Titles vs. Accomplishments

[candycorn]

I see this all the time when people debate "greatness" of a player

I see many ESPN-era folk buying into the massive NBA/Nike/ESPN propaganda that Michael Jordan was a mythical figure who would descend from the heavens and hit every single clutch basketball shot in the purest of form every single time.... while the truth is that he missed more than he made, and while he as indeed "clutch" at times, he was a liability in other times for the Bulls. He also didn't win jack until Phil Jackson and Scottie Pippen arrived, and the Bulls were a 50 win team and near Finals-contenders without him.

I see many NFL folk try to sell Tom Brady as the greatest of all time for his titles, despite acknowledging his coaching and defense over the years, being that Brady only plays on offense, and would be outplayed on offense by other QB's but win games.

What do you guys think of this? Is this just a brain-nullified equation to decide who is the greatest?

If Bill Russell has 11 NBA Championships, he's the greatest, right? No MJ support can say otherwise?

Its one of the things that makes sports interesting and that the older I get, the more I find myself going back to sports analysis after a 15-20 year hiatus. Would Babe Ruth had been such a prolific home run hitter had he faced top shelf relief pitching every night. Or would the extra games per season have added more round numbers to his astounding offensive numbers. His career slugging percentage is head and shoulders above anyone else. Ted Williams (#2 on the Slugging % list) is closer to the 13th place player--Joe D than he is to Babe Ruth.

As for the question at hand...I think to answer the question depends on the observer. If titles mean more to you and your analysis of a player's effectiveness, you won't really concern yourself with how many pro-bowls or All NBA teams. Vice versa.

Where I come out is this...greatness is one of those things that fall under the category of "you know it when you see it". Titles sort of lead to a false read though. Russell (never saw him play outside of some highlight clips) was probably a great player and the titles reflect that in his case. Robert Horry has 7 rings...Jordan has 6. Does that make Horry "greater" than Jordan? Greater than Bird or Magic? According to one source, Horry was never an All Star!!!!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The numbers I quoted were concerning the "in-state" rivals. If you include the games between LSU and auburn, it is not an in-state rivalry.

And my claims of Saban being the G.O.A.T. stand because of the number of victories, conference titles, and national championships. The dynasty created by Saban at Alabama has no equal in the history of college football.

Did you happen to notice I never disagreed with you on him being the G.O.A.T.?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

No gold...no king.

no championships no consideration.

Once a player has won a championship(s) he then moves into the next level.

Individual contribution toward that/those championship(s).

The more championships...the better

That is how you can identify the greatest from the great.

Michael Jordan's six championship Bulls teams, ranked | Sporting News

www.sportingnews.com

Jordan led the LEAGUE...not just his team in scoring EVERY year they won the six championships Jordan was involved in.

Michael Jordan was the greatest.

I think it depends on the sport and circumstances.

As far as the NBA is concerned, Jordan has a tough time claiming being the outright greatest because:
A. He didn't win squat until the top 2 GOAT coach Phil Jackson and his HOF OG Scottie Pippen showed up.
B. When he "retired" (aka was suspended, but that's another story), his teams were extremely good without him. They went 55-27 in 1994 without him, and 47-35 the next year with him during the last stretch.
C. If you want to be a neanderthal about it and go by simpleton stats, He's only got 6 rings and 5 MVPs, Bill Russell has 11 rings and 5 MVPs.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Its one of the things that makes sports interesting and that the older I get, the more I find myself going back to sports analysis after a 15-20 year hiatus. Would Babe Ruth had been such a prolific home run hitter had he faced top shelf relief pitching every night. Or would the extra games per season have added more round numbers to his astounding offensive numbers. His career slugging percentage is head and shoulders above anyone else. Ted Williams (#2 on the Slugging % list) is closer to the 13th place player--Joe D than he is to Babe Ruth.

Well, you have to give the hitters the same consideration as the pitchers. Certainly 1927 Ruth probably wouldn't hit 1968 Bob Gibson, 1966 Sandy Koufax, 1999 Pedro Martinez, 2002 Randy Johnson, 1995 Greg Maddux, 1990 Roger Clemens/Nolan Ryan, etc...

But had 1927 Ruth had the access to modern weight lifting, fitness training, supplements, etc? Well... that's another story.

As for the question at hand...I think to answer the question depends on the observer. If titles mean more to you and your analysis of a player's effectiveness, you won't really concern yourself with how many pro-bowls or All NBA teams. Vice versa.

Where I come out is this...greatness is one of those things that fall under the category of "you know it when you see it". Titles sort of lead to a false read though. Russell (never saw him play outside of some highlight clips) was probably a great player and the titles reflect that in his case. Robert Horry has 7 rings...Jordan has 6. Does that make Horry "greater" than Jordan? Greater than Bird or Magic? According to one source, Horry was never an All Star!!!!

