ThaRegul8r wrote:ElGee wrote:Well, since no player can individually win a game, and variance is abundant in the sport, losing would not disqualify someone from being the best ever. And since that's the case, all you are really doing is saying because Shaq had TWO GAMES below his own standards, you are disqualifying him, regardless of whether his standard the rest of the time was better than everyone else's. You can do that, but it's totally illogical. How do you know Chamberlain didn't have two 15 TOV games in 1967 or two atrocious defensive games?
It's not just two random games, they're the last two games of the conference finals. I find it interesting that, for example, Magic Johnson gets praise for ONE GAME in his first finals appearance and wins series MVP because of it because he came up big when the team needed it, but then I'm being "illogical" for holding a player accountable for a decidedly non-"MDE" performance from a player who's bandied strength is his unstoppability on the offense end in the two biggest games of a series they never should have won to begin with. I was under the impression that a player's actual performance mattered, but evidently I was mistaken. Portland choking is bad enough, because then it's more about what the other team
didn't do than what the victors actually did. But
in conjunction with Shaq having his worst two games at the precise moment his team is fighting for a Finals trip, and I can't give it the nod for #1 when there are other players who were consistently dominant the entire way. Why should I give Shaq credit for what Kobe did? As I said, if Portland didn't choke, then people would be talking about Shaq's choke. If it was Wilt, he'd get ripped for it. I don't do double standards.
And I'm not talking about some two, random meaningless games in the season. We know, for example, what Wilt did in the postseason. And I believe I specifically said,
other people's mileage may vary. And as I
also said, people can make up their own damn minds. I don't care how people vote, as I get no benefit however someone chooses to vote, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I said why
for me it isn't #1. Other people can vote how they wish.
Hmm, if I'm following you here, you seem like you're frustrated that other people are getting away with overrating the importance of one game whereas you overrating two games isn't even that bad.
I'm going to assume you just made that statement rather flippantly, because the rest of your stuff makes sense. I on the other hand am going to defend the overrating of that one game because I have a feeling that that will prove beneficial to the project in some way, shape, or form before we're through.
I personally side with Magic as the 1980 Finals MVP, though I don't know if I know anyone who actually agrees with me. I'm not saying Magic was Playoff MVP. I'm certainly not saying he was regular season MVP or our all-season POY. But series? I can go that far. i don't have a problem with people disagreeing, but the notion that it wasn't close bothers me.
Basically the question is: What does the #2 guy need to do in Game 6, to surpass the lead of the #1 guy if the #1 guy doesn't play? Granted not all #1 & #2 guys are out of a standard Batman & Robin mold, and that Kareem was absolutely exceptional here. Let's note though, that by the end of the series both guys were about equal on rebounds, if you summed their points & assists (arbitrary I know, but I think it helps with perspective) both guys were about equal. Magic has the edge on steals, Kareem a bigger edge on blocks, but Magic also played far more minutes and we should consider all the out-of-box score impact he had in that. Now add in, the general enthusiasm that Magic brought which clearly inspired his team in ways Kareem never did. Right there, how is it not debatable? And last consider that as a tiebreaker, in the big finale, Magic completely changed his role, roughly filled in for Kareem, and outperformed what we would have expected from Kareem. To me, it's more than okay that Magic took that award.
So there are times where key games can factor in a bit, but I tend to agree that we need to tread very carefully with that. The fact that a player somewhat struggled at a key point where if he had been unlucky would have caused his team to not win a title, is not in and of itself meaningful. It's all about why he struggled that's meaningful.
There's a flip side to this though. Because if people are following the train of thought I've lined out above (and I think they should), then they are presumably doing one of two things:
1) Saying "I don't care if he almost lost it at some point. He didn't lose it, and that's what matters." In which case they are essentially saying "I don't care if he got lucky, the coin came up heads, and that's what matters."
or
2) Saying "I'm not fixated on whether a player's team actually won a title or not. There is variance in this sport beyond any players control, and so I'm not going to take one or two mediocre games seriously even if they come at bad times unless I have a clear reason to suspect that those few events say something major about the player's limitations."
To anyone who is doing (1), stop it.
To anyone who is attempting to do (2), this project is a chance for you to really think this stuff through. For example, how would you rate LeBron's '08-09 season if the Cavs had won the title? Is it different than what you do now? How do you justify that?
