RealGM

Don't give any names of any players.

Which of these categories mainly effect how the best player in the league is defined.

Is it the one who averages the most ppg?

Is it the one who has the Highest Player Efficiency Rating?

Is it the player who leads in Player Wins, Win Shares, etc?

Is it the player that makes both the All NBA First Team and All NBA Defensive Team?

Is it the player that wins the League MVP?

Is it the player that wins the Finals MVP?

Is it the player that you feel is the most talented in the league?

Other????? (Define what the other category is)




Just what is the criteria that you use?

It's a combination of all of those things.

The player who accomplishes the most considering what players are around him and how he plays in big games. Leadership counts for a lot as well.

And that is why I think LeBron James is undoubtedly the best player in the league.

Batronuj wrote:The player who accomplishes the most considering what players are around him and how he plays in big games. Leadership counts for a lot as well.

And that is why I think LeBron James is undoubtedly the best player in the league.

I agree with that sentiment. Scariest thing of all is he's only 23. It seems like now, in order for people to take notice, he needs to do something like last year's game 5. For him, 30/8/7 is an average night, when every other player in the NBA would be all over sportscenter after a night like that.

I don't look at any of those things when I determine who is the best. Winning an award doesn't make you a better player. I just watch the players play and draw my conclusion based on that. Looking at championships, wins, and awards is stupid imo. What if Tim Duncan played on the Timberwolves or the Clippers throughout his entire career and won nothing? Would you still consider him the best player in the NBA? I don't think you would.

a player that impacts the game the most. PER is a solid way of determining the quality of the player since it's a combination of most stats. Chris Paul's bare numbers are impressive but many other PGs in the past has put up 20 and 10. Then you see how much higher his PER is compared to the rest and you start to notice that his team runs at a much slower pace than the other 20 and 10 PGs in history and how his TO rate is so low compared to his usage.

Make that "the one who impacts winning a championship the most" and I'll agree with you.

penbeast0 wrote:Make that "the one who impacts winning a championship the most" and I'll agree with you.

I don't see how winning a championship, makes a player better than another player of equal impact in games, except that the champ player was performing on the highest stage. If MJ played on scrub teams his entire career, I don't see how his impact in games is any less significant; his teammates just didn't produce enough firepower to win it all. But that only applies to 2 players of extremely similar impact, like Duncan and KG, where Duncan wins out because his rings. If Billups win Finals MVP again, I still don't think he's better than Kobe.

By impacts winning a championship I am trying to distinguish, for example, David Robinson from Hakeem Olujawon. Robinson was the better player in the regular season for at least his pre-injury career; Hakeem picked it up in the playoffs where Robinson didn't so I consider Hakeem the better choice for best player in the league.

LeBron is a fair choice even if his team didn't win it all because he got them there and gave them a chance to win the title despite a lesser supporting cast. Someone with equally impressive regular season stats whose team consistently underachieves rather than overachieves in the playoffs (TMac) should not be considered the best player in the league. Tim Duncan wins championships even if Garnett might have better individual stats (before this year). It comes down to wins and then to winning under pressure.

Overall impact, on the court.

Various accomplishments come with that. As does talent.

I think it's whoever can dominate a game single-handedly and lead his team to a Championship.

The best player in the league has to be able to take complete control of the game on both ends of the floor.

It's really hard to choose the best player in the league because Kobe, Paul, James, and Duncan have all shown the ability to just take over. The other team can make adjustments. But in the end, they determine the outcome.

Their on court dominance, on offense and on defense. Influencing the game on a physically imposing and mental level, with the ability to break the will of an opponent. The player you want with the ball at the end of a game. The player you want on defense to secure the win.

To me that defines the best player. The best all-around player.

Chris Paul and Michael Jordan define the best player in the league.

penbeast0 wrote:By impacts winning a championship I am trying to distinguish, for example, David Robinson from Hakeem Olujawon. Robinson was the better player in the regular season for at least his pre-injury career; Hakeem picked it up in the playoffs where Robinson didn't so I consider Hakeem the better choice for best player in the league.

LeBron is a fair choice even if his team didn't win it all because he got them there and gave them a chance to win the title despite a lesser supporting cast. Someone with equally impressive regular season stats whose team consistently underachieves rather than overachieves in the playoffs (TMac) should not be considered the best player in the league. Tim Duncan wins championships even if Garnett might have better individual stats (before this year). It comes down to wins and then to winning under pressure.

but winning is much more of team success than individual domination. If Hakeem or Duncan raises their game in the playoffs (as they did), and their team lets them down, it shouldn't be used against them in regards in evaluating their impact. I'm sure in the historical context and greatness, they suffer, but not in terms of what they bring to the court; it's just that their teammates didn't bring enough.

