghe?

Is Michael cooper better than jeff Hornacek?

Is pat riley a better coach than Don Nelson?

Is larry brown better than lenny wilkens?

Is Horry a better player than Dereck Harper?

Is ron Harper better than alex english?

Is kobe and shaq 3 times better than west and wilt?

Is kg better than barkley?

Is Manu better than Dantley?

are the 60s celtics better than 90s bulls?

and so on.

Kashmir13579
07-26-2011, 12:16 AM
Legacy and how good they were on the court are two different things.

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 12:18 AM
Legacy and how good they were on the court are two different things.

yet parish made the oficial nba greatest 60 all time list and gilmore didnt.

ManRam
07-26-2011, 12:25 AM
More than it should.

Not everyone can win, but no one can win without help.

Hawkeye15
07-26-2011, 12:30 AM
Rings are 1/10th of the equation on measuring individuals (not that I made up an exact formula, but the point is winning rings is simply just one of many factors).

TEAMS win rings. If a player isn't fortunate enough to have landed in a scenario where he was a great TEAM around him, you can hardly hold that against him if he is putting up better numbers than another player who had far better teammates/coaches.

Rings are a complete crutch for those fans who love players who are part of winning teams, but are not individually as good as another player who was simply a better player.

i.got.the.nutz
07-26-2011, 12:39 AM
Rings are 1/10th of the equation on measuring individuals (not that I made up an exact formula, but the point is winning rings is simply just one of many factors).

TEAMS win rings. If a player isn't fortunate enough to have landed in a scenario where he was a great TEAM around him, you can hardly hold that against him if he is putting up better numbers than another player who had far better teammates/coaches.

Rings are a complete crutch for those fans who love players who are part of winning teams, but are not individually as good as another player who was simply a better player.

I agree. But if we are talking about legacy's, a player needs to be held accountable for not winning it all if they had ample support to do so.

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 12:41 AM
I agree. But if we are talking about legacy's, a player needs to be held accountable for not winning it all if they had ample support to do so.

something gilmore lacked and ewing arguably lacked for example.

but that barkley or karl malone cant complain about.

Hawkeye15
07-26-2011, 12:41 AM
I agree. But if we are talking about legacy's, a player needs to be held accountable for not winning it all if they had ample support to do so.

oh, I absolutely agree with you, as long as you are capable of measuring the "ample support".

But you are right on dude

i.got.the.nutz
07-26-2011, 12:51 AM
something gilmore lacked and ewing arguably lacked for example.

but that barkley or karl malone cant complain about.

They have a better reason for not winning it all. :)

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 12:53 AM
They have a better reason for not winning it all. :)

yep facing a TOP 3 team/rosters of all time with a top 2 coach of all time with a top 3 player of all time beyond discussion.


BUT that doesnt cover 1994 for them. Hakeem could while they couldnt put a MORE TALENTED Suns and Knicks up there.

THE GIPPER
07-26-2011, 12:53 AM
Some people value rings so much in evaluating a player its rediculous. For example a few weeks ago someone made a thread about Robert Horry being in the hall of fame and honestly we all know he's not even close to being a hall of famer.

Korman12
07-26-2011, 01:00 AM
Rings affect the reputation of players in the NBA far, far more than any North American sport. I think it's obvious that it's because of the influence an individual has on the game outweighing those of the other sports, but that gets dragged out far too significantly.

Considering reporting and sports media, the ring sells what the stats can't. It's almost glorified because it's not entirely empirical, regarding reputation among players with faux-phrases like "grit," "determination," "heart," etc. When really, it's sporadic opportunity combined with the talent that got them there in the first place.

It does take a certain something to win - that's obvious as well - but I find it severely over-glorified when it comes down to it.

PrettyBoyJ
07-26-2011, 01:04 AM
Some people value rings so much in evaluating a player its rediculous. For example a few weeks ago someone made a thread about Robert Horry being in the hall of fame and honestly we all know he's not even close to being a hall of famer.

PPL have diff ways of evaluating a player, and honestly it not their fault.. Media portrays great players by how much they won and NOT their talent.. Which is a shame because their are some guys who get over looked for not winning any accolades..

naps
07-26-2011, 01:09 AM
Well Kobe got 5 rings and Horry got 7, how many does LeBron have?

Korman12
07-26-2011, 01:12 AM
^^ There we go

naps
07-26-2011, 01:37 AM
^^ There we go

Any average-smart poster would know I answered this thread perfectly.

RevisIsland
07-26-2011, 02:25 AM
Winning changes everything, it can make or break a career. Hell do you think any of us would know Robert Horry's name if he didn't win so many titles.

LakersIn5
07-26-2011, 02:58 AM
people factor winning so much in ranking the best players but if youre just gonna rank players based on talent alone then the top 10 rankings would be alot different.

sventhedog
07-26-2011, 08:02 AM
i wanted to answer you but you confused me with too many questions.

TheHoopsProphet
07-26-2011, 08:17 AM
2010-11 Miami Heat, 2004-10 Mavericks, 2004-08 Suns, 1994-1999 Utah Jazz, 1980s Bucks, 1970s Celtics (sans 75), 1960s Lakers were all capable of winning, but never did. I agree that when a franchise player is stuck on a talentless team with names like Andre Blatche, Sergio Rodriguez or Quincy Poindexter, that is not their fault.

But when they have the formula necessary to bring home the greasy bacons, well they better have the juevos to do it, or their legacies should very well be tarnished.

Players like Charlie "Bob Marley" Barkley, Carl "Jr" Malone, Jonathan "chest-hair" Stockton, pre-2011 Finals Dirk, Gary "Baldy" Payton, Elgin "ricecakes" Baylor, and Lebron Jams (for now) should never be considered basketball-bouncing legends, merely basketball-bouncing notables because they have had many shots and never came through. Don't ever mention the word legend to me ever unless you are referring to Larry Birds, Magical Johnson, or Colby "captain cruchtime" Bryants

drop da mic

Chronz
07-26-2011, 01:15 PM
Agreed with the prophet, I would throw Ewings Knicks in there as well. You dont always win even when you have the talent but you should at least perform. Ewing gets knocked down a few notches for not only failing to deliver a title but for failing to perform throughout the playoffs/finals. Ewing makes Bron Finals performance look Clutch.

Bubba313
07-26-2011, 01:47 PM
Agreed with the prophet, I would throw Ewings Knicks in there as well. You dont always win even when you have the talent but you should at least perform. Ewing gets knocked down a few notches for not only failing to deliver a title but for failing to perform throughout the playoffs/finals. Ewing makes Bron Finals performance look Clutch.

I wouldn't say that, Ewing's knees were about as reliable as Lebron in the 4th quarter

Chronz
07-26-2011, 03:13 PM
Ewing didnt need the 4th quarter to come and go for him to start sucking, he was unreliable the entire game, Bron at least created easy looks for his teammates. Ewing chucked to his hearts content

Tony_Starks
07-26-2011, 03:27 PM
I look at a players legacy by not just winning but the role they played in winning. Also having an opportunity to win and not getting it done plays a huge role in my book. That's why guys like Bird and Magic are untouchable. Now some guys will argue "they had an allstar team!" ok but when it came down to the moment of truth those guys were 100% dependable to either make the shot or make the play and get it done.

