PDA

View Full Version : Would you rather have the greater career or be the better player?



Chronz
10-01-2012, 06:20 PM
Consider the hypothetical, your an All-Star regardless but 1 of those Stars is perceived as a winner and will go down in history as being the better player because of it.

Or would you rather be the guy who has the better game but will never be able to prove it because he lacked the teammates, thus hes actually going to be remembered as an inferior player.

Which is more important to you, how your remembered (by the majority) or how good you actually were(known only by the minority)?

Quinnsanity
10-01-2012, 06:54 PM
Better career. It's essentially asking would you rather have rings and accolades or just think in your own mind that you're the better player. I assume this is the type of relationship Paul Pierce thinks he has with Kobe Bryant. Which would you rather be?

Kashmir13579
10-01-2012, 06:55 PM
T-Mac vs Kobe?

Obviously i'd rather be Kobe and who wouldn't?

b@llhog24
10-01-2012, 06:57 PM
Better player.

Kashmir13579
10-01-2012, 07:00 PM
For me, this hypothetical isn't as much about how i'm remembered by people as much as all the other perks that go with being perceived as one of the GOATs. A player like T-Mac isn't doing that well financially vs Kobe Bryant balling out of control and buying his wife crazy jewlary for copping some dome. T-Mac can't afford to do that ****.

Fnom11
10-01-2012, 07:04 PM
Careers go down in history, being the better player does not. Tmac was a near perfect player in his prime, better than Kobe, Lebron, and maybe even on par with Jordan but that doesn't matter in the end because he never accomplished anything.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 07:08 PM
Well, in sports, you always want to be the best player you can be, but you also want to achieve team success.

In basketball, you want the better career. In tennis, you want to be the best player, because that means you will win. Does that make sense?

I also want to set parameters. I would rather be Robert Horry than Jeff Hornacek for example. Obviously I would rather be Karl Malone than Robert Horry. Meaning, I would prefer to be a bad *** player over a role player with a bunch of chips. But if I had to take a slight dip in production (TMac peak versus Kobe peak), its a no brainer. Give me the better career.

b@llhog24
10-01-2012, 07:10 PM
T-Mac vs Kobe?

Obviously i'd rather be Kobe and who wouldn't?

Im thinkin more Chuck vs Malone.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Im thinkin more Chuck vs Malone.

Did you forget the average age of the NBA forum? Most here were still crapping their diapers when Chuck and Karl were in their primes.

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Easily have the greater career.

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-01-2012, 07:15 PM
This is Kobe vs Lebron again without mentioning them lol

I'll take the accolades and awards because even if the other player was more talented he will never be ranked ahead of you because he was a loser

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 07:20 PM
This is Kobe vs Lebron again without mentioning them lol

I'll take the accolades and awards because even if the other player was more talented he will never be ranked ahead of you because he was a loser

How is this a Kobe versus Bron thread? Bron just won a ring, finals MVP, has 3 MVP's, an Olympic gold medal, and hardware out the ***.

If anything, its a Barkley versus Duncan thread, or a McGrady versus Kobe/LeBron thread.

Kashmir13579
10-01-2012, 07:23 PM
Did you forget the average age of the NBA forum? Most here were still crapping their diapers when Chuck and Karl were in their primes.

yes i'm 23 and have been watching NBA religiously since 2003. Anything before that i can't really say.

sep11ie
10-01-2012, 07:30 PM
That's like asking if you would rather have a bigger Dick or better at pleasuring a woman.

JasonJohnHorn
10-01-2012, 07:31 PM
You should have put a poll up.

Honeslty, I know the popular answer will be the better career. I read an interview with Stockton once where he said that there are players who have not put in as much work to win a title, and guys who were in better situations to win, but at the end of the day what matter to him was that he knew he worked as hard as he could abd did the best he could have done. He left it all on the floor, and what more can you want than that?

That said, an inferior player can still put in as much work and come away from his career knowing he did his best, so I'd rather be the guy that wins the rings, because it is, at the end of the day, a team sport, and I'd rather play with some great talent and be apart of something special, then have my talents wasted in a losing effort.

I don't have so much of an ego that I need to be the best individual player on the court. I'd rather be on the better team.

It is an interesting question and it makes me think of The Big O. Russell won a LOT of rings, but I believe he is quoted as saying the Big O was the best player he ever played against. Kareem I think said the same. Even though he's only got one ring, he's also go the respect of the greatest players who see him as the greatest.

I think the respect of your peers would mean a lot to.

JasonJohnHorn
10-01-2012, 07:34 PM
That's like asking if you would rather have a bigger Dick or better at pleasuring a woman.

I don' see the correlation?

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 07:35 PM
I still think the Tmac/Kobe comparison for this is inaccurate because that had to do more with the health of Tmac than accomplishments or greatness of career. Heck I wouldn't even say Tmac was clearly better than Kobe.

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Consider the hypothetical, your an All-Star regardless but 1 of those Stars is perceived as a winner and will go down in history as being the better player because of it.

Or would you rather be the guy who has the better game but will never be able to prove it because he lacked the teammates, thus hes actually going to be remembered as an inferior player.

Which is more important to you, how your remembered (by the majority) or how good you actually were(known only by the minority)?

Win.

Id rather be Worhty,B scott, Mchale,Parish, Pau, Dumars, Pippen etc etc than Gilmore, Gervin, English, Barkley, malone, Stockton , Baylor etc etc

Chronz
10-01-2012, 07:39 PM
I cant help but think some of you are missing the question, its about 2 players who the majority of the world recognize as being in the same class (so Im not talking about having an Horry type career vs star), Im talking about 2 stars but one having the fame and the other having the game.

No need to add additional context, would you rather be perceived as the better player or be the better player?


That's like asking if you would rather have a bigger Dick or better at pleasuring a woman.

Yes, very much so.

Chronz
10-01-2012, 07:40 PM
Win.

Id rather be Worhty,B scott, Mchale,Parish, Pau, Dumars, Pippen etc etc than Gilmore, Gervin, English, Barkley, malone, Stockton , Baylor etc etc

Scott over Stockton?

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 07:42 PM
I cant help but think some of you are missing the question, its about 2 players who the majority of the world recognize as being in the same class (so Im not talking about having an Horry type career vs star), Im talking about 2 stars but one having the fame and the other having the game.

No need to add additional context, would you rather be perceived as the better player or be the better player?



Yes, very much so.

Did my post not give an accurate answer to your question from my point of view? The reason I brought up Horry was to say that both players need to be in the same class.

Cal827
10-01-2012, 07:45 PM
Just like asking would you rather have the better poster, or the poster with the greater career: Chronz or Hellcrooner :D

Anyways, better career for me. Depending on how much you have won, some people would call it a fluke. For example, if the "winner" might be looked at as a fluke depending on the situation. For example (I'm not trying to bait in any way), but other than the 2009 title, many People on PSD are making excuses for his other 4 titles (E.g. Shaq carried him to the first three, Gaslol is responsible for his last title). I think the excuses are bad, but regardless, some people look at him as a "lucky" winner.

Being the better player could get you into conversation permanently. For example, on PSD, you constantly see T-Mac prime threads (Thanks JBulls :D), and how he compares to the other greats like MJ, Kobe and others when they were in their primes. Think of another sport, think Dan Marino. Many people think he's still the greatest QB ever even when compared to guys like Montana and in the future, Brady/Manning/Brees, despite not holding QB records anymore and not winning the SB once.

Chronz
10-01-2012, 07:46 PM
T-Mac vs Kobe?

Obviously i'd rather be Kobe and who wouldn't?

Have some dignity

Chronz
10-01-2012, 07:48 PM
You should have put a poll up.

Honeslty, I know the popular answer will be the better career. I read an interview with Stockton once where he said that there are players who have not put in as much work to win a title, and guys who were in better situations to win, but at the end of the day what matter to him was that he knew he worked as hard as he could abd did the best he could have done. He left it all on the floor, and what more can you want than that?

That said, an inferior player can still put in as much work and come away from his career knowing he did his best, so I'd rather be the guy that wins the rings, because it is, at the end of the day, a team sport, and I'd rather play with some great talent and be apart of something special, then have my talents wasted in a losing effort.

I don't have so much of an ego that I need to be the best individual player on the court. I'd rather be on the better team.

