RealGM

Players have little input in team-building, drafting, cap management, or any of the other factors that go into building a competent team.

Over the course of a fifteen year career you'd expect an all time great to have a few opportunities at a chip, but this isn't always the case. A great player can be stuck on bad teams his entire career through sheer bad luck. Or lose an important role player to injury in a pivotal series. Or face a team whose owner is willing to spend big on depth. Team success involves hundreds of variables that are completely beyond any individual player's control no matter how good they are at basketball.

The true measure of greatness is statistical performance relative to league average in your era. Accolades like MVP and All-NBA selections are also meaningful signals of greatness. Rings are almost totally meaningless. Pure noise.

Welcome to summer….well done.

Given it's the main goal of every team/player, I'd assume they disagree with you bro

Okay so if championships don't mean anything what does?

Your imaginary view of how things should be?

WolfAddict wrote:Given it's the main goal of every team/player, I'd assume they disagree with you bro

My point was they don't mean much in the context of assessing an individual player's ability and talent level.

Of course championships mean something to players. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

WarriorGM wrote:Okay so if championships don't mean anything what does?

Your imaginary view of how things should be?

He said All-NBA selections and MVP's.

Basically he's saying you can win other awards and still be considered great even without a championship.

WarriorGM wrote:Okay so if championships don't mean anything what does?

Your imaginary view of how things should be?

I already said what I consider meaningful when assessing a player's all-time standing: statistical performance relative to league average in your era, and accolades like MVP and All-NBA.

I don't know if "imaginary" is the right word, and I wasn't trying to say "how things should be". I merely presented an argument for why I don't consider championships as particularly important when evaluating the greatest players of all time.

Kids these days..

shotsquatch wrote:

WolfAddict wrote:Given it's the main goal of every team/player, I'd assume they disagree with you bro

My point was they don't mean anything in the context of assessing an individual player's ability and talent level.

Of course championships mean something to players. I never suggested otherwise.

I stand corrected - My apologies brother

What if ranking individual players across eras of time in a team sport is what doesn't mean anything?

shotsquatch wrote:Players have little input in team-building, drafting, cap management, or any of the other factors that go into building a competent team.

Over the course of a fifteen year career you'd expect an all time great to have a few opportunities at a chip, but this isn't always the case. A great player can be stuck on bad teams his entire career through sheer bad luck. Or lose an important role player to injury in a pivotal series. Or face a team whose owner is willing to spend big on depth. Team success involves hundreds of variables that are completely beyond any individual player's control no matter how good they are at basketball.

The true measure of greatness is statistical performance relative to league average in your era. Accolades like MVP and All-NBA selections are also meaningful signals of greatness. Rings are almost totally meaningless. Pure noise.

Hmmm. I’d suspect most disagree with you there. All the things you mentioned are important, but winning is a big part of it. This isn’t the YMCA. I doubt any player would say the would rather pile up empty stats rather than win a chip.

What all time greats didn’t have a shot at winning it all? I can’t think of any

zimpy27 wrote:What if ranking individual players in a team sport is what doesn't mean anything?

Bingo,

Plus there have been statistically great players on a super team that haven’t won titles.

shotsquatch wrote:

WarriorGM wrote:Okay so if championships don't mean anything what does?

Your imaginary view of how things should be?

I already said what I consider meaningful when assessing a player's all-time standing: statistical performance relative to league average in your era, and accolades like MVP and All-NBA.

I don't know if "imaginary" is the right word, and I wasn't trying to say "how things should be". I merely presented an argument for why I don't consider championships as particularly important when evaluating the greatest players of all time.

Here's the problem with that: accumulating stats aside from wins isn't the point of the game. Indeed there are cases where it is actively detrimental to winning. You have a ball hog padding his stats. Is that supposed to be good? And how do you know what stats are supposed to mean something? Height is a stat. Jumping height, time to run a certain distance, and wingspan are stats too and generally considered to correlate with being good at basketball. Why bother to play? Just call the tallest guys who can jump the highest and have the longest standing reach the greatest players of all-time. Oh right that's exactly what some of you already do.

I think there is some truth to this, but it ignores that how a player does in the playoffs should impact how they are viewed. So for example, I always thought Tracy McGrady did great in the playoffs, even though his teams never got past the first round. He just didn’t have a ton of talent around him and I don’t hold it against him as a player. If every time he got to the playoffs he just collapsed and that was why they never advanced, I think it would be fair to use it as criticism, even if he was great in the regular season. McGrady is just an example, but I would use this analysis for anyone.

Almost always comes down to championships In the end, especially Individual statistics - how many did they help lead their team to the ultimate goal championship ... It's why no one ever really talks about great players such as Charles Barkley - Just naming someone top of my head ... No disrespect to Sir Charles ... Someone who was great, but never really won anything and rarely gets mentioned because of It IMO.

Leading your team to a championship is literally the point of the game and why you play

You play to become a champion not subjective MVPs or all NBA selections

Let's just shut down the league if that's the case. LOL

shotsquatch wrote:

WolfAddict wrote:Given it's the main goal of every team/player, I'd assume they disagree with you bro

My point was they don't mean much in the context of assessing an individual player's ability and talent level.

Of course championships mean something to players. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

Considering the replies, it seems we don't like reading more than a couple of sentences at all. Even in a discussion board

Disarming the bomb is pointless. Its all about the journey learning how to disarm a bomb before it explodes. Look at all different color wires.

Curing diseases is pointless. Its about inventing amazing treatments, that extends life long enough to make a ton of money.

Publishing a book is statistical noise. Going through the journey of writing the Novel, which can take years of hard work, and research is the true prize. Getting published means next to nothing.

Getting your PhD is pointless. Just learning for all those years is the true reward.

Getting to the top of Everest doesn't really matter. Its about all times you tried to get there. 2, 3, even four fingers lost is far more impressive.

Finishing a post on RealGM isn't really that important. Its far more impressive to intelligently layout your argument and mak