As opposed to maybe Stockton and Malone who, as great as they were, had their shot on their floor and blew it. Or Ewing who had his shot but was outplayed by the Dream.

JordansBulls
07-26-2011, 03:28 PM
Rings as a key piece are a good way to stratify players who had help and those who didn't, but beyond that, you're talking about playoff performances.

Winning is important, but it depends on how you win as well. Playing for an organization that is known for winning is pretty simple. If you go to the Lakers you are going to be in the finals multiple times and probably win a few titles because it is a winning organization.

Which is why Me personally I value strongly guys who take a team from the bottom to the top. Who take an organization who never won anything and turn them into winners because anyone can win going to a team known for winning.

king4day
07-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Individual careers shouldn't be measured by rings but they are. Nash is one example but the best example is Dirk.
People had him as just a great player. Since this postseason, people talk about him being in the top 20 alltime.

It does disturb judgment.

king4day
07-26-2011, 03:32 PM
Rings as a key piece are a good way to stratify players who had help and those who didn't, but beyond that, you're talking about playoff performances.

Winning is important, but it depends on how you win as well. Playing for an organization that is known for winning is pretty simple. If you go to the Lakers you are going to be in the finals multiple times and probably win a few titles because it is a winning organization.

Which is why Me personally I value strongly guys who take a team from the bottom to the top. Who take an organization who never won anything and turn them into winners because anyone can win going to a team known for winning.

Excellent post.
That would be Jordan and possibly Rose too.

Shmontaine
07-26-2011, 03:52 PM
distort??? no... define... what's a legacy without victory??

JordansBulls
07-26-2011, 03:57 PM
Excellent post.
That would be Jordan and possibly Rose too.

Actually I was thinking more of the lines of

MJ with the Bulls
Hakeem with the Rockets
Isiah with the Pistons
Kareem with the Bucks
Russell with the Celtics
Barry with the Warriors
Dirk with the Mavs
Wade with the Heat

as some examples

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 03:57 PM
distort??? no... define... what's a legacy without victory??

ok.

its pau gasol better than tom chambers? mmm i guess he is....

its pau gasol THAT MUCH better than tom chambers?

thats what im talking when i say distorting.

Lil Half Dead
07-26-2011, 04:00 PM
Winning definitely impacts a legacy. As to how much, well it's obviously debatable. I'd say as far as greats go, winning is the biggest deciding factor, followed by actual skill. Great players like Ewing and Malone are remembered, but winners like Tim Duncan are never forgotten.

Shmontaine
07-26-2011, 04:09 PM
ok.

its pau gasol better than tom chambers? mmm i guess he is....

its pau gasol THAT MUCH better than tom chambers?

thats what im talking when i say distorting.

why are there threads of "best players to never win a ring"? with like 5 recurring names...

that's their 'legacy'... and most just ran up against MJ...

that's why MJ legacy is the GOAT :D

Shmontaine
07-26-2011, 04:12 PM
and yeah.. that silly little victory does mean something... it's what everybody plays for...

i assume we're talking about the 1 and 2nd options' legacies as well.. obviously adam morrison's legacy isn't lifted by the rings he has...

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 04:14 PM
and yeah.. that silly little victory does mean something... it's what everybody plays for...

i assume we're talking about the 1 and 2nd options' legacies as well.. obviously adam morrison's legacy isn't lifted by the rings he has...

yet we will be remembering adam morrison 10 years from now, like we remember bill wennington or jack haley, but 90% of people here would say wtf at names like otis birdsong or calvin natt who were allstars.

so it afeccts scrubs legacys too

Tony_Starks
07-26-2011, 04:17 PM
why are there threads of "best players to never win a ring"? with like 5 recurring names...

that's their 'legacy'... and most just ran up against MJ...

that's why MJ legacy is the GOAT :D



Come on man, you know its a cleverly veiled attempt to give certain popular players a pass for not winning in "winning time" while at the same taking away from players that have had success. Not naming any names.

But I could've sworn "You play to WIN the game! Hello?"

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 04:19 PM
Come on man, you know its a cleverly veiled attempt to give certain popular players a pass for not winning in "winning time" while at the same taking away from players that have had success. Not naming any names.

But I could've sworn "You play to WIN the game! Hello?"
dont think so....all of my fav players with very few exceptions ( woolridge, battier....) have won rings so.... in any case im throwing stones to my own roof.

Tony_Starks
07-26-2011, 04:22 PM
dont think so....all of my fav players with very few exceptions ( woolridge, battier....) have won rings so.... in any case im throwing stones to my own roof.




Im not talking about you Im just saying whenever these discussions come up you can tell who are fans of certain players when they start making excuses for not winning. At the end of the day the great players win, thats why people give MJ GOAT status ( I dont) because he never lost a finals.

Shmontaine
07-26-2011, 04:24 PM
yet we will be remembering adam morrison 10 years from now, like we remember bill wennington or jack haley, but 90% of people here would say wtf at names like otis birdsong or calvin natt who were allstars.

so it afeccts scrubs legacys too

really?? wennington is a current bulls radio commentator and haley was a broadcaster after his career... so yeah, people will remember them more... you're giving names of guys who played what, 20 years ago and 50 years ago... okay

adam morrison will not be remembered in 2030, wennington and haley will only be remembered by a few, mostly from their careers after basketball...

"Cherry pie falling from the sky!!"

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 04:24 PM
Im not talking about you Im just saying whenever these discussions come up you can tell who are fans of certain players when they start making excuses for not winning.

well some excuses are better than others.

I mean barkley or Karl malone had all the help posible Twice in both cases so no excuses for them

Artis gilmore or Geroge Gervin NEVER had enough help.

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 04:25 PM
really?? wennington is a current bulls radio commentator and haley was a broadcaster after his career... so yeah, people will remember them more... you're giving names of guys who played what, 20 years ago and 50 years ago... okay

adam morrison will not be remembered in 2030, wennington and haley will only be remembered by a few, mostly from their careers after basketball...

25 years ago in both cases.

but i think i slipped with Birdsong i think he got 1 with the celtics.

Da Knicks
07-26-2011, 05:34 PM
Hmm nice thread, i too find it strange how people rank players. What if Starks doesnt stink it up completely in 94 and the knicks win, does Ewing then break the top ten players ever? I know that Ewing could of played better but, Charles Smith had no business playing and Starks should of being pulled in favor of Davis. My point is in a seven game series the weak links will get exposed and the Knicks got exposed as a team but if they would of won, Ewing would be ranked really high. - would he deserve it?, many of the top ten psd voted for did not do so hot in the finals either...

Youmad?
07-26-2011, 05:50 PM
Rings are 1/10th of the equation on measuring individuals (not that I made up an exact formula, but the point is winning rings is simply just one of many factors).

