So Where is KD in the all time great ranking now? MVP checked, NBA finals MVP check, multi scoring champs checked, championship ring checked
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19394

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
i dont think this championship increases kd's status in any way. it's more like he just stays the same. had he won with okc, his legacy would definitely had improved. this was a move where if he didn't win a championship, his legacy would have gone down. by winning, he just did what was obvious and expected, its not like he had to fight through adversity or do something unusually difficult.


I think that's accurate, with one caveat. He now has a ring. Rightly or wrongly, there is a ceiling for guys who don't win rings.

It's way too early to predict where Durant will end up in the broad consensus. I could see him reaching Larry Bird status, but I could also see him ending up at about the level of Moses Malone and Dirk Nowitzki -- not really quite in the discussion of the all time greats for some reason that is not immediately obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 11733

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
composite wrote:
activeverb wrote:
If Barkley or Malone had won two rings and two finals MVPs instead of Hakeem, they’d be mentioned on the GOAT short list (near the end of the list) rather than Hakeem. So, yeah, those two rings radically affect how Hakeem is perceived.

Kareem is an entirely different animal. He has a ton of MVP awards and statistical achievements that put him in a different class than Hakeem.


Hakeem won his second ring (and NBA Finals MVP) because Mario Elie drains a last second 3 to force OT during an elimination game. If that didn't happen and Houston never got their 2nd ring, Hakeem wouldn't be a worse player. He'd still be the same. Which is why it's ridiculous to measure greatness on rings where so much is dependent on role players.

Or if MJ never retired and Chicago won 8 straight titles, that doesn't make Hakeem worse either. He's still the same great player.

Kareem does have a ton of individual accomplishments. But if he didn't get all those rings, I could see his reputation of being a stat-stuffer. And if Hakeem got a lot more rings during the late 80s, I could see him elevated to a list of GOATS, somewhere around top 5 or so.

Ultimately, there's a limit to all the "what-ifs" of course. But my point is that rings are given for the TEAM winning and that's based on so many factors outside even a great player's control. Which is why rings shouldn't be factored as much when measuring individual greatness.


Sure, rings are a team accomplishment, but players make up the team. And if you are the #1 guy on a team you get a disproportionate amount of credit for winning or losing -- that's just part of being the top dog.

And you can argue in basketball there are no truly individual accomplishment. You can't get an assist if your teammate doesn't make a shot. You need teammates to set picks to get off shots. Better teammates can reduce the defensive pressure and let you get off better shots -- or they might be so good they take away some of your shots and reduce your scoring average. And so forth. The quality of your teammates can affect your personal performance, stats, and awards for good or bad.

Anyway, it can be a fun academic debate if and how much rings should affect a player's reputation. However, in the real world, it's undeniable they do.

And you know, I've seen other people state that rings should have no bearing on individual rankings, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone who says this put Barkley, Malone, or other ringless guys near the top of their rankings. Their top guys always have a bunch of rings.


I think a better comparison would be the Jordan of the 80's vs. the Jordan of the 90's. I suspect the Jordan of the 80's would win rings with the teammates he had in the 90's. But I know I've heard people in the media say things like "Jordan figured out how to be a team player and then he started winning."

I actually have wondered if Malone was better than Duncan. Duncan gets more credit for having the rings, but those Utah teams in the late 90s were extremely good and the only team that beat them in 97 and 98 was the Bulls. Unfortunately for Malone, and fortunately for Hakeem, Jordan was playing baseball before those years.


Maybe it was fortunate for Hakeem, or maybe it's unfortunate -- for all we know, the Rockets might have beaten the Bulls and then he'd get a lot more credit for those rings.


Jordan played in 95. He played great. He didn't have a PF. He lost. They got a HOF one and he won again.Wanted to highlight:

1) Jordan was there in 95. Stop making excuses for him.

2) When he didn't have proper help, he lost like everyone else. Help is needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLogic
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 11025

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject:

^Pippen almost took that team in 94 to the Finals if it wasn't for a bad call.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 11733

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:35 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
L4L wrote:
Steve007 wrote:

I think if he leads the Warriors to something like a 3-peat Durant will be considered to be the best player in the league, especially if he wins another regular season MVP and a couple of more Finals MVPs. He will be getting so much attention and winning so much that it will be hard for a lot of people to claim he is nothing more than just second best. That doesn't mean he would be the best player. It just means the media and fans will call him the best player.


This is certainly a possibility. I'd almost say that he has to repeat or threepeat for perception to truly shift in that manner. If repeating or threepeating coincides with an age-related decline for LeBron, it could cement his place in the Top 10.


There difference between top 20 and top 10 is enormous. It's like walking up a granite cliff at a deep angle: each step is exponentially more difficult than the last step.


Top 10 is a tough nut to crack. One of these players is not top 10:

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Dream
Shaq
Duncan
Jordan
Magic
Bird
LeBron
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19394

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:57 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

If you add Oscar to the mix (which a lot of people do), then it is 2 out of 12.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
L4L
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:31 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:

And either Hakeem or Oscar depending on who rounds out the list.


Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and LeBron are my 10, actually.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

It's way too early to predict where Durant will end up in the broad consensus. I could see him reaching Larry Bird status, but I could also see him ending up at about the level of Moses Malone and Dirk Nowitzki -- not really quite in the discussion of the all time greats for some reason that is not immediately obvious.


Moses Malone is a fantastic example. His consensus ranking is fairly difficult to explain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 25293

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:05 pm    Post subject:

L4L wrote:
activeverb wrote:

And either Hakeem or Oscar depending on who rounds out the list.


Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and LeBron are my 10, actually.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

It's way too early to predict where Durant will end up in the broad consensus. I could see him reaching Larry Bird status, but I could also see him ending up at about the level of Moses Malone and Dirk Nowitzki -- not really quite in the discussion of the all time greats for some reason that is not immediately obvious.


Moses Malone is a fantastic example. His consensus ranking is fairly difficult to explain.


The negatives to Moses are:

1. He only won a single room
2. He jumped around a lot, which matters to some people: 9 teams in 22 years.
3. He played a long time, so he had a 5-6 year stretch at the end of his career where he was nothing special, which matters to some people
4. He spent most of his career on crappy team except the 76ers super team, which fell apart more quickly than the other superteams of the era
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
L4L
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:44 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:

The negatives to Moses are:

1. He only won a single room
2. He jumped around a lot, which matters to some people: 9 teams in 22 years.
3. He played a long time, so he had a 5-6 year stretch at the end of his career where he was nothing special, which matters to some people
4. He spent most of his career on crappy team except the 76ers super team, which fell apart more quickly than the other superteams of the era


I'd also add:

1) His style of play was relatively boring compared to the other guys on the GOAT shortlist. What was his signature move? Tapping around an offensive rebound to himself a few times before finally knocking it in?

2) He couldn't speak well. He wasn't an engaging media figure in either a positive or negative way.


I suppose there may be some parallels to Duncan there, but Duncan eventually became a media darling due to his sustained success.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
composite
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 2955

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:59 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
composite wrote:
activeverb wrote:
If Barkley or Malone had won two rings and two finals MVPs instead of Hakeem, they’d be mentioned on the GOAT short list (near the end of the list) rather than Hakeem. So, yeah, those two rings radically affect how Hakeem is perceived.

Kareem is an entirely different animal. He has a ton of MVP awards and statistical achievements that put him in a different class than Hakeem.


Hakeem won his second ring (and NBA Finals MVP) because Mario Elie drains a last second 3 to force OT during an elimination game. If that didn't happen and Houston never got their 2nd ring, Hakeem wouldn't be a worse player. He'd still be the same. Which is why it's ridiculous to measure greatness on rings where so much is dependent on role players.

Or if MJ never retired and Chicago won 8 straight titles, that doesn't make Hakeem worse either. He's still the same great player.

Kareem does have a ton of individual accomplishments. But if he didn't get all those rings, I could see his reputation of being a stat-stuffer. And if Hakeem got a lot more rings during the late 80s, I could see him elevated to a list of GOATS, somewhere around top 5 or so.

Ultimately, there's a limit to all the "what-ifs" of course. But my point is that rings are given for the TEAM winning and that's based on so many factors outside even a great player's control. Which is why rings shouldn't be factored as much when measuring individual greatness.


Sure, rings are a team accomplishment, but players make up the team. And if you are the #1 guy on a team you get a disproportionate amount of credit for winning or losing -- that's just part of being the top dog.

And you can argue in basketball there are no truly individual accomplishment. You can't get an assist if your teammate doesn't make a shot. You need teammates to set picks to get off shots. Better teammates can reduce the defensive pressure and let you get off better shots -- or they might be so good they take away some of your shots and reduce your scoring average. And so forth. The quality of your teammates can affect your personal performance, stats, and awards for good or bad.

Anyway, it can be a fun academic debate if and how much rings should affect a player's reputation. However, in the real world, it's undeniable they do.

And you know, I've seen other people state that rings should have no bearing on individual rankings, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone who says this put Barkley, Malone, or other ringless guys near the top of their rankings. Their top guys always have a bunch of rings.


I think a better comparison would be the Jordan of the 80's vs. the Jordan of the 90's. I suspect the Jordan of the 80's would win rings with the teammates he had in the 90's. But I know I've heard people in the media say things like "Jordan figured out how to be a team player and then he started winning."

I actually have wondered if Malone was better than Duncan. Duncan gets more credit for having the rings, but those Utah teams in the late 90s were extremely good and the only team that beat them in 97 and 98 was the Bulls. Unfortunately for Malone, and fortunately for Hakeem, Jordan was playing baseball before those years.


Maybe it was fortunate for Hakeem, or maybe it's unfortunate -- for all we know, the Rockets might have beaten the Bulls and then he'd get a lot more credit for those rings.