Even though Wilt and Russell had different stats, do you consider Russell to be the best player over Wilt? Even though in a few cases, you can say Wilt had equivalent talent on paper as Russell and still lost to him, there's also factors like chemistry and the system. (look at the Nuggets) I think it's safe to say that if all things were equal, Wilt's team would destroy Russell's, especially with the defense-first Wilt.

I consider Russell the GOAT with only Michael Jordan coming close. Wilt was the greatest individual player of all time but Russell (and Jordan in the second half of his career) always found a way to win. Sometimes a key play, sometimes a teammate coming up big, sometimes pure luck, but always a win . . . somehow. Even in 1969 with a team with clearly less in the tank than Wilt's Lakers, Russell won . .. again. Yes, that counts.

And remember, during Russell's 11 year career, he was voted MVP more often than Wilt despite Wilt's spectacular stats.

People don't think of Russell as having great stats because he was always compared to Wilt but if Wilt is taken out of the equation, Russell leads the next best rebounder by 25-30% in rpg over his career. For MJ to have that level of scoring dominance he would have had to average over 40 ppg for his entire career, something he never even accomplished for a season.

a combination of LEADERSHIP, understand what it takes to win games while mixing your offense/defense with your teammates offense/defense, your own offense and defense, basketball IQ, success and accolades..

Duiz wrote:Chris Paul and Michael Jordan define the best player in the league.

This is never gonna get old

penbeast0 wrote:I consider Russell the GOAT with only Michael Jordan coming close. Wilt was the greatest individual player of all time but Russell (and Jordan in the second half of his career) always found a way to win. Sometimes a key play, sometimes a teammate coming up big, sometimes pure luck, but always a win . . . somehow. Even in 1969 with a team with clearly less in the tank than Wilt's Lakers, Russell won . .. again. Yes, that counts.

And remember, during Russell's 11 year career, he was voted MVP more often than Wilt despite Wilt's spectacular stats.

People don't think of Russell as having great stats because he was always compared to Wilt but if Wilt is taken out of the equation, Russell leads the next best rebounder by 25-30% in rpg over his career. For MJ to have that level of scoring dominance he would have had to average over 40 ppg for his entire career, something he never even accomplished for a season.

How can luck be considered as any form of criteria for being the "best". Luck is random fortunate; if a player is lucky on multiple occasions then there's more to him than just luck. Winning it all, is a team accomplishment; Russell happens to the cornerstone of that team but still a part of a collective group. That's like saying Robert Horry is a HoF and a 50 greatest player, because anywhere he goes, he just wins. He was also part of a team.

Of course 1969 counts but as mostly always, during that playoffs, Wilt outproduced Russell severely. (at least on paper) And from Game 7:

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19681969.html

Yep, let's put it on Wilt again for losing when he wasn't allowed in the game in the final 3 minutes. Must be Russell's luck again; not a poor coaching decision.


Cmon, MVP voting is as much team success as individual accomplishment. When Nash was winning MVPs, I never once thought he was a better player than Duncan.

Ok Russell was a vastly better rebounder compared to the league, that's great. But not compared to Wilt.

I'm confused, how can you say Russell is the GOAT (greatest of all time) and then say Wilt was the greatest individual player of all time? Greatness involves several factors like team accolades, individual accolades, public influence, etc. It's much more than just who's the best player, which is the question here. I can see how you say Russell is the greatest but you actually think that Russell was a better basketball player than Wilt or even Hakeem? If all things were equal, you think Russell would beat Wilt?

I think of it this way. I'm building a team to play a series against an unknown opponent. I get to pick one player, then the rest of the team will be filled in with random NBAers. That player I pick is the best player in the league: the one who can be expected to have the most positive basketball impact when most other variables are removed.

Of course, I don't have a good way to measure that, and this is a little too far removed from reality for my comfort. But that's what goes on in my head when somebody asks who's best.

see Hakeem Olajuwon. Thats what you call best. Had every single thing a basketball player needed. Post game, back to the basket game, foot work, range, size, length, rebounding, blocks, scoring, clutchness, domination, defense, efficient, etc. And he is by far the only player to win a championship alone / less talent around him.