TEAMS win rings. If a player isn't fortunate enough to have landed in a scenario where he was a great TEAM around him, you can hardly hold that against him if he is putting up better numbers than another player who had far better teammates/coaches.

Rings are a complete crutch for those fans who love players who are part of winning teams, but are not individually as good as another player who was simply a better player.


It's more Like 4-5/10 the all-time rankings would bedrastically different if championships weren't that important

Youmad?
07-26-2011, 05:54 PM
I think this thread was made to take a couple of shots at Kobe, without noticing it

Da Knicks
07-26-2011, 05:59 PM
I think this thread was made to take a couple of shots at Kobe, without noticing it

how so?

Sixerlover
07-26-2011, 06:33 PM
Hey, Crooner the subtle Jordan threads we notice it.

I agree winning screws with legacies, when it's only 1 or 2 titles. But when the titles reach 4+ and you were either the alpha dog or the 2nd best player on those teams, any accolades are deserved.

For example, I don't see Ray Allen as a much better player because he got a ring in '08 with Boston. He always was what he was to me, a great shooter, hall of fame player. But I DO put Kobe into a different level from a five years ago because since then he's got 2 extra titles and 2 extra finals MVP's.

Hellcrooner
07-26-2011, 09:30 PM
I think this thread was made to take a couple of shots at Kobe, without noticing it

much to kobe fans ( who probably think he is the sun and the moon) disappointment not every thread in psd is bout him.

Hawkeye15
07-26-2011, 09:35 PM
It's more Like 4-5/10 the all-time rankings would bedrastically different if championships weren't that important

maybe in your warped book, but not mine. I never said that the top 10-20 players shouldn't have a small measurement on if they were able to play at the highest level in the playoffs. I simply say that winning a ring is a team accomplishment, and no matter how great you are, you can only do so much. Its why Barkley and Stockton will always be underrated by the average fan.

Hawkeye15
07-26-2011, 09:36 PM
Nobody is just automatically a better player because they win a ring. Nobody.

KaganRS
07-26-2011, 10:09 PM
Was Worhty better than Dominique wilkins? No

Is Parish better than Artis Gilmore ? No

Is russell better than ewing? Yes

Is Dirk better than Karl Malone? different type of players

Is KObe -Pau a better combo than Stockton-malone? TOUGH call

Is Lamar Odom a better player than Kiki Vandeweghe? who cares

Is Michael cooper better than jeff Hornacek? their only difference is color

Is pat riley a better coach than Don Nelson? YES

Is larry brown better than lenny wilkens? NO

Is Horry a better player than Dereck Harper? NO

Is ron Harper better than alex english? BIG NO

Is kobe and shaq 3 times better than west and wilt? when they had PHIL yes

Is kg better than barkley? EQUAL

Is Manu better than Dantley? not a chance

are the 60s celtics better than 90s bulls? no way

TheHoopsProphet
07-26-2011, 10:43 PM
Actually I was thinking more of the lines of

MJ with the Bulls
Hakeem with the Rockets
Isiah with the Pistons
Kareem with the Bucks
Russell with the Celtics
Barry with the Warriors
Dirk with the Mavs
Wade with the Heat

as some examples

1995 akeem, 2003 timmy, 2011 dirk, 1971 lew single handedly turned around their franchises to championship form. 1971 Big O was no better than 2011 j kidd, akeem and timmy had players like kenny smith and stephen jackson playing big roles.

Russel was stocked w Hall of Fame teammates, Isiah had a tremendous team that had championship-form stretches even with him injured, and let me ask u this about MJ, does he still get all those accolades playing for the blazers or rockets?

Shmontaine
07-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Nobody is just automatically a better player because they win a ring. Nobody.

exactly.. it's the other way around... they win a ring because they are better...

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 11:44 AM
1995 akeem, 2003 timmy, 2011 dirk, 1971 lew single handedly turned around their franchises to championship form. 1971 Big O was no better than 2011 j kidd, akeem and timmy had players like kenny smith and stephen jackson playing big roles.

Russel was stocked w Hall of Fame teammates, Isiah had a tremendous team that had championship-form stretches even with him injured, and let me ask u this about MJ, does he still get all those accolades playing for the blazers or rockets?

Bulls were in the worst possible situation when they got MJ. Hadn't made the playoffs in years and had no stars or potential stars whatsoever, while the Blazers had Drexler, Kiki and the Rockets had Sampson, Sleepy, etc.

And that is a joke on that 2011 Kidd was as good as 1971 Oscar.

Oscar Robertson - 5th in Win Shares in the playoffs, 3rd in Playoff PER, 2nd Team All NBA, stepped it up in the Finals.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1971.htm#


MILWAUKEE G MN FG-FGA FT-FTA REB AST PF PTS PPG RPG APG
Alcindor 4 168 46-76 16-21 74 11 12 108 27,0 18,5 2,8
Robertson 4 164 34-65 26-32 20 38 15 94 23,5 5,0 9,5
Dandridge 4 157 35-67 11-16 38 14 13 81 20,3 9,5 3,5


Obviously Kareem was more important than Oscar, but look at how well Oscar and Dandridge played.

Oscar averaged 23.5 ppg, 9.5 apg and 5.0 rpg on 52% FG
Dandridge averaged 20.3 ppg, 3.4 apg and 9.5 rpg on 52% FG

So yeah, no support.

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 11:54 AM
Bulls were in the worst possible situation when they got MJ. Hadn't made the playoffs in years and had no stars or potential stars whatsoever, while the Blazers had Drexler, Kiki and the Rockets had Sampson, Sleepy, etc.

And that is a joke on that 2011 Kidd was as good as 1971 Oscar.

Oscar Robertson - 5th in Win Shares in the playoffs, 3rd in Playoff PER, 2nd Team All NBA, stepped it up in the Finals.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1971.htm#


MILWAUKEE G MN FG-FGA FT-FTA REB AST PF PTS PPG RPG APG
Alcindor 4 168 46-76 16-21 74 11 12 108 27,0 18,5 2,8
Robertson 4 164 34-65 26-32 20 38 15 94 23,5 5,0 9,5
Dandridge 4 157 35-67 11-16 38 14 13 81 20,3 9,5 3,5


Obviously Kareem was more important than Oscar, but look at how well Oscar and Dandridge played.

Oscar averaged 23.5 ppg, 9.5 apg and 5.0 rpg on 52% FG
Dandridge averaged 20.3 ppg, 3.4 apg and 9.5 rpg on 52% FG

So yeah, no support.

big news Jordan joined the bulls in 1984 they still sucked so they ADDED MORE HELP TROUGH THE DRAFT AND TRADES until they finally GOT HIM THE ROSTER NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO WIN.

it was 7 looooooooooooooooong years being unable to defeat prime thomas and prime bird.

btw he coudl have won earlier if he decided to cooperate with Orlando Woolridge instead of clashing with him and throwing him out of the team.