MJ did play in 95, the Bulls just lost to the Orlando Magic. If the Bulls did reach the Finals, the Rockets probably would have beaten them, but regardless, it doesn't make the Finals win any more worthwhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 25293

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:41 pm    Post subject:

composite wrote:
MJ did play in 95, the Bulls just lost to the Orlando Magic. If the Bulls did reach the Finals, the Rockets probably would have beaten them, but regardless, it doesn't make the Finals win any more worthwhile.


Sure, Michael came back with 20 games left in the season but because he wasn't there at the start, he hadn't played in two years, and the team had to adjust to him in midstream, many people don't feel that was a true test. (And probably some people don't even realize he was around for the end of the '95 season). You can debate whether that's reasonable but I'd say it's clear that the general perception is Houston got lucky winning rings while MJ was focused on baseball.

I don't know what would have happened if Houston had met the Bulls. But I am very confident if Houston had taken down MJ and the Bulls, more people would have been more impressed with what they accomplished. Again, people can debate whether that is unfair or fair, but the dominant perception is clearly that Houston lucked out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 8777

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:18 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
composite wrote:
activeverb wrote:
If Barkley or Malone had won two rings and two finals MVPs instead of Hakeem, they’d be mentioned on the GOAT short list (near the end of the list) rather than Hakeem. So, yeah, those two rings radically affect how Hakeem is perceived.

Kareem is an entirely different animal. He has a ton of MVP awards and statistical achievements that put him in a different class than Hakeem.


Hakeem won his second ring (and NBA Finals MVP) because Mario Elie drains a last second 3 to force OT during an elimination game. If that didn't happen and Houston never got their 2nd ring, Hakeem wouldn't be a worse player. He'd still be the same. Which is why it's ridiculous to measure greatness on rings where so much is dependent on role players.

Or if MJ never retired and Chicago won 8 straight titles, that doesn't make Hakeem worse either. He's still the same great player.

Kareem does have a ton of individual accomplishments. But if he didn't get all those rings, I could see his reputation of being a stat-stuffer. And if Hakeem got a lot more rings during the late 80s, I could see him elevated to a list of GOATS, somewhere around top 5 or so.

Ultimately, there's a limit to all the "what-ifs" of course. But my point is that rings are given for the TEAM winning and that's based on so many factors outside even a great player's control. Which is why rings shouldn't be factored as much when measuring individual greatness.


Sure, rings are a team accomplishment, but players make up the team. And if you are the #1 guy on a team you get a disproportionate amount of credit for winning or losing -- that's just part of being the top dog.

And you can argue in basketball there are no truly individual accomplishment. You can't get an assist if your teammate doesn't make a shot. You need teammates to set picks to get off shots. Better teammates can reduce the defensive pressure and let you get off better shots -- or they might be so good they take away some of your shots and reduce your scoring average. And so forth. The quality of your teammates can affect your personal performance, stats, and awards for good or bad.

Anyway, it can be a fun academic debate if and how much rings should affect a player's reputation. However, in the real world, it's undeniable they do.

And you know, I've seen other people state that rings should have no bearing on individual rankings, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone who says this put Barkley, Malone, or other ringless guys near the top of their rankings. Their top guys always have a bunch of rings.


I think a better comparison would be the Jordan of the 80's vs. the Jordan of the 90's. I suspect the Jordan of the 80's would win rings with the teammates he had in the 90's. But I know I've heard people in the media say things like "Jordan figured out how to be a team player and then he started winning."

I actually have wondered if Malone was better than Duncan. Duncan gets more credit for having the rings, but those Utah teams in the late 90s were extremely good and the only team that beat them in 97 and 98 was the Bulls. Unfortunately for Malone, and fortunately for Hakeem, Jordan was playing baseball before those years.


Maybe it was fortunate for Hakeem, or maybe it's unfortunate -- for all we know, the Rockets might have beaten the Bulls and then he'd get a lot more credit for those rings.


That's true and I'm not sure why I overlooked that possibility. A matchup or two between the Rockets and Bulls would have been interesting.

I was thinking about how that Utah team and how Malone would be perceived if Jordan never came back. Utah won 64 and 62 games in 97 and 98, and Malone won an MVP in 97 and finished second in MVP voting to Jordan in 98. I can't be too sure that Utah would have won in both years however.

I'm not sure how much weight to put on this but the 97 Jazz beat the 97 Rockets team with Hakeem, Drexler and Barkley, and that was a team that was good enough to win 57 games with Barkley and Drexler missing a lot of games that year. I wanted to see that Rockets team play the Bulls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 8777

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:29 pm    Post subject:

MJ was there in 95 but that Bulls team would have had a much better shot if he was a Bull during training camp, preseason, and several months of the regular season and if the front office had some time to possibly make a move or two to improve the team. Even with the disadvantages that Bulls team had, the Magic still didn't beat them in the playoffs by much. And who knows? Maybe Horace Grant doesn't join the Magic and stays in Chicago if he knew Jordan was going to be a Bull from the start of that season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB