Are Championships the Only Thing that Defines Greatness?

Well winning in playoffs separate tiers of greatness. For eg: P Manning has only 1 SB . But he is in the legendary status. Stockton and Malone , Suns with Nash (2-3 years) ,Garnett is l

 

It's not the only thing that defines greatness, but in the minds of many people, it's the first and last thing to bring up when comparing players / coaches / teams.

 

Continuation..... Garnett , Pierce and Allen took their HOF status to another realm. But it is important to perform great on the PO. But basketball , football and baseball are TEAM sports.

 

Well, I think in the other thread, some of us were merely saying that you can't rank Adelman as the greatest coach in Rockets history over 1 that led us to 2 championships and 2 others that led us to Finals appearances.

But I agree- it's more so a deal in basketball. You very rarely hear people say things like "Ernie Banks was one of the all-time greats, but..." or "Barry Sanders was.... but..." It's really gotten carried away in basketball, to the point where you have people rating Robert Horry as a better basketball player than Karl Malone- utterly ridiculous. I will say that it can give them a slight edge over others, but certainly should not take away from a great career.

 

Team sport

Adelman had some good teams, but you can never say he had the best team talent-wise.

Unlike, say, Phil Jackson, who probably had the best team and best player about 11 times.

 

Yes, and especially basketball, and it's silly. I mean, you have people saying LeBron James' legacy might be tarnished if he only has 2 rings- it's just absurd. And pathetic how the media tries to inflate its own self-importance by constantly harping on it. Most fans, including most on here, are smarter than the media, anyway.

 

Just a thought but you have to remember that Barkley, Malone and Stockton, Ewing, Miller and a slew of other great players had their championship dreams smashed by one player..... Michael Jeffrey Jordan....That being said, I don't think you can hold that against them as far as their greatness is concerned

 

No but in this generation of what have you done for me lately, people would have you think there is just great and everything else which is nothing at all.

 

Obviously, if you want to be a champion you have to win a championship.

 

No. But that's not a real argument anyone makes. No one's out there claiming Darko Milicic had a better career than Charles Barkley.

When comparing like to like though in terms of roles and regular season impact (say, Tim Duncan to Karl Malone, or Kobe Bryant to Allen Iverson) it's a perfectly valid criteria for making a decision between the two.

 

I think you have to look at the context.

An NFL QB and an NBA superstar have a huge impact on the team. They have more relative ability to lead their team to a championship. So they should be held more accountable if they're never able to get over the hump. This is what separates Hakeem from David Robinson.

If you're an NFL RB or a baseball player though, no matter how good you are you can't really win a ring by yourself.

I think coaches are in the same place as a baseball player or RB.

 

Well everyone considers Morey great on here, how many championship does he have?

 

Ring counting is by far the most overrated standard to measure greatness in a TEAM sport.

 

How does player win a championship, if they are plagued with terrible team management and roster transactions?

 

Tell that to the players that are ringless.

 

Nothing is the only thing that defines greatness.

 

As far as TEAM greatness, sure.

But individual success? No.

Basketball is too much of a team game to predicate all success on championships. Some other the greatest players EVER never won championships.

Same goes with baseball and football...too much of a team effort to judge individuals on this standard.

Tennis, swimming, wrestling, etc. is a different story, though.