At what level is the question of "better" just about basketball skill?

[Kblaze8855]

Obviously when you get to a GOAT tier people cant do that. They go with legacy. Count how many of this or that. Those players will never have a simple accounting of ability be the deciding factor.

So how far down before it is?

If I ask you who is better between Junkyard Dog(Jerome Williams) and Brian Grant....or Harrison Barnes and Aaron Gordon.....you arent gonna come in here spouting off about who won what or any kinda "legacy". But if I ask about Jerry West vs Charles Barkley you would.

So when does that end? At what level?

Im gonna give you a few examples...id like to know which ones you feel a need to go past simple basketball and have a more abstract discussion on "greatness".



Rip Hamilton vs CJ Mccollum?


Bernard King vs Paul Pierce?


Rondo vs Deron Williams?


Robert Parish vs Patrick Ewing?


Lillard vs Tim Hardaway?


Mike Bibby vs Mo Williams?


Kyle Lowry vs Andre Miller?


Stephen Jackson vs Hedo?


Rasheed Wallace vs Jermaine Oneal?

Ray Allen vs Manu?

Dikembe Mutombo vs Ben Wallace?


Marbury vs Tony Parker?


Chris Mullin vs Joe Johnson?


Baron Davis vs Ben Simmons?


Would you feel a need to delve into accolades and team accomplishments and all to answer those questions or would you give me a strictly basketball answer based on your observations or understanding of how they played? And feel free to answer those questions of course. Im just wondering how you approach it. Am I about to read about how many times ____ was an all star or when ____ made a WCF run and the other guy never madeit past the second round? I dont need to get down into the depths of pure role players to hear you give me a basketball skill based opinion do I?

The kinda opinion you give me if I ask you about Patrick Beverly vs Kirk Hinrich. Is that not something I can have if either player was ever any kinda star? Like.....does winning a ring with the Pistons really factor into your opinion on if Rip is better than CJ? Is Rip low enough to just evaluate his game and leave what happened in his career out of it or as a distant secondary discussion?

[nayte]

Abstract.look at 3ball and round ball.

[iamgine]

Obviously when you get to a GOAT tier people cant do that. They go with legacy. Count how many of this or that. Those players will never have a simple accounting of ability be the deciding factor.

Certainly you can. George Mikan and Bill Russell was knocked down due to skill.

[Akeem34TheDream]

I think that boundary is being a first option at a contender. Almost none of those guys you named were that so you would focus on skills and ability when comparing them. But the moment you are a top 5 player or contender team's best player then accolades come into play. Even then you can argue that its stupid but it is what it is.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t know about that particular matchup since many fans didn’t even see Russell as skilled at the time(having no appreciation for non scoring aspects of the game)....but I get what you mean.

Its hard though. You need a dark agesvs more modern comparison to leave that stuff mostly out.

[Kblaze8855]

I think that boundary is being a first option at a contender. Almost none of those guys you named were that so you would focus on skills and ability when comparing them. But the moment you are a top 5 player or contender team's best player then accolades come into play. Even then you can argue that its stupid but it is what it is.

You could argue about 7 of those guys were that depending on what you call a contender.

And what you call a first option. Rik Smits was per minute the leader in shot attempts in the regular season and playoffs for a finals team. But he didn’t play the 41 minutes a game like Reggie and Rose did so.....there’s room to argue.

Then you have people like Ben Wallace who was a last option....but perhaps best player. It gets complicated.

[sbw19]

High potential of wining multiple titles building around said player means results will come under more scrutiny, and vice versa. Fans understand you aren't winning building around role players, or one-time allstars. So they don't look for results as evidence of valuation. I think once you're a perennial allstar winning will matter regardless of circumstances.

[STATUTORY]

skills as opposed to what? team success/championshiips or stats?

[Kblaze8855]

High potential of winning multiple titles? So how many players is that in all history? 12-15?

[Kblaze8855]

skills as opposed to what? team success/championshiips or stats?

Both I suppose. If I ask you Mike Bibby or Lou Williams do you even check for the stats or go off the kind of player you remember them being?

[sbw19]

Not many. Point being, that's the class that will bear the brunt of (relative) lack of success. And better/worse will always be somehow attached to that.

[Kblaze8855]

Ok so you have a dozen or maybe two dozen guys. Then thousands of others.

Would you need to rely on those methods for any of the players I asked about?

[LAL]

Ok so you have a dozen or maybe two dozen guys. Then thousands of others.

Would you need to rely on those methods for any of the players I asked about?

I'll answer for him. No.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If its player vs player?

First line of order in my head is dominance. How they competed vs peers and opponents, which includes skill.

Then I'll take most of that, and blend it with how well their play functioned in a team setting.

So to answer your question, for me SKILL follows individual impact immediately.

[Axe]

Abstract.look at 3ball and round ball.

Lmao two notorious posters making copypasta festivals of several threads, most esp. if it involves mj and pippen. 😂