Phil Jackson on Kobe: The GOAT measure is championships

[mysticOscar]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

You are greatly under rating the impact of superstars in a game of basketball.

Also, at the highest level....the GOAT level....u really rather compare player A has 2 more boards than player B?

Ppl laugh at ppl who put a lot of weight on championships at the highest level of players of all time.....and rather put weight on stats when stats have is much as affected (prob more) from different variables i.e. differwnt eras, differwnt positions, different game styles, different team mates, different oppositions, different coaches, systems...i could go on.

Of course u use context for rings, like how much credit u give the player of obtaining those rings....at the end of the day....players at this goat level dont play for stats...they play for rings.

It baffles me how a person with common sense would not put it on the equation and rather put more weight on just stats.

[euroleague]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

The problem is that in the late 70s and early 80s, media was so pervasively influential in American thought that when marketers recognized the sales potential of superstar athletes, people began to conflate their love of team sports with their fascination with celebrity, and that led to conflating the ultimate goal of team sports-- team championships, which are won by teams-- with discussions about which individual players were best. We started viewing what we already recognize as the ultimate goal in sports-- the team championship-- as though it were an individual accomplishment, and started wrongly imparting it to players as an individual accomplishment. That's why we so frequently hear things like 'player X won two titles', 'player X needs to win a title to secure his legacy'; players don't win titles; teams do, and it's never actually correct to say 'player X won a title'.

We all want to know who the greatest players and teams are, but we have to remember that individual greatness and team greatness are two different things. Men don't win wars (nations do) and nations aren't awarded Purple Hearts (soldiers are), to revisit the military analogy; in the same sense, teams don't win MVPs (players do) and players don't win championships (teams do).

Scouts, executives, analysts, doctors... they aren't winning. Coaches are on the side. The players on the court are winning.

In war, technology and logistics are far more important because of rules that are different than nba rules. The team is only 5 players, and some are obviously not important...

Using black and white to say the player didn't win is too simple.

[-Sammy-]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

Shout out to Gomer Pyle reference. I know you are not not that old.

But in a situation in your argument that “ ringz” is the only measure of greatness you are speaking out of context to the Laker/Kobe fans and are speaking only of the “ KOBE is the goat!” Which is clearly the vocal minority to his true impact on the game. BecUse most people hate Kobe for their reasons and most of his loudest opponents use the “ Kobe fans/stands” are still he talking about him , but haven’t really for 5 plus years.

Ha ha... I'm old enough to remember reruns.

Yeah, I'm not casting judgment on any legitimate viewpoints in this discussion; the people who base their entire argument on Kobe's rings and the people who have a million excuses for why somehow those rings don't actually count are equally wrong, and neither position should be regarded with any merit; one is an irrational 'fanboy' and one is an irrational hater who refuses to recognize the all-time greatness of an all-time great.

I only make my point here because I think it's such an important point in general for sports fans to be reminded of that I feel compelled to make it whenever the 'ringz' issue comes up; it just happens to come up frequently when Kobe's name is mentioned.

[ajdontwatchthat]

Notice how the "Kobe wasn't the best player for 3 of his rings" argument is never made for Duncan,Magic,Kareem,DWade or Wilt when he had Goodrich and Jerry averaging 25 a piece in the finals lol.

That is simply not true. I mean first of all, the reason why this comes up more with Kobe than others is because people keep wanting to prop up Kobe even higher than he should be. They want to say he's on LeBron's level, they want to say that he's on Jordan's level or at least just barely below him. So that's why the context in which Kobe has won his championships becomes especially important. No one is really talking about Dwayne Wade in that way so it doesn't come up. It certainly comes up with Kareem and Magic. With Duncan if he wasn't the best player, it's a lot closer than it was with Shaq and Kobe for at least 2 of their championships together.

I've never seen people discredit Kareem,Magic,Duncan and Wilt for being a second or third fiddle in instances the way people kill Kobe for being drafted to a team with Shaq already on it, on this forum...EVER. If anything I've seen praise, or maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

Bill Russell was surrounded by hall of famers(like how LeBron,Jordan,Magic,Kobe etc were) his entire career and I won't hear a peep on here about it.

As amazing as a player Pau was, no one brings him up unless it's to discredit Kobe's rings.