There are a few common examples of the pure ring argument that become ridiculous. Yes, Robert Horry has 7 rings, but I think we all know he was a role player. There's definitely a difference between rings no matter what and rings as the leader of a team. Bill Russell was the alpha dog of the Celtics that won 11 titles. Jordan was the alpha dog that won 6 titles. Magic Johnson was the alpha dog that won 5 titles, Larry Bird was the alpha dog that won 3 titles.. etc.

Who won titles because of what? Well, Michael Jordan fans who get bolstered by warm fuzzy feelings of nonstop "be Like Mike" commercials and fall for the ESPN/NBA/Nike propaganda money machine that put all of their eggs in one basket to cash in think Mike could raise the dead himself. The NBA and Nike certainly never made that mistake again, that's why in the next big crop you had multiple guys being elevated by the media/ESPN/shoe companies (Kobe, Lebron, Carmelo, Wade).

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Joe Montana is the GOAT.
This is known.

Peyton Manning was clearly the most prolific offensive destroyer of defenses in NFL history.. thus, the GOAT. It's not has fault that he average the 17th best Defense while Tom Brady averaged the 7th best while having one of the greatest NFL coaches in history.

 

[lg325]

If it is a team sport like basketball or Hockey or soccer then it's the team that is the GOAT. Brady, Jordan, and the like couldn't do all those great things alone it took the team. Put Jordan or Brady on a lousy team then their amazing stats wouldn't exist.

 

[WinterBorn]

If it is a team sport like basketball or Hockey or soccer then it's the team that is the GOAT. Brady, Jordan, and the like couldn't do all those great things alone it took the team. Put Jordan or Brady on a lousy team then their amazing stats wouldn't exist.

That is usually true. But I can think of exceptions. Walter Payton was one of the greatest RBs ever to play. And he did it on a team that sucked for much of his career.

 

[candycorn]

Well, you have to give the hitters the same consideration as the pitchers. Certainly 1927 Ruth probably wouldn't hit 1968 Bob Gibson, 1966 Sandy Koufax, 1999 Pedro Martinez, 2002 Randy Johnson, 1995 Greg Maddux, 1990 Roger Clemens/Nolan Ryan, etc...

But had 1927 Ruth had the access to modern weight lifting, fitness training, supplements, etc? Well... that's another story.




There are a few common examples of the pure ring argument that become ridiculous. Yes, Robert Horry has 7 rings, but I think we all know he was a role player. There's definitely a difference between rings no matter what and rings as the leader of a team. Bill Russell was the alpha dog of the Celtics that won 11 titles. Jordan was the alpha dog that won 6 titles. Magic Johnson was the alpha dog that won 5 titles, Larry Bird was the alpha dog that won 3 titles.. etc.

Who won titles because of what? Well, Michael Jordan fans who get bolstered by warm fuzzy feelings of nonstop "be Like Mike" commercials and fall for the ESPN/NBA/Nike propaganda money machine that put all of their eggs in one basket to cash in think Mike could raise the dead himself. The NBA and Nike certainly never made that mistake again, that's why in the next big crop you had multiple guys being elevated by the media/ESPN/shoe companies (Kobe, Lebron, Carmelo, Wade).

During his prime, Jordan was the best player on the court whenever he was on the court. There wasn't anyone who was remotely close.

 

[candycorn]

That is usually true. But I can think of exceptions. Walter Payton was one of the greatest RBs ever to play. And he did it on a team that sucked for much of his career.

Barry Sanders comes to mind as well. Can you imagine Megatron with a halfway competent QB and a decent offensive line?

 

[Hellbilly]

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

During his prime, Jordan was the best player on the court whenever he was on the court. There wasn't anyone who was remotely close.

Remotely close? That’s a really dumb thing to say considering his teams were dominated by Bird, Magic, etc in the 80s, and while the 90s were incredibly soft (which is what allowed so many titles) Karl Malone, Shaq, Dominique, Hakeem, etc would disagree, as would I

 

[candycorn]

Remotely close? That’s a really dumb thing to say considering his teams were dominated by Bird, Magic, etc in the 80s, and while the 90s were incredibly soft (which is what allowed so many titles) Karl Malone, Shaq, Dominique, Hakeem, etc would disagree, as would I

Jordan was the best player on the court whenever he walked onto the court.

Hakeem Olajuwon? Really?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Jordan was the best player on the court whenever he walked onto the court.

Hakeem Olajuwon? Really?