Shmontaine
07-27-2011, 12:06 PM
big news Jordan joined the bulls in 1984 they still sucked so they ADDED MORE HELP TROUGH THE DRAFT AND TRADES until they finally GOT HIM THE ROSTER NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO WIN.

it was 7 looooooooooooooooong years being unable to defeat prime thomas and prime bird.

btw he coudl have won earlier if he decided to cooperate with Orlando Woolridge instead of clashing with him and throwing him out of the team.

dude, make up your mind... was it thomas or the pistons.. was it bird or the celtics... i love how when it suits you, you have thomas and bird beating jordan, yet jordan needed help to win and championship is a team achievement. your hate for MJ is distorting your arguments...

TheHoopsProphet
07-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Bulls were in the worst possible situation when they got MJ. Hadn't made the playoffs in years and had no stars or potential stars whatsoever, while the Blazers had Drexler, Kiki and the Rockets had Sampson, Sleepy, etc.

And that is a joke on that 2011 Kidd was as good as 1971 Oscar.

Oscar Robertson - 5th in Win Shares in the playoffs, 3rd in Playoff PER, 2nd Team All NBA, stepped it up in the Finals.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1971.htm#


MILWAUKEE G MN FG-FGA FT-FTA REB AST PF PTS PPG RPG APG
Alcindor 4 168 46-76 16-21 74 11 12 108 27,0 18,5 2,8
Robertson 4 164 34-65 26-32 20 38 15 94 23,5 5,0 9,5
Dandridge 4 157 35-67 11-16 38 14 13 81 20,3 9,5 3,5


Obviously Kareem was more important than Oscar, but look at how well Oscar and Dandridge played.

Oscar averaged 23.5 ppg, 9.5 apg and 5.0 rpg on 52% FG
Dandridge averaged 20.3 ppg, 3.4 apg and 9.5 rpg on 52% FG

So yeah, no support.

how dare u, i spit on stats!

You are diverting from the point, Lewis Alcindor as you said, changed the enviroment of the franchise, and big spaghetti-O robertson was riding the coattails of his success. Outside of an aged Big O, Alcindor had a team of role players.

and i am confused by the MJ arguement. Are you saying, Jordan would have won with those Hall of Famers on the Blazers? If they had those same players after drafting MJ, yes they might even be better. But this only adds muscle to my point that MJ had to wait out the 80s juggernaughts to step aside and doug collins to leave and pippen and pj and horace grant and all those great players to come by before he could do anything.

I think Jordan is a pretty good player, but what Timmy did with that 03 roster, what Dirk did with that 11 roster, and what akeem did with that 95 roster? thats the kinda stuff that shows how a player can turn an entire team around to champions.

I can get more into it, but I think my argument at least gives more support than the bra of my mother's bosoms.

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 12:18 PM
dude, make up your mind... was it thomas or the pistons.. was it bird or the celtics... i love how when it suits you, you have thomas and bird beating jordan, yet jordan needed help to win and championship is a team achievement. your hate for MJ is distorting your arguments...

No. Im talking to him in his terms.

Of course it was the celtics and the pistons who beat the Bulls.
Same way the Bulls beat the Suns or blazers.

Jordan had enough help since 88.

JB is trying to use as an argument to make Jordan better that he Made the team grown from bottom to champion.

Well it was not that way it was the TEAM the one who Grew AROUND jordan.

Teams in a big city like Chicago or L.A or Boston Or N.Y ( as opposed to small market teams) can grow around a GREAT player for sure because Fa want to play in them if you are sucking the very good dudes yuo draft want to stay etc etc.

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 12:24 PM
how dare u, i spit on stats!

You are diverting from the point, Lewis Alcindor as you said, changed the enviroment of the franchise, and big spaghetti-O robertson was riding the coattails of his success. Outside of an aged Big O, Alcindor had a team of role players.

and i am confused by the MJ arguement. Are you saying, Jordan would have won with those Hall of Famers on the Blazers? If they had those same players after drafting MJ, yes they might even be better. But this only adds muscle to my point that MJ had to wait out the 80s juggernaughts to step aside and doug collins to leave and pippen and pj and horace grant and all those great players to come by before he could do anything.

I think Jordan is a pretty good player, but what Timmy did with that 03 roster, what Dirk did with that 11 roster, and what akeem did with that 95 roster? thats the kinda stuff that shows how a player can turn an entire team around to champions.

I can get more into it, but I think my argument at least gives more support than the bra of my mother's bosoms.


Disagree. As soon as those guys had allstars they still lost series with HCA despite being heavy favorites. Hakeem in 1992 had another allstar on his team in Thorpe and didn't even make the playoffs. His first 4 years he had an allstar as well as soon as he came in. Duncan in 2003 had David Robinson, Parker and Manu. If Duncan gets credit for that, then MJ should for 1991 and 1998 when he had no other allstar on the team. Dirk didn't have another allstar in 2011 and I agree with that, but other years when he did have allstars he got upset in the playoffs. The same for Duncan as well.
And no MJ didn't have wait till anybody was done, he had to wait till he actually had some decent players and wasn't playing teams who starting lineup was full of allstars.

And what did Hakeem do with the 1995 roster? His teammate Drexler had more Win Shares in the season and playoffs than he did.

9. Clyde Drexler*-TOT 11.7
10. Reggie Miller-IND 11.4
11. Hakeem Olajuwon*-HOU 10.7

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 12:31 PM
Disagree. As soon as those guys had allstars they still lost series with HCA despite being heavy favorites. Hakeem in 1992 had another allstar on his team in Thorpe and didn't even make the playoffs. His first 4 years he had an allstar as well as soon as he came in. Duncan in 2003 had David Robinson, Parker and Manu. If Duncan gets credit for that, then MJ should for 1991 and 1998 when he had no other allstar on the team. Dirk didn't have another allstar in 2011 and I agree with that, but other years when he did have allstars he got upset in the playoffs. The same for Duncan as well.
And no MJ didn't have wait till anybody was done, he had to wait till he actually had some decent players and wasn't playing teams who starting lineup was full of allstars.

And what did Hakeem do with the 1995 roster? His teammate Drexler had more Win Shares in the season and playoffs than he did.

jordan had Woolridge when he joined.
Only Drugs avodided him being an allstar, and that happened later when he had kicked him out to Nets.

Shmontaine
07-27-2011, 12:32 PM
No. Im talking to him in his terms.

Of course it was the celtics and the pistons who beat the Bulls.
Same way the Bulls beat the Suns or blazers.

Jordan had enough help since 88.

JB is trying to use as an argument to make Jordan better that he Made the team grown from bottom to champion.

Well it was not that way it was the TEAM the one who Grew AROUND jordan.

Teams in a big city like Chicago or L.A or Boston Or N.Y ( as opposed to small market teams) can grow around a GREAT player for sure because Fa want to play in them if you are sucking the very good dudes yuo draft want to stay etc etc.

