lessthanjake wrote:Winning a title as his team’s best player would put him in a different tier than he’s currently in. He’d be knocking on the door of a guy like Dirk (though I think still below him).
People saying it wouldn’t change their view because he would’ve been the same player are missing that our perceptions of what someone is as a player is strongly affected by winning bias. Even if Patrick Ewing was the same player and all that changed was John Starks makes a few extra shots, you’d almost certainly think Patrick Ewing was a better player than you think he was now. We’d all think more about his strengths and less about his weaknesses than we currently do. And, even leaving that aside, ranking of players’ greatness is inherently in part about achievements. There can be disagreement on this I suppose, but I think most people would ultimately agree that the same player becomes “greater” if they have more team achievements, even though in a team game those achievements aren’t solely caused by them. It’s not always fair, but it’s the way it is when talking about greatness in something that is a team competition. If Ewing won a title, he’d be a “greater” player.
Yeah, this is a cogent argument. It's more or less what I have in mind (though I'd "only" bump him from around #30 to around #25 all-time). The narrative would give him more credit for his defense and rebounding during the series, and he'd catch fewer arrows for his horrific offense against Hakeem (though folks would argue Starks and Harper carried him, and that he only won when MJ was out). Yet the perception of "greatness" around him would shift, especially since it would be in New York, even if he was the same indefatigable, but flawed, center. There would be that aura of championship immortality around his name which Dirk and Hakeem will always enjoy. Tragic, in a way.