You reak of MJ worship. He was quite fallible and certainly not the best player on the court at all times, no one is.

as for Hakeem, were you watching basketball then? Or are you just another younger who pretends to know what they’re talking about, because Hakeem was a top player in the NBA for years

 

[candycorn]

You reak of MJ worship. He was quite fallible and certainly not the best player on the court at all times, no one is.

as for Hakeem, were you watching basketball then? Or are you just another younger who pretends to know what they’re talking about, because Hakeem was a top player in the NBA for years

A top player...not anywhere near the top player. And, oh, by the way, he didn't win a championship until Horry, Drexler, Cassell, Smith etc... showed up (and Jordan retired). Strange how you discount Jordan's accomplishments due to his not winning every year without Pippen and company but are trying to prop up Olajuwon's career when he also needed HOF level help.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

A top player...not anywhere near the top player. And, oh, by the way, he didn't win a championship until Horry, Drexler, Cassell, Smith etc... showed up (and Jordan retired). Strange how you discount Jordan's accomplishments due to his not winning every year without Pippen and company but are trying to prop up Olajuwon's career when he also needed HOF level help.

I'm not comparing Hakeem to Jordan, so... you're arguing with a phantom person.

I'm questioning your cult-like claim that Jordan "was the best player any time he walked on the court"

Let's just take Larry Bird for example:

Feb 22nd, 1985 Boston def Chicago

Bird: 34 pts on 16-28 shooting, 8 Reb, 5 asst​

Jordan: 26 pts on 8-18 shooting, 4 reb, 7 asst​

January 2nd 1987, Boston def Chicago

Bird: 37 pts on 11-18 shooting, 5 Reb, 10 asst​

Jordan: 34 pts on 13-31 shooting, 8 reb, 3 asst​

March 27th,1987. Boston def Chicago

Bird: 41 pts on 17-29 shooting, 7 reb, 7 asst​

Jordan: 22 pts on 9/23 shooting, 7 reb, 7 asst​

That was just a quick peek.. your boy got schooled in games.. it happens to every player. No player is "the greatest every time they step onto the court". That's just borderline religious dogma talk.. you're delusional.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not comparing Hakeem to Jordan, so... you're arguing with a phantom person.

I'm questioning your cult-like claim that Jordan "was the best player any time he walked on the court"

Let's just take Larry Bird for example:

Feb 22nd, 1985 Boston def Chicago

Bird: 34 pts on 16-28 shooting, 8 Reb, 5 asst​

Jordan: 26 pts on 8-18 shooting, 4 reb, 7 asst​

January 2nd 1987, Boston def Chicago

Bird: 37 pts on 11-18 shooting, 5 Reb, 10 asst​

Jordan: 34 pts on 13-31 shooting, 8 reb, 3 asst​

March 27th,1987. Boston def Chicago

Bird: 41 pts on 17-29 shooting, 7 reb, 7 asst​

Jordan: 22 pts on 9/23 shooting, 7 reb, 7 asst​

That was just a quick peek.. your boy got schooled in games.. it happens to every player. No player is "the greatest every time they step onto the court". That's just borderline religious dogma talk.. you're delusional.

Comparing Bird in his prime against Jordan before his prime. Cool!

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Comparing Bird in his prime against Jordan before his prime. Cool!

You said any time Jordan stepped on the court he was the best.

Well, he stepped out on the court. That's why you can't say stupid stuff like you did.

Do you want examples of when Jordan got owned in his "prime"?

 

[candycorn]

You said any time Jordan stepped on the court he was the best.

Well, he stepped out on the court. That's why you can't say stupid stuff like you did.

Do you want examples of when Jordan got owned in his "prime"?

Yeah and Bird didn't benefit at all from having Parrish, McHale, Walton, etc...?

Hating on the best player to ever lace up some Jordans because he didn't win every game is pretty dumb. But don't let being dumb stop you.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Yeah and Bird didn't benefit at all from having Parrish, McHale, Walton, etc...?

Hating on the best player to ever lace up some Jordans because he didn't win every game is pretty dumb. But don't let being dumb stop you.

You're the one who literally said every time Jordan stepped on the court he was the best player. I showed you that wasn't the case with examples, and now you're auto-defaulting to bringing up Bird's teammates? Nobody made the case that Larry Bird was better than MJ. You're going into a debate nobody is making... hypersensitive much?

Bird certainly owned Jordan plenty when they faced each other, as did Jordan own Bird.

Nobody is "hating" on MJ. I suppose if you're from the perspective that any NBA fan must lick the nutsack of MJ and declare him god.. then yeah, I probably do look "hateful" to your idol. However, I'm simply telling you to stop slurping his balls, take a step back for a second, and realize that all that happened is you said something stupid.. just admit it was the wrong thing to say and we can move on.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody is "hating" on MJ.

Jordan was just a chucker who got favorable foul calls all day long.

Yeah... your analysis of the NBA is rather moronic.

Jordan was the greatest basketball player ever. Period.