I just don't get your argument... are you saying if MJ was so great, why didn't he win in the first few years of his career with little help??? there's a learning curve, and when you go against players who've been in the league for 6+ years with great teammates, it's going to be tough. nobody is arguing that. but to say that a 24 yrold MJ should've beat a veteran piston or celtics team with championship pedigree is not really fair...

nobody argues that the bulls bugaboo in the late 80's was the pistons... they were 3 time champs, if i recall... but the bulls did beat the pistons on their way to dynasty... so, not really sure what your trying to say.. it's not like they waited for the pistons to dismantle before taking over...

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 12:33 PM
No. Im talking to him in his terms.

Of course it was the celtics and the pistons who beat the Bulls.
Same way the Bulls beat the Suns or blazers.

Jordan had enough help since 88.

JB is trying to use as an argument to make Jordan better that he Made the team grown from bottom to champion.

Well it was not that way it was the TEAM the one who Grew AROUND jordan.

Teams in a big city like Chicago or L.A or Boston Or N.Y ( as opposed to small market teams) can grow around a GREAT player for sure because Fa want to play in them if you are sucking the very good dudes yuo draft want to stay etc etc.

Enough help since 1988 my arse. And Jordan did make the team grow, he wasn't handed the best player in the league like Magic was and also another #1 pick 2 years later and playing 3 teams that won 42 games or less in the playoffs all thru the conference.

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 12:36 PM
jordan had Woolridge when he joined.
Only Drugs avodided him being an allstar, and that happened later when he had kicked him out to Nets.

You mean a guy who was never an allstar and who played with MJ as a rookie and the year he broke his leg?

Magic had him as well along with Worthy on the team and lost with HCA to a Suns team with Chambers as the best player. Woolridge wasn't even better than Danny Ainge or Bryon Scott.

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 12:58 PM
Enough help since 1988 my arse. And Jordan did make the team grow, he wasn't handed the best player in the league like Magic was and also another #1 pick 2 years later and playing 3 teams that won 42 games or less in the playoffs all thru the conference.

how many times do i have to explain you why 42 wins in first 80s are worth around the same as 50 in mid 90S?

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 01:00 PM
You mean a guy who was never an allstar and who played with MJ as a rookie and the year he broke his leg?

Magic had him as well along with Worthy on the team and lost with HCA to a Suns team with Chambers as the best player. Woolridge wasn't even better than Danny Ainge or Bryon Scott.
you clearly dont remember him, check him on the nets before drugs and on the Nuggets.
the years he played in the Lakers there were even voices wanting him to be the starter and worhty being the 6th man.
he had some pretty good games in the team.

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 01:01 PM
how many times do i have to explain you why 42 wins in first 80s are worth around the same as 50 in mid 90S?

Prove it?

And how many times do I need to say this?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers


Magic Johnson would have returned to Michigan State rather than play for the Chicago Bulls.

"I'd have stayed in school," he said here Tuesday, standing alone outside Gate 3 1/2 of Chicago Stadium, the house that could have been his. "A coin toss changed the course of my whole life."

Johnson signed with the Lakers after his sophomore year of college and proceeded to win five championships. The Bulls picked second, took UCLA's David Greenwood and have won no championships.

"I wouldn't have played here," Johnson said on the eve of Game 2 of the NBA finals between his team and the team that could have been his. "The only reason I came out was to play with Kareem and the Lakers.



If he refused to even play for the Bulls when drafted, then he obviously didn't have much confidence in his own abilities to turn a franchise around. Which is essentially what he was saying when he made the quote.



Contrast that with Jordan



"When I came here we started from scratch," he said. "We started at the bottom and made it to the top. It's been a long, long seven years, a lot of bad teams, a lot of improvement, step by step, inch by inch. I never gave up hope. I always had faith."



So one copped out to play with the best player in the league, while the other relished the challenge to turn a losing organization into a winning one.

JordansBulls
07-27-2011, 01:03 PM
you clearly dont remember him, check him on the nets before drugs and on the Nuggets.
the years he played in the Lakers there were even voices wanting him to be the starter and worhty being the 6th man.
he had some pretty good games in the team.

And like I said, if he were that good he would have been able to make an allstar team like Ainge and Scott did. He wasn't even better than them and Magic even played with him when he still had other allstars on the team including an allstar in AC Green.

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 01:08 PM
And like I said, if he were that good he would have been able to make an allstar team like Ainge and Scott did. He wasn't even better than them and Magic even played with him when he still had other allstars on the team including an allstar in AC Green.

he pretty much spent the 87-90 period dealingg with drugs, then in 91 when he was tearing it up in denver he had a freak injury that more or less ended his productive career.

so his period to be an allstar in the EAST was 81 to 87.

who do you take OUT of the allstar roster to make him room?

Bird? Helahty bernard King? Dr J ? Prime Buck Williams? Barkley?

Chronz
07-27-2011, 02:57 PM
exactly.. it's the other way around... they win a ring because they are better...

No thats not what hes saying, in fact sometimes players win titles even though they played worse.

Jerry West once said his lone title run was bittersweet because he played so much better in the losses and when he finally won the title he played rather pedestrian.

Hawkeye15
07-27-2011, 03:12 PM
exactly.. it's the other way around... they win a ring because they are better...

that isn't what I said at all...

Winning a ring doesn't make you a better player. Its simply a team accomplishment that is a great thing to be a part of. Its the level of play throughout regular seasons, and playoffs, and how great you are in those areas, that matter more. Rings are simply a cherry on top for the TEAM in a TEAM sport. They really have minimal effect on how to rate individual players. The only reason they have any measurement at all is because any player who wins a ring had a longer set of "important, ie, playoff" games to give us fuel to continue ranking them higher/lower, depending on how they played. The only other effect is has is when that player wins the Finals MVP, because this becomes another award on his resume.

Shmontaine
07-27-2011, 03:48 PM
that isn't what I said at all...

Winning a ring doesn't make you a better player. Its simply a team accomplishment that is a great thing to be a part of. Its the level of play throughout regular seasons, and playoffs, and how great you are in those areas, that matter more. Rings are simply a cherry on top for the TEAM in a TEAM sport. They really have minimal effect on how to rate individual players. The only reason they have any measurement at all is because any player who wins a ring had a longer set of "important, ie, playoff" games to give us fuel to continue ranking them higher/lower, depending on how they played. The only other effect is has is when that player wins the Finals MVP, because this becomes another award on his resume.

of the top 50 greatest players in nba history, only 9 are ring-less... i guess it's just a statistical anomaly... 82% of the best players have rings... coincidence??

Hellcrooner
07-27-2011, 04:21 PM
of the top 50 greatest players in nba history, only 9 are ring-less... i guess it's just a statistical anomaly... 82% of the best players have rings... coincidence??

Its the opposite, they are in the list because they won rings.

Shmontaine
07-27-2011, 04:34 PM
Its the opposite, they are in the list because they won rings.

lol... ok... these players were voted in by media members AND players... but yeah, you probably have more insight than the rest of the brainwashed world... btw, i think you just said that having a ring elevates your individual status, but whatever...