Kobe and Shaq were arguably 1a and b the entire 01' run even though Shaq was a better player. People ignore the work Kobe put in during the playoff run before reaching the finals and it's really a shame.

Jordan, Kareem and LeBron are top 3 all time but I have Kobe at around 5-8.

[LLcoleJ]

Clearly the poster was being sarcastic. It's just the same tired argument we've been hearing for years that it's all about championships and far too often people ignore the context that great players win championships in and also fail to win championships in.

No he clearly wasn’t being sarcastic and that is echoed by you and others in this thread.
So to my point is yes, context is important , why stawman?

You actually think that poster believes Derek Fisher is equal to Kobe Bryant as a player? Wow.

What strawman? Phil just said the GOAT measure and followed that with championship trophies, he is inferring that the number of championships you have is the measurement for how great you are as a player or where you fall on a "Greatest of All-time" list.

I think we agree on all points. Except the comparison between what internet posters post claiming Mamba is great cuz Ringzzzzzz. Is different than ..... Horry.

[-Sammy-]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

The problem is that in the late 70s and early 80s, media was so pervasively influential in American thought that when marketers recognized the sales potential of superstar athletes, people began to conflate their love of team sports with their fascination with celebrity, and that led to conflating the ultimate goal of team sports-- team championships, which are won by teams-- with discussions about which individual players were best. We started viewing what we already recognize as the ultimate goal in sports-- the team championship-- as though it were an individual accomplishment, and started wrongly imparting it to players as an individual accomplishment. That's why we so frequently hear things like 'player X won two titles', 'player X needs to win a title to secure his legacy'; players don't win titles; teams do, and it's never actually correct to say 'player X won a title'.

We all want to know who the greatest players and teams are, but we have to remember that individual greatness and team greatness are two different things. Men don't win wars (nations do) and nations aren't awarded Purple Hearts (soldiers are), to revisit the military analogy; in the same sense, teams don't win MVPs (players do) and players don't win championships (teams do).

Scouts, executives, analysts, doctors... they aren't winning. Coaches are on the side. The players on the court are winning.

No, the players are on the court playing. Playing is part of winning-- the most important part, to be sure--, but to say that the only thing that matters is what happens between the lines is to ignore reality, which is that what happens in the realms of coaching, training, scouting, and healing creates what's put in between the lines to do the playing.

Otherwise, why have the Pops and Phils and Reds and Rileys at all? Why have trainers and scouts? Why do we care what Phil said here and why is there a thread about it if the only thing that matters is what happens on the hardwood?

Using black and white to say the player didn't win is too simple.

No, it's not. Kevin Durant is not the 2017 NBA champion-- Golden State is. There are no title banners hanging in any player's living room-- they hang in the arena, where the entire team plays and works. Championship trophies have team names on them, not individuals' names. None of these are matters of opinion or interpretations; they're all facts.

[-Sammy-]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

You are greatly under rating the impact of superstars in a game of basketball.

Considering that I haven't said anything about how important I think superstars are to a game of basketball, I don't know how you can evaluate my rating of them.

All I've said is that superstars aren't the only factor; if you disagree with that, we can have that conversation.

[BarneyGumble]

Just read page 1 is all. Phil’s arrogance is lost on most. This, like most things Phil, is about Phil. Phil is declaring himself GOAT coach by laying the assumption that the greatest measure is rings.

[OdomFan]

congrats to Kobe. The second best shooting guard of all time.

[euroleague]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

The problem is that in the late 70s and early 80s, media was so pervasively influential in American thought that when marketers recognized the sales potential of superstar athletes, people began to conflate their love of team sports with their fascination with celebrity, and that led to conflating the ultimate goal of team sports-- team championships, which are won by teams-- with discussions about which individual players were best. We started viewing what we already recognize as the ultimate goal in sports-- the team championship-- as though it were an individual accomplishment, and started wrongly imparting it to players as an individual accomplishment. That's why we so frequently hear things like 'player X won two titles', 'player X needs to win a title to secure his legacy'; players don't win titles; teams do, and it's never actually correct to say 'player X won a title'.

