Champions where you are the big dog certainly. Other rings, yes, but not as conclusive. Otherwise Horry is greater than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, and obviously that is totally ridiculous. HERE IS HOW I'D GRADE OUT THE GREATEST PLAYERS -Championships where you are the big dog carry the most weight. (By this measure Wade's was actually the most impressive in recent memory. But he he needs to do it again, or get close, to call him the best player.) OTHER FACTORS -Championships where you were a part of (but not a clear, the big dog). -Carrying a team to a great record/high seed as a big dog. -Carrying a team far in the playoffs as a big dog. -Individual statistics (all facets, including scoring efficiency and +/-). -Individual/team awards (MVPs--regular season and playoffs). Duncan and Wade are the only guys near their prime (since Shaq isn't) to pretty much cover it all. Nash, Kobe and Lebron lack in some aspects of their resume, Tmac even more. Personally, I'd weigh how far Nash and Lebron have carried their teams as the big dog (1st or 2nd seeds, conference or NBA finals in playoffs) over Kobe's titles as a second banana. Nash has the MVPS, lead his team to league's best records, and crazy offensive efficiency numbers too. Overall I'd have to say, Duncan, Wade, Nash, Lebron and Kobe as your top 5. Now I am skeptical Duncan is still the best, but he is such a beast in the post season, is not that far off his prime, and has all those MVPs and rings as the big dog--hard to take that mantle from him just yet. I think Wade is probably better, but I want to see that next championship or close to it. Shame we didn't see them match-up 2 years ago when the Wade injury allowed Detroit to squeak by them only to lose in 7 versus the Spurs. Also, if Boston goes far and the Lakers are again 500 and 1st round fodder maybe KG takes out Kobe off my list. Dirk, like KG, has a lot of reputation repairing left to do and would have been right there if not for that embarrassing 1st round.
Yup, I totally agree with that assessment. The only difference is that I view Bryant a bit higher, but other than that I completely agree. BTW, I hope KG goes far because I think he is just as good as TD without the support, plus I hate seeing a guy of his rare attitude and talent fail... He really cares about the game...
Only a small factor IF you are the franchise player. Championships reflect the kind of team you play on, not the kind of player you are. There are so many factors in winning a championship, including (but not limited to) team talent level, chemistry, coaching, front office management, injuries, officiating, and just plain luck. To measure the greatness of a player, you have to look at the things that he can control: how he plays the game, how much he produces, how he makes his teammates better, how he carries the team, and not to mention consistency over a long period of time. These are the things that can be attributed solely to the player. Championship has too many things that are not controlled by the player, hence cannot count as part of the player's greatness.
I disagree. It all depends on the situation. Often stars are on teams good enough to win a title and they just lose to a better player on just as good of a team. Often there is a huge difference between how the teams main star played and which team wins the series. Examples off the top of my head: 1995 Rockets vs Spurs. Both teams were good enough to win a title, but the main difference was Hakeem dominating Robinson. Bulls vs Jazz finals. When Malone played well Utah won but his play was poor in the losing games of the first series. He played better in the second series but in the deciding game he had a key turnover, compared to MJ who got the key steal and hit the game winner. 2006 Finals, Wade compared to Dirk. There are some situations where the teams just aren't good enough (i.e. Cavs vs Spurs last season).
People often remember the battles of the superstars because they are what make the game excited. But if you really know the game, you know championships aren't won by the superstars only. We beat the Spurs in 1995 not just because Robinson was dominated, but the whole Spurs team could not stop Hakeem. Seattle could have stopped us with their defensive style. But they got beaten by the 8th seeded Denver. That was our luck. BTW, who knows what would have happened had Nick Anderson didn't brick the four ft shots and Orlando won that game 1 in the finals. Barkley could have won a title with us the next year if Malone's bear hug pick was called by the official at Stockton's shot. And Michael Jordan might not be as divine if the Bulls faced us instead of Utah in the Finals. Could the Kobe-Shaq Lakers have won 3-peat had Horry not got the lucky bounce from Divac's tip out, or had the refs not given game 6 to the Lakers again in that series? Funny you mentioned Wade and Dirk, without mentioning the officiating factor. Yet we all lament how Dallas robbed us the playoff series the year before. You have to have great players to win championships. But being a great player does not give you championships. A lot of things have to happen. You have to be on the right team at the right time, and get all the lucky bounces your way without major injuries. That's a lot of things you cannot control.
I think some forget its a team game. If there is a game of one on one between any of the NBA players then my money is on Kobe every single time. I absolutely despise the guy, but he is probably the greatest scorer in the history of the NBA. That said, if I have to start a team to win a championship then Kobe is not the first player I am picking. His defense is vastly overrated, not a good teammate, and not as clutch when there isn't a 350 lb center backing him up. His legendary killer instinct sure went down the drain against that series with the Suns. Doesn't really make any of his teammates better. Truth is, he hasn't led his team any farther then Tmac without Shaq. And its Kobe's fault that he doesn't have good teammates. Got Shaq traded and I'm not sure if other superstars are dying to play with a selfish ballhogging primadonna like Kobe. Not to mention a snitch. His attitude has to be taken into account when mentioning the greatest of the game. Does he have the talent to be the #1 player in the NBA? Probably. Does he have the brain, instincts and heart? No Top five player for sure, but not number 1.
Kobe does'nt have brain, instincts and heart? Wow, I don't think I have seen a player with more will, heart and instincts since Mike... btw,anyone see that gamewinner and game winning stop Kobe had on Lebron. With all those great players who do the coaches design a play for? None other than...
I agree with you that it takes luck and breaks to win titles. However, my point was in some cases you can clearly look back on a series and see how the winning team had their superstar step up, while the losing teams star didn’t. Go look at the numbers from the first Bulls/Jazz finals and notice the difference in Malone’s numbers in wins and losses. Notice the difference between Dirk and Wade in the 06 Finals (use the refs excuse all you want….the refs did not make Dirk passive). There are plenty of other examples. Yes, sometimes stars just aren’t on teams good enough to win it all, but you can’t say that about some situations (i.e. Malone in Utah).
Yes, the stars performances in those finals are important. Yet, great performances do not always mean winning. What I am trying to say is, those performances, by Jordan, Hakeem, Wade, etc. and those bad performances by Malone and Nowitzki, not the winning, should be considered for their greatness. What if Wade's performance was not enough for them to beat a very talented Mavs team, which is very possible especially if the refs went the opposite way? Would his greatness be less, and would Dirk be considered a greater player even if he was bailed out by his teammates stepping up? Wilt Chamberlain might have never won a title had he not got traded to a better team. Moses Malone did great with the Rockets but were still beaten by a far superior Celtics team in the finals. He might never have won a title had he not been traded to the Sixers. Would Wilt and Moses not be considered great players then? Look, too many people are using championship rings as if it is decisive in measuring the greatness of a player. When I see stuff like "Kobe 3 Nash 0, end of story" type of argument, it just turns me off. How does that compare Kobe's and Nash's greatness at all? They haven't even played against each other in a finals series.