It is an interesting question and it makes me think of The Big O. Russell won a LOT of rings, but I believe he is quoted as saying the Big O was the best player he ever played against. Kareem I think said the same. Even though he's only got one ring, he's also go the respect of the greatest players who see him as the greatest.

I think the respect of your peers would mean a lot to.

Stockton's words of wisdom have been wasted then

Chronz
10-01-2012, 07:49 PM
Did my post not give an accurate answer to your question from my point of view? The reason I brought up Horry was to say that both players need to be in the same class.
Yes, very much so

Kashmir13579
10-01-2012, 07:59 PM
Have some dignity

bahahaha


If you could ACTUALLY make this reality and not a hypothetical, you would choose Kobe too.

Ebbs
10-01-2012, 08:23 PM
I think the player that will be remembered honestly.

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 08:29 PM
Would an Alex English vs James Worthy be an accurate comparison for the thread?

day_gun
10-01-2012, 08:47 PM
I would rather be a remembered winner than a forgotten good player

Chronz
10-01-2012, 08:57 PM
Would an Alex English vs James Worthy be an accurate comparison for the thread?

Im pretty sure it is when you consider most people have Worthy as the superior player regardless of rings. If Worthy was just another big game player who never won the big one ala Elgin Baylor, would you have him below English? I personally never thought that highly of him but its an interesting argument.

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 09:04 PM
Im pretty sure it is when you consider most people have Worthy as the superior player regardless of rings. If Worthy was just another big game player who never won the big one ala Elgin Baylor, would you have him below English? I personally never thought that highly of him but its an interesting argument.

I think Alex English is a prime example of a player whose reputation took a huge hit simply because he never had the supporting cast to compete for a title and James Worthy is a prime example of a very good player that is considered great because he was always on championship caliber squads. In reality though I feel English was the better individual player.


And I think most of us would rather be James Worthy than Alex English.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 09:10 PM
I think Alex English is a prime example of a player whose reputation took a huge hit simply because he never had the supporting cast to compete for a title and James Worthy is a prime example of a very good player that is considered great because he was always on championship caliber squads. In reality though I feel English was the better individual player.


And I think most of us would rather be James Worthy than Alex English.

English also played the majority of his peak with a team that played at a frantic pace (he shot as much as Kobe does), and his defense was suspect. Worthy also had some playoff series that he absolutely took over.

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 09:14 PM
English also played the majority of his peak with a team that played at a frantic pace (he shot as much as Kobe does), and his defense was suspect. Worthy also had some playoff series that he absolutely took over.

That being said, if they swapped places do you think James Worthy is nearly as effective as he was for the showtime lakers? And do you think the Lakers win any less with English than they did with Worthy?


Like the thread suggests I think they are comparable players, but how many people remember James Worthy and how many people remember Alex English? Its really night and day in terms of their legacy.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 09:16 PM
That being said, if they swapped places do you think James Worthy is nearly as effective as he was for the showtime lakers? And do you think the Lakers win any less with English than they did with Worthy?

I don't think either would suffer or get better honestly. The Lakers were absolutely stacked, replacing an all star with another one, even if we disagree which one is better, doesn't change anything.

Bruno
10-01-2012, 09:21 PM
great question.

I like the greater career. might be a dumbed down point of view, but to me it translates as accomplishing more with less (individual talent, or physical gifts). it represents hard work and achieving beyond ones assumed ability.

i don't buy the 'he wasn't drafted into the ideal scenario' argument as much in the 2k era, as i do for previous eras. Look at the 2008 Olympic team; two thirds of those players are on different teams today in 2012. Players can leave their teams, and control their own destinies. There's no longer the tyrannical GM excuse to given players not being able to achieve personal success through team success.

when people put together their GOAT lists, they almost never clarify if they're making a best career list or best player list. usually you have tons of people debating points geared towards different criteria- just turns into a mess.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 09:27 PM
great question.