We all want to know who the greatest players and teams are, but we have to remember that individual greatness and team greatness are two different things. Men don't win wars (nations do) and nations aren't awarded Purple Hearts (soldiers are), to revisit the military analogy; in the same sense, teams don't win MVPs (players do) and players don't win championships (teams do).

Scouts, executives, analysts, doctors... they aren't winning. Coaches are on the side. The players on the court are winning.

No, the players are on the court playing. Playing is part of winning-- the most important part, to be sure--, but to say that the only thing that matters is what happens between the lines is to ignore reality, which is that what happens in the realms of coaching, training, scouting, and healing creates what's put in between the lines to do the playing.

Otherwise, why have the Pops and Phils and Reds and Rileys at all? Why have trainers and scouts? Why do we care what Phil said here and why is there a thread about it if the only thing that matters is what happens on the hardwood?

Using black and white to say the player didn't win is too simple.

No, it's not. Kevin Durant is not the 2017 NBA champion-- Golden State is. There are no title banners hanging in any player's living room-- they hang in the arena, where the entire team plays and works. Championship trophies have team names on them, not individuals' names. None of these are matters of opinion or interpretations; they're all facts.

KD is the champion. That can't be disputed. His teammates are as well.

The coach is there to coach and create a system - sure, he is also important. GM pays and trades, so obviously one who gets better players together is good.

Trainers are there to develop the players - might as well give KD's mom the MVP as say they are winning championships.

In the end, it's the players. Coaching is important, but the coach isn't going out and winning it.

[Johnny Kilroy]

Phil is right. For the very best, in a relative sense, rings are the ultimate judge. Kobe is better than LeBron.

[The Bronx]

Using rings as one criterion when evaluating a player is fine, [b]but the use of a team achievement as the primary metric for evaluating an individual player is inherently flawed.[/b]

No it's not. What if said player played THE role that led to that team achievement?

[mysticOscar]

"The greatest measure of an individual is how many times a team of more than 50 players, coaches, trainers, doctors, scouts, analysts, and executives works together to accomplish a collective goal."

This is what the 'ringz' argument parses down to-- period--, and it's an inherently and self-evidently flawed position. It's like arguing that Gomer Pyle is a greater warrior than Karl von Bulow because the United States won more wars than Germany.

You are greatly under rating the impact of superstars in a game of basketball.

Considering that I haven't said anything about how important I think superstars are to a game of basketball, I don't know how you can evaluate my rating of them.

All I've said is that superstars aren't the only factor; if you disagree with that, we can have that conversation.

Read your example. You literally used the context of wars where millions of ppl are involved to signify the impact of one soldier.

So me saying that you are under rating the impact of a superstar in a game of basketball.....is not at all an axaggeration

[LAKESHOW]

Thank you Kobe for all the memories. All of fans from across the globe. And all of fans from around the NBA, all Congratate you, we honor you, and you are not only an NBA legend, you are a beloved and legendary amongst all fans. Regardless of team affiliation. Thank You, and God bless.

[RCM88x]

So bizarre how much Lebron respects MJ and Kobe and vice versa (maybe less so with MJ), yet he and Phil seem to both have a grudge against one another. Weird aye?

[dynamic duo]

pau should have won FMVP as well so that puts kobe with 1 FMVP in 7 finals.

[rebirthoftheM]

Phil's also arguing for himself here as the GOAT

[andrewww]

pau should have won FMVP as well so that puts kobe with 1 FMVP in 7 finals.

Get this garbage out of here.

[rebirthoftheM]

Fisher tired with Kobe on the GOAT list.. got it.

Not gonna lie... I lost respect for all 16 of y'all

So many ways to make such an argument without entering absurd territories.

[mademan]

Using rings as one criterion when evaluating a player is fine, [b]but the use of a team achievement as the primary metric for evaluating an individual player is inherently flawed.[/b]

No it's not. What if said player played THE role that led to that team achievement?

Many players have played THE role well enough to win without actually winning. Regardless of how a single player plays, championships take a set of circumstnces coming together outside the singular players control. For example, Kobe is neither a better nor worse player based on how the last 3 min of the BOS-LAL game 7 of 2010 went down. Much happened outside of his control (missed shots by opponents, made shots by teammates) that lead to the Lakers winning even if he played THE most important role en route to the championship. The vast majority of championships are like this.