More impressive feat?

shawngoat23 · Post #1 » by **shawngoat23** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 11:52 pm

What's the more impressive feat?

1. Leading a bunch of scrubs (relatively speaking) to the NBA Championship, a la Rick Barry in 1975, Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994, or Tim Duncan in 2003?

2. Being the #1 option (or perhaps #1b) on one of the greatest teams of all-time? Think Wilt or West on the 1972 Lakers, Moses Malone or Dr. J on the 1983 Sixers, Bird on the 1986 Celtics, Magic on the 1987 Lakers, Jordan on the 1996 Bulls? In this case, you have much better teammates than the rest of the league, but your team absolutely dominates.

kooldude · Post #2 » by **kooldude** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 12:12 am

leading the scrub team is more impressive because no one expects you to win anything.

Farsi Man · Post #3 » by **Farsi Man** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 12:44 am

Look at Kobe he'd much rather win a ship with his current team than with his team with Shaq. Gasol aint no scrub but neither were Hakeem's teammates.

shawngoat23 · Post #4 » by **shawngoat23** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 1:55 am

Farsi Man wrote:Look at Kobe he'd much rather win a ship with his current team than with his team with Shaq. Gasol aint no scrub but neither were Hakeem's teammates.

He'd rather win as the #1 than with the #2, which is quite understandable. But the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were not a historically great team, so that doesn't really count.

And I disagree with your assertion: Hakeem's teammates were definitely scrubs by championship standards. Gasol, Odom, and Bynum are all better than Otis Thorpe, who was Hakeem's 2nd best teammate in 1994.

shawngoat23 · Post #5 » by **shawngoat23** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 1:59 am

kooldude wrote:leading the scrub team is more impressive because no one expects you to win anything.

That's true, but you failed to mention how impressive the converse would be.

The equivalent today would be:
1) Lebron leading his sorry Cavs to a win over the Spurs last year, OR
2) Lebron and some other superstar (say, Kobe, for example) leading the Cavs to 70 wins and a 16-2 romp through the playoffs. Note, I'm not saying that Lebron is better than Kobe or that Kobe is better than Lebron. But which would be more impressive?

kooldude · Post #6 » by **kooldude** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 3:17 am

shawngoat23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's true, but you failed to mention how impressive the converse would be.

The equivalent today would be:
1) Lebron leading his sorry Cavs to a win over the Spurs last year, OR
2) Lebron and some other superstar (say, Kobe, for example) leading the Cavs to 70 wins and a 16-2 romp through the playoffs. Note, I'm not saying that Lebron is better than Kobe or that Kobe is better than Lebron. But which would be more impressive?

option 1 is still more impressive. When you have the top 2 players on your team and you dominate the competition in whatever fashion, that's largely expected and a massive disappointment if you don't.

what's more impressive to you: Kobe outscoring an average person on the street in 1on1, 100pt to 6 or the random guy beating Kobe 21 to 20?

jaypo · Post #7 » by **jaypo** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 1:48 pm

The Lakers weren't an historically great team? They went 16-1 in the playoffs one year, swept the finals 1 year, 3 peated, and had to do it all by getting through the very competitive western conference. That makes them an historically great team. And until someone goes 16-0 in the playoffs, they will hold the best playoff record, which is an historic accomplishment.

If you disagree, please list your criteria for an historically great team.