I like the greater career. might be a dumbed down point of view, but to me it translates as accomplishing more with less (individual talent, or physical gifts). it represents hard work and achieving beyond ones assumed ability.

i don't buy the 'he wasn't drafted into the ideal scenario' argument as much in the 2k era, as i do for previous eras. Look at the 2008 Olympic team; two thirds of those players are on different teams today in 2012. Players can leave their teams, and control their own destinies. There's no longer the tyrannical GM excuse to given players not being able to achieve personal success through team success.

when people put together their GOAT lists, they almost never clarify if they're making a best career list or best player list. usually you have tons of people debating points geared towards different criteria- just turns into a mess.

Well, you have to when you are judging the first 7 years of a superstars career (that is the tenure teams were basically keeping their stars). When a guy is way behind the 8 ball because he was dwelling away on a poor team, versus another player stepping immediately into a ready made contender (Duncan, Kobe), you can't hold them accountable.

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 09:42 PM
English had no help?

wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David thompson, Dan issel, Kiki vandeweghe, Calvin Natt, fat lever!!!!

Seriously, those nuggets teams were really good, it simply happened the lakers were better.

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 09:47 PM
Would an Alex English vs James Worthy be an accurate comparison for the thread?


Teh accurate Comparison isn this case IMO is:

Worhty Vs Dominique Wilkins.

Wichs is double interesting since Lakers CHOSE between either in the draft.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 09:52 PM
Teh accurate Comparison isn this case IMO is:

Worhty Vs Dominique Wilkins.

Wichs is double interesting since Lakers CHOSE between either in the draft.

or Duncan versus Barkley? Magic versus Stockton?

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 09:57 PM
or Duncan versus Barkley? Magic versus Stockton?

Well Duncan is both better and has a better career than Barkley :p

And Barkley does not have any excuse, his suns were stacked enough.

Bulls were out there?

Well Duncan had to deal with the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. And he did.

3RDASYSTEM
10-01-2012, 10:01 PM
I feel like i have a little bit to do with this thread title

For the love of all individual dynamic cold blooded day1 killers it doesnt take a ring or multi rings to see that

from what i've seen BRON, IVERSON, SHAQ, WILT, ALCINDOR, KIDD,MAGIC, CP3, DUNCAN,KG,BARKLEY and chosen few others were just flat out legends/killers from day1 game wise,not needing allstar games and most definitely no rings to justify they game/impact ..






but i also understand a lengthy resume/legacy is more postivitely impacting with rings than not, but coming from a person who actually played the game(and with NBA'ers) its all about your actual 'game', not a media agenda or because somebody reminds you(or steals his actual game) of JORDAN doesnt make him closest, it makes him a copycat(if you play ball and take it seriously,you'll laugh also)....



you're game is you're game,rather you're a backup guard turned allstar like NASH/KOBE or a day1 starter ala BRON/SHAQ/IVERSON/WILT/DUNCAN, you are who you are to me....

If you're getting triple teamed(SHAQ/DUNCAN) and WILT/JORDAN rules(IVERSON) than i know what type of problem you are on the court and/or lack of help you have, and in a player like AI's situation, a lack of talent/playermakers around hurt his PER efficiency so people who dont play the game just look at that but not the fact a 5'9'' PG had to shoot 40x per game basically to just have his team 'compete''..not win or contend, but just to compete and keep it close

NASH/STOCKTON/CP3/MAGIC and a slew of others would piss and **** themselves if they had to convert to being a shooter /strictly scorer and chuck 40 shots per game just to keep they team competitive, game in game out..and they PER/WS% would be to **** also


but what do i know, i just play the game

ink
10-01-2012, 10:03 PM
This is Kobe vs Lebron again without mentioning them lol

I'll take the accolades and awards because even if the other player was more talented he will never be ranked ahead of you because he was a loser

No this is an antidote to the "how many rings" threads we always get.

3RDASYSTEM
10-01-2012, 10:12 PM
and no HAWKEYE you get drafted as 'individual player' from a team/org
so its all about indivdual/personal success from NBA to NFL to MLB to
TENNIS from day1 to end of it(see TOMLINSON,BARKLEY,,IVERSON,GRIFFEY,BONDS), and even WILT played for stats/self back in the what 50'60's according to reports right? so trust me its been going on since DIPPERS days, he saved the NBA back then, as an individual player or was it the WARRIORS/SIXERS who did it for the league as a team?

