Will idiots ever stop using TEAM accomplishments over Player accomplishments

[TAZORAC]

When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.

[fpliii]

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Oh look an original idea. Glad you made a topic about TEAM achievements not being individual ones. This needed clearing up.

[TheMarkMadsen]

you're right, i mean who's really out there playing for championship rings, it's more of a backhanded compliment to say "oh that person won a ring"

same thing with assist, i mean an assist is a team accomplishment an i'm tired of seeing it brought up in individual comparisons

[Levity]

or better yet, when will people get over their diehard propping up or belittling of players. Liking the best player in the league doesnt make you any better of a person, nor does liking the worst player make you a shitty person.

everyone on here is an adult version of kids arguing which power ranger, pokemon, digimon, or whatever you watched in your youth, is better. just really inane points.

[CavaliersFTW]

When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.

By your own definition all bodies of evidence of NBA talent points to Wilt >>>> Lebron, and your claim that Lebron was the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen is dubious by comparison.

[Keno]

i agree to some degree. context is very important in situation like these. like how the person won the ring, was he second fiddle averaging only fifteen points per game or a first option, averaging a near triple double twenty nine, ten and seven with elite defense. context is key.

[IncarceratedBob]

Superstars are why teams win rings, every players contributions arent equal.

Shaq has 5 rings because he's a winner.

If Wilt was a winner then maybe he would have more TEAMmate accomplishments. He wasn't a real team player nor a winner. Scoring massive amount of points is nice but what's the point if you can't translate that into winning multiple championships?

[BoutPractice]

There are only 5 players on the court for each team, and huge differences in individual player impact compared to differences in talent (more and more measurable as time passes), with highly unequal "division of labor". Most GMs would rather have 1 Michael Jordan than say, the 00s Hawks trio of Joe Johnson, Al Horford, and Joe Smith.

In other sports this argument would make sense, but the power of the individual/constraints of the collective tension is inherent in basketball.

[CavaliersFTW]

Superstars are why teams win rings, every players contributions arent equal.

Shaq has 5 rings because he's a winner.

If Wilt was a winner then maybe he would have more TEAMmate accomplishments. He wasn't a real team player nor a winner. Scoring massive amount of points is nice but what's the point if you can't translate that into winning multiple championships?

2 championships = not a real winner

[SpecialQue]

Superstars are why teams win rings, every players contributions arent equal.

Shaq has 5 rings because he's a winner.

If Wilt was a winner then maybe he would have more TEAMmate accomplishments. He wasn't a real team player nor a winner. Scoring massive amount of points is nice but what's the point if you can't translate that into winning multiple championships?

...

[Bob Dole]

Team accomplishments are only a mildy good proxy (And i do mean mildly) to rank a player.

Why do the round about way of comparing players with team accomplishments when we have raw stats, advanced stats, eye test, and individual awards to use.

Plus You people only use them when it fits with what you're trying to prove. It greatly overrates some players and devalues other.

I see Paul Pierce and Manu Ginobil threads as top 10 players at their position which is crazy and never would even be thought of if they hadn't won rings.

Use a little logic every now and then losers.

[gasolina]

It's sad being an NBA fan nowadays where player accomplishments seem to hold more weight for the general populace than teams do.

[AlphaWolf24]

assists is a team accomplishment

rebounding is a team accomplishment ( your team or the other team has to shoot the ball)


(unless you take the ball coast to coast with no help screens) Scoring is a team accomplishment

winning is a team accomplishment

if winning is a team accomplishment...that means MVP's are a team accomplishment ( because MVP now goes to the best player on the best team / most wins )

Losing is a team accomplishment

since winning and Losing are team accomplishments...that means when comparing individual players...Titles are Overrated, winning is Overrated , Losing is Overrated.

Everything we have come to know and love about the game is Overrated...


in fact the only thing that isn't a team accomplishment is the Slam Dunk contest /skills challenge / 3 point shootout....


EDIT: Dam-nit.....Slam dunk contest is a team accomplishment now(starts off as a team vs team)...so is the skills challenge....



3 point shootout is all we have left

[DMAVS41]

When ever discussing the greatness of a player "idiots" like to talk about the number of championships one has, or the TEAMS record against opposition. Just because a solid player on a great team has a few NBA championships doesn't mean he's the better player then a great player on a not so great team.

Had Lebron James NEVER won a championship, he's still the greatest talent the NBA has ever seen.

Nope.

All depends on circumstances. If Lebron had never won a title playing on these stacked Heat teams...he would immediately be removed from any legit top 10 all time arguments.

If you were to say Lebron never winning playing his entire career on the Cavs shouldn't be as strongly held against him...totally agree.

But when these players get great and stacked teams...they absolutely have to win a couple or something to validate their impact.

Take Durant...I love Durant...think he's all time great, but if he ends up playing his entire career with these Thunder teams and WB...etc. and never wins...that should absolutely be held against him.