[JNice]

Originally posted by PauloCatarino!
You can call me biased as much as you want, but i really don´t think anybody can argue T-Mac is at par with Kobe till now.

To the ones saying Kobe´s job is made easier by playing with Shaq, all i can say is tough luck, dudes! That´s the way it goes...
Heck, i can write a couple of pages about why i think Nique Wilkins was way better than Scottie Pippen and still you´d think i´m a raving lunatic... Also, that´s the way it goes... Pippen played with Jordan and Nique played alone... So that´s how we must measure players, no ifs or buts.

Thats not how everyone measures players. It is pretty easy to tell just watching them as players that there were a lot of things Pippen did much better than Nique. Regardless of their other accomplishments.

That is not an easy thing at all to see watching Tmac and Kobe playing. The only difference between the two has been the situations they've been in and the people they have played with. You just can't use Kobe's rings in an argument against Tmac without factoring Shaq. That doesnt make any sense.

[PauloCatarino]

Originally posted by JNice!


Thats not how everyone measures players. It is pretty easy to tell just watching them as players that there were a lot of things Pippen did much better than Nique. Regardless of their other accomplishments.

That is not an easy thing at all to see watching Tmac and Kobe playing. The only difference between the two has been the situations they've been in and the people they have played with. You just can't use Kobe's rings in an argument against Tmac without factoring Shaq. That doesnt make any sense.

I agree. Shaq is too big to be taken out of the equation

But what about the last part of my previous post? What would you say then?

[Minstrel]

Originally posted by PauloCatarino!

But one thing i must ask of you fellow posters: if in the next 3 years T-Mac wins 3 rings with Yao being the team´s MVP (hypothetical question) and Kobe wins 2 scoring title, would you still defend they are equal?

If they both play at a relatively equal level (as they have the past three to four years), then yes. I, for one, would definitely argue that they are equal, regardless of the fact that McGrady got the championship hardware.

I simply don't measure individuals by team accomplishments. McGrady or Bryant. Chamberlain or Russell.

[hobojoe]

Originally posted by Minstrel!


If they both play at a relatively equal level (as they have the past three to four years), then yes. I, for one, would definitely argue that they are equal, regardless of the fact that McGrady got the championship hardware.

I simply don't measure individuals by team accomplishments. McGrady or Bryant. Chamberlain or Russell.

I agree, I think people value the championship rings of a player way too much when evaluating an individual player. Championship rings are team achievements, not individual ones.

[Debt Collector]

Originally posted by hobojoe!


I agree, I think people value the championship rings of a player way too much when evaluating an individual player. Championship rings are team achievements, not individual ones.

but dismissing championships and team success while evaluating a player is not wise... would jordan still be the GOAT had he never won a championship? or in other sports, take Dan Marino, statistically he blows every other QB out of the water but nobody considers him the definitive best QB ever because he doesnt have a ring.

my point is, if you are saying two players are on an equal plane without looking at team accomplishments, then factor in one guy has 3 rings while the other has no significant team success doesnt the balance inherently tip in the favor of the guy with the rings

rhetorical question

[kflo]

i think people take for granted the ability to perform at the highest level when it matters most. or the ability to integrate themselves into a winning situation, to shine individually while in the context of a championship team. some players, with equal ability, can do it better than others. those who prove this ability, imo, have to be regarded slightly above, imo (all else relatively equal, of course). i'm less concerned with what you do when you have little. show me what you can do when you've got enough. if we want to rate players solely on ability, fine, take winning out of the equation. but there's more to being a great player than just ability.

[RP McMurphy]

Originally posted by kflo!
i think people take for granted the ability to perform at the highest level when it matters most. or the ability to integrate themselves into a winning situation, to shine individually while in the context of a championship team. some players, with equal ability, can do it better than others. those who prove this ability, imo, have to be regarded slightly above, imo (all else relatively equal, of course). i'm less concerned with what you do when you have little. show me what you can do when you've got enough. if we want to rate players solely on ability, fine, take winning out of the equation. but there's more to being a great player than just ability.

I agree completely. Some posters on this board like to disparage the notion that some players are "winners" and some players aren't, but there really is something to it.

Now, you can't say that a player isn't a winner, just because he's never won a championship. There are a whole bunch of great players who are winners, but never won a championship. You'd have to be a real idiot to say that someone like John Stockton or Reggie Miller is a loser, just because they don't have any rings. A player like Stephon Marbury is a loser not because he's never won a ring, but because he dominates the ball too much to integrate himself into a championship team, and he's not good enough to carry a team to a championship if he has the ball in his hands most of the time. A player like Chris Webber is a loser because every single time a big game is on the line, he chokes.

Kobe Bryant has come up big for the Lakers over and over again at the end of games. You can't just assume that Tracy McGrady has the same ability, when he hasn't shown it yet.

[Yyzlin]

Originally posted by ArtestFan!
Kobe Bryant has come up big for the Lakers over and over again at the end of games. You can't just assume that Tracy McGrady has the same ability, when he hasn't shown it yet.

What NBA do you exactly watch? I don't believe I've seen it myself.


As for the winning argument, it should factor slightly into the argument, but it's becomes a difficult task to do. If a player has been deprived the opportunity of a winning situation, how should you evaluate that player? Do you simply disregard him for not lifting a team solely by himself to success, or do you make allowances given his situation? The same goes for players who put up depressed statistics, but on a winning team. How do you accurately determine the value of each of those players? It's a delicate balancing act when judging the merits of any player.

[RP McMurphy]

Oh, the things you can learn on basketballboards.net. It certainly is exciting to discover, after all these years, that I've never watched an NBA game.

[sherako]

Damn ArtestFan you are killing some of my favorite players. I could go off on some Pacers players like Jermaine O'Neal, who almost always puts up his 20/10 in the first half but what is the point, no need to deflect the issues at hand.

I am in conjunction with you about Marbury, he just dominates the ball too much to be a real championship leader. It seems his mindset is on getting assists rather than passing to his teammates if you can understand that. Frank Williams to me was a more pure passer than he was. Maybe he can change his mentality under the tutelage of Larry Brown and Isiah Thomas.

But on Chris Webber "choking" I really think it is an issue with the coach there Rick Adelman. He is a regular season coach and we will find out next year again. Every time you hear him his voice is weak and trembling and his face is downcast, he is not a leader or rallier of the troops by anymeans. I wouldn't be surprised as soon as they changed coachs that is when they win the title.