3RDASYSTEM
10-01-2012, 10:14 PM
tru franchise/day1 starters usually have great careers minus the major injury bug

regards of a ring or two or three

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 10:18 PM
Well Duncan is both better and has a better career than Barkley :p

And Barkley does not have any excuse, his suns were stacked enough.

Bulls were out there?

Well Duncan had to deal with the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. And he did.

Barkley's excuse is #23. I disagree. Barkley's peak smashes any PF I have ever seen.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 10:19 PM
and no HAWKEYE you get drafted as 'individual player' from a team/org
so its all about indivdual/personal success from NBA to NFL to MLB to
TENNIS from day1 to end of it(see TOMLINSON,BARKLEY,,IVERSON,GRIFFEY,BONDS), and even WILT played for stats/self back in the what 50'60's according to reports right? so trust me its been going on since DIPPERS days, he saved the NBA back then, as an individual player or was it the WARRIORS/SIXERS who did it for the league as a team?

I mean this with no offense, but the reason I never reply to you is because your posts make no sense. They are a huge run-on sentence with mixed thoughts.

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 10:28 PM
Barkley's excuse is #23. I disagree. Barkley's peak smashes any PF I have ever seen.

Too bad for the #23 excuse that the suns were indeed stacked in 94 and 95 and failed to do the trick.
Not only that but they were defeated by an inferior force as was Houston ( probably the most lackluster roster to win a ring alongside barrys warriors in the 70s).

b@llhog24
10-01-2012, 10:57 PM
Im thinkin more Chuck vs Malone.

Did you forget the average age of the NBA forum? Most here were still crapping their diapers when Chuck and Karl were in their primes.

I was still crapping my pants round that time too. :embarrassment:

b@llhog24
10-01-2012, 10:58 PM
That's like asking if you would rather have a bigger Dick or better at pleasuring a woman.

Great analogy.

b@llhog24
10-01-2012, 11:00 PM
and no hawkeye you get drafted as 'individual player' from a team/org
so its all about indivdual/personal success from nba to nfl to mlb to
tennis from day1 to end of it(see tomlinson,barkley,,iverson,griffey,bonds), and even wilt played for stats/self back in the what 50'60's according to reports right? So trust me its been going on since dippers days, he saved the nba back then, as an individual player or was it the warriors/sixers who did it for the league as a team?

i mean this with no offense, but the reason i never reply to you is because your posts make no sense. They are a huge run-on sentence with mixed thoughts.

+1

JordansBulls
10-01-2012, 11:27 PM
Depends on my level as a superstar. For instance Isiah Thomas with the greater career or Oscar Robertson as the better player?

Dwight Howard with the greater career or Bill Walton as the better player?

P Harvy
10-01-2012, 11:29 PM
I'd rather know I was the better player. I may not be viewed as the better player by the majority but if I know in my mind that I was better than a guy with more rings than that's the only satisfaction I need. Forget rings at that point.

mdm692
10-01-2012, 11:37 PM
This has Kobe vs Lebron written all over.

THE MTL
10-02-2012, 01:12 AM
Careers go down in history, being the better player does not. Tmac was a near perfect player in his prime, better than Kobe, Lebron, and maybe even on par with Jordan but that doesn't matter in the end because he never accomplished anything.

Hell no, prime Tmac was never better than Lebron or Kobe in their primes. DRUNK.

THE MTL
10-02-2012, 01:16 AM
Consider the hypothetical, your an All-Star regardless but 1 of those Stars is perceived as a winner and will go down in history as being the better player because of it.

Or would you rather be the guy who has the better game but will never be able to prove it because he lacked the teammates, thus hes actually going to be remembered as an inferior player.

Which is more important to you, how your remembered (by the majority) or how good you actually were(known only by the minority)?

So you're basically saying would u rather be an allstar with a better game or an allstar with a better career. Usually the two go hand and hand, Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan are the best players in the game with better games and have better careers to back that up as opposed to guys like KG, Melo, and Dirk.

beliges
10-02-2012, 01:22 AM
Careers go down in history, being the better player does not. Tmac was a near perfect player in his prime, better than Kobe, Lebron, and maybe even on par with Jordan but that doesn't matter in the end because he never accomplished anything.

No