Chronz
07-27-2011, 05:22 PM
of the top 50 greatest players in nba history, only 9 are ring-less... i guess it's just a statistical anomaly... 82% of the best players have rings... coincidence??

Respond to my post, also whats the anomaly? I suppose its an anomaly that the players managed to make the list because they got to play with OTHER top 50 players. Or maybe a collection of great players makes a great team and that in turn strengthens the perception of that strength? Its loopy logic how about we focus on ACTUAL events. Like my Jerry West example. If you truly NEEDED to see Jerry West win a title to know how great he was then I feel sorry for you. Facts are, he DIDNT play better in order to win a title, in fact it was the opposite. He himself would admit it, West was great with or without the title. I wont deny that it helps his career, but it helps his career more than it should, we shouldnt need to see him win a title to know he could have. I mean really, what did we learn about KG in Boston? Did anyone truly doubt he could be a pivotal player on a title team? Personally he was Bostons best player but some prefer one of the 2 wings.

Shmontaine
07-28-2011, 12:25 PM
Respond to my post, also whats the anomaly? I suppose its an anomaly that the players managed to make the list because they got to play with OTHER top 50 players. Or maybe a collection of great players makes a great team and that in turn strengthens the perception of that strength? Its loopy logic how about we focus on ACTUAL events. Like my Jerry West example. If you truly NEEDED to see Jerry West win a title to know how great he was then I feel sorry for you. Facts are, he DIDNT play better in order to win a title, in fact it was the opposite. He himself would admit it, West was great with or without the title. I wont deny that it helps his career, but it helps his career more than it should, we shouldnt need to see him win a title to know he could have. I mean really, what did we learn about KG in Boston? Did anyone truly doubt he could be a pivotal player on a title team? Personally he was Bostons best player but some prefer one of the 2 wings.

you gave me one sentence from one player in nba history... that's not a trend or proof... sorry... one guy felt he didn't play his best when he won a title... how does that prove anything?? find me a great player who says he played his best ball and his team still lost...

anomaly: if it's true that great players are great regardless of if they win rings, then we'd probably be closer to 50-50 on the greatest players in nba history. 82% is an overwhelming majority to disprove this notion... the world, maybe not you, view championships as a measure of individual greatness... and the fact that 18% on that list are ring-less, also proves that the ones who don't win still get some recognition of their greatness.. but the overwhelming majority take into account championships as measure of greatness.. go ahead and feel sorry for everyone...

the greatest players measure themselves against each other based on how much hardware they have.. magic, bird, MJ... Shaq, Kobe, etc... so being a fan, you don't have to do the same, but don't deny that the ones who shaped the sport do, and that should hopefully mean something to you...

there, i answered your post...

Hawkeye15
07-28-2011, 12:30 PM
of the top 50 greatest players in nba history, only 9 are ring-less... i guess it's just a statistical anomaly... 82% of the best players have rings... coincidence??

My top 50 doesn't exactly coincide with theirs, but that is trivial.

Its no coincidence at all. Players who win a ring have more playoff games to allow us a bigger sample size. I never said winning a ring isn't going to help a players ranking, I said I personally don't view them as more of a determiner as many other factors. The public list for top 50 is a great example. There are guys mis-ranked or ranked at all on that list because of exactly what I am talking about.

Shmontaine
07-28-2011, 02:38 PM
My top 50 doesn't exactly coincide with theirs, but that is trivial.

Its no coincidence at all. Players who win a ring have more playoff games to allow us a bigger sample size. I never said winning a ring isn't going to help a players ranking, I said I personally don't view them as more of a determiner as many other factors. The public list for top 50 is a great example. There are guys mis-ranked or ranked at all on that list because of exactly what I am talking about.

well, of course nobody is going to agree 100%, that's not what we're talking about..

this thread is about the perception of winning distorting the reality of players greatness & skill.. and my belief is that the better players have been instrumental in winning rings for their team.. does that mean if you don't win, you aren't good, of course not... it means that if you are better, you win rings... malone, stockton, and charles were great, but are you going to say they were better than MJ, magic, bird, kobe?? no, they simply don't have the hardware that IMO is required to compete with the latter... numbers are fine, but those three had more than enough help and opportunity to win, and they fell short... does that not hurt their legacy??? does that not boost MJ's??

Tony_Starks
07-28-2011, 03:01 PM
There used to be a time where you got beat, you got criticized, and kept coming back and back relentlessly until you finally got that crown. And that's how greatness used to be perceived. A players greatness included those years of struggle but it was finally overcoming those struggles and getting that prize that seperated the really good players from the legends. The guys that never quite got over the hump got judged accordingly. Sure there were exceptions to the rule but in general you looked at that group of guys and said "they were good players but just couldn't get it done."

Somehow all that has changed and now we're into the "what kind of support do they have?" mode. I wonder when this all changed? It used to be you lost and hey the other team wanted it more, better luck next year!

Shmontaine
07-28-2011, 03:10 PM
There used to be a time where you got beat, you got criticized, and kept coming back and back relentlessly until you finally got that crown. And that's how greatness used to be perceived. A players greatness included those years of struggle but it was finally overcoming those struggles and getting that prize that seperated the really good players from the legends. The guys that never quite got over the hump got judged accordingly. Sure there were exceptions to the rule but in general you looked at that group of guys and said "they were good players but just couldn't get it done."

Somehow all that has changed and now we're into the "what kind of support do they have?" mode. I wonder when this all changed? It used to be you lost and hey the other team wanted it more, better luck next year!

the losers (or fans of the losers, since i really don't hear any pro's argue the points some of the people on here argue) needed a reason other than what you stated...

llemon
07-28-2011, 03:39 PM
you clearly dont remember him, check him on the nets before drugs and on the Nuggets.
the years he played in the Lakers there were even voices wanting him to be the starter and worhty being the 6th man.
he had some pretty good games in the team.

Orlando Woolridge looked impressive as a player, but the guy was an NBA loser.

claffyT
07-28-2011, 07:15 PM
Rings dont mean much when ranking how good players are. if a player wins 5 titles while another player wins 0 titles, and they have the exact stats, then they will be ranked the same. though the team with the 5 titles will be ranked better

smith&wesson
07-28-2011, 07:35 PM
it is a factor but it doesnt tell all. if it did robert horry would be one of the best players of all time.

Hellcrooner
07-28-2011, 09:02 PM
it is a factor but it doesnt tell all. if it did robert horry would be one of the best players of all time.

well he actually IS.

I mean , how many pro basketball players have been out there in the whole world and in the whole history? 300000? half a million?

Whats he? top.....200 or 300?

Not bad.

llemon
07-28-2011, 09:07 PM
I believe it is spelled 'legacies'.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Chronz
07-28-2011, 10:52 PM
you gave me one sentence from one player in nba history... that's not a trend or proof... sorry... one guy felt he didn't play his best when he won a title... how does that prove anything??
YOU: Players win a ring BECAUSE they get better

Jerry West: I played worse in victory than I did in defeat.

Both the eye and statistical tests confirm his opinion.

Conclusion: Point PROVEN

It can and has happened before, it happened not too long ago with KG and Pierce.


find me a great player who says he played his best ball and his team still lost...

How about you do your own grunt work, Ive proven all I needed to. There are examples you can find throughout history.


anomaly: if it's true that great players are great regardless of if they win rings, then we'd probably be closer to 50-50 on the greatest players in nba history. 82% is an overwhelming majority to disprove this notion... the world, maybe not you, view championships as a measure of individual greatness... and the fact that 18% on that list are ring-less, also proves that the ones who don't win still get some recognition of their greatness.. but the overwhelming majority take into account championships as measure of greatness.. go ahead and feel sorry for everyone...

My point flew over your head, I do not deny that it effects their perception of greatness. I also admitted it could be an anomoly explained by the fact that these players got to play with one another while the other similarly talented players lacked teammates in comparison. I rather focus on ACTUAL examples, the point I was making was that winning a title doesnt equate to improvement as an individual. How your PERCEIVED is different but in hindsight, its always a result of several important factors, your individual play being among them.


there, i answered your post...
You avoided my main argument, the OP you avoided, I was the guy talking about a players level of play improving due to a title.

drobe86
07-28-2011, 11:20 PM
RINGS MEAN EVERYTHING... If you don't win an NBA Championship you haven't done anything.... You play to win the game. Every player in the NBA plays to win a title.... It doesn't mean you can't be a GOOD player. But GREAT players win at least one Championship come on folks...

mzgrizz
07-29-2011, 12:01 AM
Repeated winning creates a legacy.......how can you separate the two?

Shmontaine
07-29-2011, 01:09 AM
YOU: Players win a ring BECAUSE they get better

Jerry West: I played worse in victory than I did in defeat.

Both the eye and statistical tests confirm his opinion.

Conclusion: Point PROVEN

It can and has happened before, it happened not too long ago with KG and Pierce.

Actually, no... you proved nothing... just because jerry west didn't play at the top of his game and still won, doesn't prove anything... he is a great player and his play was integral in victory... and i said "players win rings because they are better"... just because they may not play at the top of their game in victory doesn't disprove that better players win... he was still the better player..


How about you do your own grunt work, Ive proven all I needed to. There are examples you can find throughout history.

again, you've proven that one guy didn't play as well as HE could've in victory, that proves nothing when comparing him to others greats who haven't won... and the fact that he still won while he could've played better, probably just adds to his legacy...


My point flew over your head, I do not deny that it effects their perception of greatness. I also admitted it could be an anomoly explained by the fact that these players got to play with one another while the other similarly talented players lacked teammates in comparison. I rather focus on ACTUAL examples, the point I was making was that winning a title doesnt equate to improvement as an individual. How your PERCEIVED is different but in hindsight, its always a result of several important factors, your individual play being among them.

nothing flew over my head... you claim that teammates skew (or should, in the opposite) the perception of individual greatness... i claim that the greats/legends win... of course teammates are needed... but why is it the teammates who you give more credit to victory to??


You avoided my main argument, the OP you avoided, I was the guy talking about a players level of play improving due to a title.

again, it's the other way around.. the title is due to being a better player... if you want to talk about individual level of play... fine, that's not what this thread is about... this is about better players, period... not playing the best you have in your career...

Chronz
07-29-2011, 02:42 PM
Actually, no... you proved nothing... just because jerry west didn't play at the top of his game and still won, doesn't prove anything... he is a great player and his play was integral in victory...
LMFAO it proves your theory wrong wholeheartedly, you can pretend otherwise I really dont care. That you combat my stance with the line "he is a great player and his play was integral in victory" tells me your defeated. No ****, show me where I said he became Gary Payton on route to the title (which BTW, are you counting him as one of those players who won a ring and is therefore better as well? LMFAO). No wait, Gary Payton's play was integral to victory right?


and i said "players win rings because they are better"
So your just now catching on to the argument Ive been making? Why even argue if we're not on the same point? You couldve saved us all the trouble by clearing this up, here I thought you were actually stupid enough to believe theres some sort of magical transformation that takes place within a player the minute he won the ring, even if he was a lesser player by then.



just because they may not play at the top of their game in victory doesn't disprove that better players win... he was still the better player..

LMFAO wow I wish I knew this was what you were arguing, its actually easier to disprove than that other ******** stance. You see without naming the comparison your stance is pointless and the problem with using blanket statements like winners are better because they are winners is that its too easy to disprove.

Quick look at Ben Wallace/Chauncey Billups shiny ring, does that ring make either of them better than Barkley, Stockton, Ewing etc...
Winning doesnt mean your a better player, it means you were a part of a better TEAM.



again, you've proven that one guy didn't play as well as HE could've in victory, that proves nothing when comparing him to others greats who haven't won...
For that simplistic logic all I have to do is name Elvin Hayes vs Karl Malone/Barkley. All are PF's who led their teams in dominant fashion (so the Horry excuse gos out the window), guess which one has a ring and guess which are rated higher. Look at Wes Unseld vs Ewing, one has a ring+mvp status to back his legacy yet only a complete fool would rate him higher than the ringless Nate Thurmond or again Ewing.

And heres the real kicker, want to know why those 2 have a ring, because they joined forces and dominated a league ripe with parity. 3 things your all or nothing slogan completely ignores; competition, teammates, and individual performance. This is why I dont deal with absolutes, I dig deeper.


and the fact that he still won while he could've played better, probably just adds to his legacy...

Of course it adds to his legacy but you should understand why it shouldnt. Only a complete moron would NEED to see Jerry West win a ring to know it was possible, ANYONE can win a ring if their support is great enough what you should then focus on is the play of the individual on route to defeat/victory.

Jerry West KNOWS what I say is true, he was easily capable of winning a title in his PRIME, you know considering he was a greater player then, he just lacked the firepower. Ill admit he underrates his own abilities at that stage but to him it would have truly meant more to win while he played at the top of his game. West would have gained more from that experience and it would have been justified considering the Celtics had much more talent than he did.

So in short, Im not saying winning doesnt matter, Im saying your logic is too simplistic for my liking, its HOW you win and WHO you lose to that matters.



nothing flew over my head... you claim that teammates skew (or should, in the opposite) the perception of individual greatness... i claim that the greats/legends win... of course teammates are needed... but why is it the teammates who you give more credit to victory to??

It flew over your head, that wasnt my point at all. My claim is two fold now that I know your stance. First it was that there is ZERO improvement within the player once he wins the title, OUR PERCEPTIONS change, but the player himself may be the same or even worse depending on the viewer.

