<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok. When you say "better" ... better at what? What does it mean to be good at basketball? (1) you're good to the extent you help a team win. (the more you do to help a team win, the better you are) (2) you're good at basketball if you are "skilled" (3) you're good to the exten you help you're team win plus the amount of you skill you have The way I look at it (as well as any one actually interested in constructing a good team), (1) is ultimately what matters. (2) is only important as a means to (1). What you seem to be considering is (3). This doesn't make much practical sense to me. In fact, doing so would skew the results, since you're essentially "double counting" skill in the final assessment (since the extent you help a team win is, in part, determined by skill). Again, the goal of basketball at the team level is to win. At the player level, the goal is do as much as possible to help your team win. So, it stands to reason that the best players are the ones you can count on to do the most to help a team win. Skill is important only as a means to contributing to team success.</div> You are saying that how valuable a person is deterines how good they are. I am talikn about how skilled a player is. by your standards, bill russell is the greatest player of all time, by mine, it is wilt chamberlain, big o, or mj. mj can be argued in your definition as well, but wilt by your standards isnt all that amazing. he didnt help his team win as much as robert horry. so robert horry's clutch 3 point shooting in the playoffs mkes him a better player than Wilt?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">You are saying that how valuable a person is deterines how good they are. I am talikn about how skilled a player is. by your standards, bill russell is the greatest player of all time, by mine, it is wilt chamberlain, big o, or mj. mj can be argued in your definition as well, but wilt by your standards isnt all that amazing. he didnt help his team win as much as robert horry. so robert horry's clutch 3 point shooting in the playoffs mkes him a better player than Wilt?</div> No. Robert Horry didn't contribute nearly as much to his team as Wilt did. I'm not saying that the best players are the ones who play on the winningest teams. I'm saying the best players are the ones who contribute the most to their teams. Kevin Garnett was one of the best players last season. He contributed a ton to his team towards helping them win games. But that doesn't necessarily mean the team will win a ton, unless there are other players who play at a high level (contribute) as well. In theory, the best player in the league could lose every game, if everyone else on his team is a D-league backup quality player. He'd be the best because while he's on the court he's doing more than anyone else to help his team win. But you can't blame him if that doesn't actually translate into wins. Put any other player in the league on such a team, and they wouldn't win any games either. The way a team wins is through the sum of the contributions of its players. And since winning is the ultimate team goal, it stands to reason that the ultimate player goal is to contribute as much as possible. The most accurate way to measure the extent of these contributions (and thus determine how good a player is) is through a well-informed statistical analysis. Now, was Bill Russell better than Wilt? You can't say, just looking at their wins. After all, if you put Wilt on the Celtics, maybe they would have won just as much or more. If you put Russell on Wilt's teams, maybe they would have won even less. Clearly, we can't simply rely on team wins to assess their contributions to their respective teams. If you just look at the available individual numbers, it appears Wilt did a lot more. But numbers back in those days are very limited (turnovers, blocks, steals, offensive rebound, defensive rebounds weren't tracked). No +/- numbers either. Personally, I'd say Wilt was probably the better player. But it's really just a guess. It's not like I watched either of them play.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">No. Robert Horry didn't contribute nearly as much to his team as Wilt did. I'm not saying that the best players are the ones who play on the winningest teams. I'm saying the best players are the ones who contribute the most to their teams. Kevin Garnett was one of the best players last season. He contributed a ton to his team towards helping them win games. But that doesn't necessarily mean the team will win a ton, unless there are other players who play at a high level (contribute) as well. In theory, the best player in the league could lose every game, if everyone else on his team is a D-league backup quality player. He'd be the best because while he's on the court he's doing more than anyone else to help his team win. But you can't blame him if that doesn't actually translate into wins. Put any other player in the league on such a team, and they wouldn't win any games either. The way a team wins is through the sum of the contributions of its players. And since winning is the ultimate team goal, it stands to reason that the ultimate player goal is to contribute as much as possible. The most accurate way to measure the extent of these contributions (and thus determine how good a player is) is through a well-informed statistical analysis. Now, was Bill Russell better than Wilt? You can't say, just looking at their wins. After all, if you put Wilt on the Celtics, maybe they would have won just as much or more. If you put Russell on Wilt's teams, maybe they would have won even less. Clearly, we can't simply rely on team wins to assess their contributions to their respective teams. If you just look at the available individual numbers, it appears Wilt did a lot more. But numbers back in those days are very limited (turnovers, blocks, steals, offensive rebound, defensive rebounds weren't tracked). No +/- numbers either. Personally, I'd say Wilt was probably the better player. But it's really just a guess. It's not like I watched either of them play.</div> Ok, now i see your point, but i still feel that physical ability is a factor. if you put ai's skills in lebrons body that player would be out of this world amazing. and, i think that contribution also depends on the system the player plays in. lebron is expectated to do all the work, while a guy like kobe HAS to. kobe plays in the triangle relying on teammates for buckets, but his teammates cant deliver so kobe has to take over. bron, can shoot all that he likes whenever he likes, and people will praise him. the media really wrecked bron for me.
basically when talking about Lebron or Kobe there's 2 ways we can compare whos better:<u> Ability</u>-- stats, impact, winning and<u> Skill</u>-- ....which is simply a players learned and apparent "skills" . Kobe has more skill, Lebron has been shown to have more ability. However, skill can been seen as a facet or subdivision of ability as <u>skill</u> does not stand alone. Unless there is production or results in a real time basketball game, skill is just an interesting aside. ---- Which explains why you guys have a hard time explaing and showcasing how Kobe is the overall better player than Lebron; you have nothing to show for it! Harlem Globetrotters are the most skilled players I've ever in my life seen... And so what? Similiar situation with Kobe compared to Lebron, or Wade or <font color=""Red"">Jordan </font>or Magic or Bird or even Dirk KG Shaq NASH the list continues. The guy has nothing tangible which says he's better than any of these players-- whereas the other players have penty of tangibles suggesting their worth and ability.
You underrate Bird.... To even suggest Dirk may become better than him-- the guy's 28 now, how many more years until he changes his entire game to the point that he's better than Bird? -- and of course accomplishes all the things <font color=""green"">Bird </font>did> which he has a lot of catching up to do. When are we gonna see this begin man? And you still havent explained why you didnt comment about Dirk's rebounding and defensive being inferior to <font color=""Green"">Bird</font>; and as to why you didnt ridicule and Dirk for his lack luster performance as like you did to rationalize Lebrons game?? You don?t remember saying that? Here are a few clips <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The impressive factor is what does it for me. i am amazed by what ai can do at his size. i expect lebron to do the things he does, because of his size.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If AI's skillset was in lebron james body, he would be out the this world amazing.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Plus the cat is 6'8" 240 and lightning quick, what do you expect? he should be grabbing boards and driving through the lane like nobodys buisness. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">[what has lebron done. also nothing separates kobe's body frame from any other 6'6" sg that is too skinny as a rookie. /QUOTE]
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok, now i see your point, but i still feel that physical ability is a factor. if you put ai's skills in lebrons body that player would be out of this world amazing. and, i think that contribution also depends on the system the player plays in. lebron is expectated to do all the work, while a guy like kobe HAS to. kobe plays in the triangle relying on teammates for buckets, but his teammates cant deliver so kobe has to take over. bron, can shoot all that he likes whenever he likes, and people will praise him. the media really wrecked bron for me.</div> You're absolutely right about contribution depending on the system the player plays in. Some plays might appear better than they are, because they play in a system that specifically tailored to their talents (Steve Nash and the Phoenix Suns come to mind). For the purposes of predicting how good a player will be on a particular team, we'd need to consider not only what he did in previous years but also the team context. You say that physical ability is a factor -- of coure I agree. As well it should be. You want to remove that as a factor, by only considering skill. You say that if Iverson had LeBron's physical gifts, he'd be much greater. Ok, possibly (I'm actually doubtful of this), but he doesn't. So why should he be credited for something he doesn't possess? I mean, suppose a GM had to choose between signing two players. Let's say player A did slightly more than player B on the court. But player B is much more skilled, say, since he does his thing with very minimal physical ability. Would any sane GM say, "Well player A could probably help us win more, but it's so impressive that player B can play at a high level despite his physical deficiences so I'm going to take player B." He'd be a fool. But according to you, player B might actually be "better", because he "does more with what he has", so to speak. So here's a situation where one player is better, by your definition, but no sane GM would actually pick him. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps your method of deciding who's a better player isn't very practical?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">You're absolutely right about contribution depending on the system the player plays in. Some plays might appear better than they are, because they play in a system that specifically tailored to their talents (Steve Nash and the Phoenix Suns come to mind). For the purposes of predicting how good a player will be on a particular team, we'd need to consider not only what he did in previous years but also the team context. You say that physical ability is a factor -- of coure I agree. As well it should be. You want to remove that as a factor, by only considering skill. You say that if Iverson had LeBron's physical gifts, he'd be much greater. Ok, possibly (I'm actually doubtful of this), but he doesn't. So why should he be credited for something he doesn't possess? I mean, suppose a GM had to choose between signing two players. Let's say player A did slightly more than player B on the court. But player B is much more skilled, say, since he does his thing with very minimal physical ability. Would any sane GM say, "Well player A could probably help us win more, but it's so impressive that player B can play at a high level despite his physical deficiences so I'm going to take player B." He'd be a fool. But according to you, player B might actually be "better", because he "does more with what he has", so to speak. So here's a situation where one player is better, by your definition, but no sane GM would actually pick him. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps your method of deciding who's a better player isn't very practical?</div> i understand that if player and A and B were available then obviously player A would be taken in the physical sense, but if you were just talking about results vs skills, player B will very likely be taken over A. such as stromile swift and michael olowakandi. neither have proved anything or put up even descent numbers, but their skills keep getting them big contracts and jobs in the nba. And this discussion isnt about who would you pick first, it is about who is better. i think that kobe is much more skilled than lebron, and it is arguable if he better by your standards as well. and come on. iverson's scoring ability and fearlessness in lebrons body. he would score all day, he already outscores lebron. plus give lebron a descent shot from midrange... there is no way that iversons size helps him, lebron's does.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AIRTIGHT:</div><div class="quote_post">basically when talking about Lebron or Kobe there's 2 ways we can compare whos better:<u> Ability</u>-- stats, impact, winning and<u> Skill</u>-- ....which is simply a players learned and apparent "skills" . Kobe has more skill, Lebron has been shown to have more ability. However, skill can been seen as a facet or subdivision of ability as <u>skill</u> does not stand alone. Unless there is production or results in a real time basketball game, skill is just an interesting aside. ---- Which explains why you guys have a hard time explaing and showcasing how Kobe is the overall better player than Lebron; you have nothing to show for it! Harlem Globetrotters are the most skilled players I've ever in my life seen... And so what? Similiar situation with Kobe compared to Lebron, or Wade or <font color=""Red"">Jordan </font>or Magic or Bird or even Dirk KG Shaq NASH the list continues. The guy has nothing tangible which says he's better than any of these players-- whereas the other players have penty of tangibles suggesting their worth and ability.</div> Kobe outscored lebron this year and is a better defender, shooter. there is your facts. also, kobe carried a pathetic team to the 7th seed in the west, lebron played on a good cavs team to the 4th in the east. that is about even conference wise.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting LBJ2006MVP:</div><div class="quote_post"> Lebron ain't MJ or Kobe </div> Haha. I can't believe that response spawned 9 pages of replies.
Kobe outscored Lebron by 4 points/g also taking <u>4 more shots/g</u> ; Fresh, I see you missed the <u>Where does Kobe rank page</u> yet you got on this one twice.- I posted something in response to some of the things you have said.--
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">i understand that if player and A and B were available then obviously player A would be taken in the physical sense,</div> In the practical sense. As in, the real world. Not a fantasy world. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">but if you were just talking about results vs skills, player B will very likely be taken over A.</div> What matters is results, obviously. In which case, player A would be taken by any sane GM. It wouldn't make sense to prefer the more "skilled" player, if you know the results won't be as good. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">such as stromile swift and michael olowakandi. neither have proved anything or put up even descent numbers, but their skills keep getting them big contracts and jobs in the nba.</div> It's certainly not their skills. There's a belief that because that have some nice physical tools, that they might eventually produce strong results. THAT's why they are being signed -- potential to produce. If they were tremendously skilled, but let's say they had an accident which prevented them from ever walking again, no one would sign them. Clearly, skill isn't the deciding factor. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And this discussion isnt about who would you pick first, it is about who is better. i think that kobe is much more skilled than lebron, and it is arguable if he better by your standards as well.</div> It's about understanding what it means to be better, first of all. Obviously, if we don't have agreement on that, then we're not going to get anywhere. I'm saying that to be a "better basketbal player", in any practical sense, means you'd do more and produce better results, all else being equal (teammates and opponents faced are the same). Being skilled helps in that regard, but isn't everything. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post"> and come on. iverson's scoring ability and fearlessness in lebrons body. he would score all day, he already outscores lebron. plus give lebron a descent shot from midrange... there is no way that iversons size helps him, lebron's does.</div> You're acting as if Iverson doesn't have tremendous physical advantages as well. Iverson is an athletic freak. He relies a lot on his quickness and speed. Much like a running back, his small stature also makes it easier for him to squirm in and around defenses. He was a great football player in highschool, I believe. Clearly he's a superior athlete. Who's to say Iverson wouldn't be as effective in a bigger, bulkier body that isn't as quick?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe outscored lebron this year and is a better defender, shooter. there is your facts. also, kobe carried a pathetic team to the 7th seed in the west, lebron played on a good cavs team to the 4th in the east. that is about even conference wise.</div> The Lakers would be terrible without Kobe, sure. But do you actually think the Cavs would be "good" without LeBron? Keep in mind Larry Hughes missed most of the year. I think both teams would probably win 25-30 games.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe outscored lebron this year and is a better defender, shooter. there is your facts. also, kobe carried a pathetic team to the 7th seed in the west, lebron played on a good cavs team to the 4th in the east. that is about even conference wise.</div> I agree, especially when having the Western Conference more challenging to beat compared to Eastern.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and come on. iverson's scoring ability and fearlessness in lebrons body. he would score all day, he already outscores lebron. plus give lebron a descent shot from midrange... there is no way that iversons size helps him, lebron's does. </div> dude you can't say that......just like there are disadvantages to being 6'0 there are advantages also. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe outscored lebron this year and is a better defender, shooter. there is your facts. also, kobe carried a pathetic team to the 7th seed in the west, lebron played on a good cavs team to the 4th in the east. that is about even conference wise. </div> Kobe's team wasn't pathetic........mediocre, not great???....yes....but pathetic.....no........lebrons team was mediocre also.
Ok fan-boy. I think after seeing wade in the ECF and the Finals, Wade>Lebron. He's picked apart 2 of the top 3 defensive teams in the league, all while shooting close to 60%. How many finals appearances does Lebron have? Oh that's right, zero.
^^^and how many times has Vince Carter choked........o that's right a gazillion.....I've said before that you can make an argument that D. Wade is better than Bron, I don't agree with it, but the argument can be made
