WarriorGM wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:WarriorGM wrote:
Wins measure things other metrics do not. There is no substitute.
Let's go with this analogy: you could be the foremost expert on Alzheimer's for 25 years but you are still a lesser figure in the field next to the guy who cures it even if it only takes him one year.
You mean the lead research on a large team of scientists who find a cure? Much like basketball science is a team effort as well. But if you wanted me to vote on the most influential and important scientist, this wouldn't determine who is the best. Was this one year some kind of insane ground breaking event which forever didn't just change Alzheimers but our fundamental knowledge of the world around us? If so sure maybe that guy could get the award. If however the work of this team was completely built on the work of someone's 25 year career, that person may very well have been the most significant contributor to that cure despite not being on the final team that got there.
The team getting their with the cure would get to do all the talk shows...but that's now how we evaluate greatness.
To bring the analogy back to basketball example at hand how did Wilkins build upon Walton's performance to achieve a breakthrough? Your interpretation wouldn't apply.
In terms of importance in the game of basketball? We can go there but I guess you missed the point.
I think Elgee/Ben Taylor did a pretty good concept on this. Ben created his "CORP" which is effectively a way to look at the chances of a title for a team with x y z player.
https://fansided.com/2017/10/19/nylon-calculus-championship-odds-short-lived-megastars-corp/From 86 to 93 Wilkins gave his team all nba to moderate MVP level chances of winning a title if they built around him well. Walton at his peak gave his team about 2 years of top tier MVP to MAYBE a year of all time great value. Basketball isn't science...we have to discuss these things differently. Your analogy before just sucked, no offense to you or insult intended, it just didn't work.
With basketball it's more you have a team and you have coaches and GM's and players all trying to peak perfectly so that team can win a title. If you get a Walton peak, life is great for that year....but are you ready for it? Did you as a team built up in time where that peak could get it to work? Odds are pretty pretty bad at that working. The less teams of course the better your odds, things worked out well for walton. Meanwhile Nik isn't nearly as likely to get you that ring but you get 7 years in an 8 year span where good golly he's great and if you can build around him right you can win.
Think 2005-2007 KG, even if you don't think he's as good as Walton, you can't think he was that far off. That franchise tried hard, but they were incompetent, and KG was left with just the most god awful team you can imagine around him at a true apex for him. It was horrible.
Not as good as Walton (maybe KG wasn't, we can debate), but Elton Brand was another guy who had a short career due to injures. But from 02-07 he was a legit allstar level player at WORST. In 2006 he was a legit MVP level guy, and I mean strong MVP. If he just happened to be on a team with 2 other stars, he wins a ring and likely an MVP that year. Is he suddenly on this list?
The thing of value for eventually winning is being Dirk. He was a star over and over and over gain and despite ever getting a legit "Pippen" he just eventually won because his team was always good enough to have a fighter chance. That's the value a sustained greatness. Some guys just get the perfect storm and fans miss that they didn't do it. They got that perfect storm. And it's ok to get that perfect storm. Good for them, that's why you need a long career of being great.
.