Now that I know your argument is essentially (greats with rings > greats without), now my stance is well then why arent these players considered greater?



again, it's the other way around.. the title is due to being a better player...
Only its not, lets look at the year West won his title since hes been at the center of this debate. KAJ was the best player in the league, he took home the MVP that year and if not for an injury to Oscar Robertson (among others) he could have very well repeated as champion. This is the context that is lost when you hold a single player accountable for his teams ultimate success/failure. The title West won was not due to being a better player, in fact he wasnt even better than he was a few years prior when he was losing in the Finals yet still taking home the Finals MVP.



if you want to talk about individual level of play... fine, that's not what this thread is about...
Incorrect, read the thread title. This is about the INDIVIDUAL and HOW WINNING Distorts the INDIVIDUALS LEGACY.


this is about better players, period... not playing the best you have in your career...

Yes and no matter what argument you choose, your wrong.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2011, 02:47 PM
Chronz you're a interesting character. On some things you seem to be pretty much "just the facts" but on other issues its kinda obvious you have a bias......

Shmontaine
07-29-2011, 03:34 PM
chronz, i will not quote... it's getting ridiculous...

a couple of things:

legacy, by definition is in hindsight, something left when you're gone... i don't know why you think that a ring doesn't boost one's legacy... the thread title is "how much does winning distort individual legacy"... and my claim, the entire time here, is that the greats/legends have rings, and that's their legacy... the legacy comes AFTER the ring... and without a ring, it hurts one's legacy... and my initial claim was that it DEFINES (not distorts) ones legacy... all good/great players that have never won a ring will be defined as "one of the greatest to never win a ring"... sorry if you don't like it or think that should change...

You keep comparing jerry west to jerry west, why?... you could say the same about MJ, he averaged 37ppg in '86 and didn't win, yet when he was statistically worse, he won... MJ just didn't gripe about it... you can say the same thing about others as well... i don't know why you keep harping on west not playing his best basketball, or him feeling somewhat downtrodden about not being at the top of his game during victory.. his legacy is a great player and a champion... and if he'd not won, it would've hurt his legacy, as you also said "off course it adds to his legacy"...

the legacy of great players are/ and will be defined by the rings they have... players with rings will be viewed as better because of it... sorry if you feel that it's unfair, or if i'm a moron...

Chronz
07-29-2011, 06:30 PM
legacy, by definition is in hindsight, something left when you're gone... i don't know why you think that a ring doesn't boost one's legacy... the thread title is "how much does winning distort individual legacy"... and my claim, the entire time here, is that the greats/legends have rings, and that's their legacy... the legacy comes AFTER the ring... and without a ring, it hurts one's legacy... and my initial claim was that it DEFINES (not distorts) ones legacy... all good/great players that have never won a ring will be defined as "one of the greatest to never win a ring"... sorry if you don't like it or think that should change...
Yes in other words you disagree, to you there is no distortion and thus no argument to be made. However your ignoring the vast diversity of the league and its champions, there is no static assembly where every player is defined by winning a ring. Its a nice cherry to their career but isnt always fulfilling. It really depends on the player and his unique situation. By limiting yourself to a single mantra (winners > losers) you eliminate the room for error in your equation of how a players career is defined.

I have no doubt that it boosts a player career, Im not insinuating that winning doesnt matter, this is something Ive tried to make clear. What I am saying is that every winner is NOT treated equally, ANY player (not just West) would rather win at the top of their games. Those titles tend to carry more weight than your winning it late in your career stage or early in a minor role stage, whatever the case may be, this is the context that gets lost when you throw out obsoletes and random stats about top 50 players.


You keep comparing jerry west to jerry west, why?...
Because hes an easy comparison and one who gets my point across fully because he himself has alluded to it.


you could say the same about MJ, he averaged 37ppg in '86 and didn't win, yet when he was statistically worse, he won... MJ just didn't gripe about it...
Your making the assumption that I was measuring West on plain old PPG, when its not an opinion that relies on stats at all, only one fortified by them. My argument was one of a player not being able to win when he was at his best, not only statistically but subjectively and in West's case personally. MJ didnt gripe about it because hes won titles in the most dominant of fashions and hes done so AT THE TOP OF HIS GAME. This is an opinion backed by both the statistics and the eye test.


you can say the same thing about others as well... i don't know why you keep harping on west not playing his best basketball, or him feeling somewhat downtrodden about not being at the top of his game during victory.. his legacy is a great player and a champion... and if he'd not won, it would've hurt his legacy, as you also said "off course it adds to his legacy"...

Thats my point, not every player experiences championship success in the same fashion and sometimes players experience too little or too much credit in their rides to the top.

That West's career was finally vindicated because of something he admittedly doesnt feel up to par with his career proves how ignorant society can be. Of course he could have won a championship, havent you people seen how many inferior players can win titles, arent you guys paying attention? It adds to his legacy because of society and how we overvalue winning and not how you play the game.

Thats just for West, other players like Gary Payton have won titles in truly minuscule fashion, and while we laud them for stepping up in big moments, it hardly helps his career in the grand scheme of things.



the legacy of great players are/ and will be defined by the rings they have... players with rings will be viewed as better because of it... sorry if you feel that it's unfair, or if i'm a moron...

Isnt the definition of insanity to repeat the same action while expecting a different result? Why are you spewing the same flawed argument?

Lets put your theory to the test
the legacy of great players are/ and will be defined by the rings they have... players with rings will be viewed as better because of it


Great Player : Karl Malone = Zero Rings
Synopsis: Widely hailed as the greatest PF of all time before Duncan came along, so in his playing days was seen as the barometer.


Great Player: Elvin Hayes = 1 Ring
Synopsis: Labeled a cancerous underachiever, who so scared coaches that they attempted to steer their young prospects away from him.

IIRC a member of Del Harris coaching staff once told Moses to "stay the **** away from him".

In either event, until I find the source thats just gossip but its fair to acknowledge the fact that Elvin was not seen in the same light as Malone, IN SPITE OF HIS RING, because he was not hailed or glorified as such.


You can stick to your simple minded breakdowns and for the most part they will suit you well, but eventually if you stick to extreme minded arguments they will fail. They are failing you now.

Chronz
07-29-2011, 06:37 PM
Chronz you're a interesting character. On some things you seem to be pretty much "just the facts" but on other issues its kinda obvious you have a bias......

I honestly think there was something lost along the way, he completely ignored my first post so when I alluded to it he just went off rambling along the tangent he laid out for the OTHER poster.

Im just trying to get this back on track. From what I understand hes saying theres a crowd of winners and losers with nothing in between, and that the winners are greater than the losers.

Which doesnt take any sort of bias to know is dead wrong, it does takes a **** load of ignorance to the games history to believe wholeheartedly. Maybe Im still not understanding his point but whats your stance on this topic?

lakerboy
07-29-2011, 06:40 PM
Another Lebron James thread.

0 championships, and you say he is GOAT?

albertc86
07-29-2011, 06:53 PM
Is KObe -Pau a better combo than Stockton-malone?

and so on.

You just couldn't resist could you? Must you always include Pau in every discussion?

Hellcrooner
07-29-2011, 09:07 PM
You just couldn't resist could you? Must you always include Pau in every discussion?

Its a valid question among the others for the thread purpose.