2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #17

[Y2K]

Great Career success and achievement over an EXTENDED period of time is what separates the Steph Currys from the John Stocktons. No way is Curry in that class at this moment in time.

[Deez]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

They don't but it helps. 11 man sport, 9 man sport where you can only do so much. IN basketball you have a much bigger impact of the overall game.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Good catch. Forgot about that.

I just don't put much stock into guys with pretty stats and nothing to show for those pretty stats. Nash, Iverson, Ewing, Paul, Durant, Barkley etc. They have an mvp's sure but it's the postseason that matters. And the thing is, all of those players have had the teams to get it done. They have all played with great players and should have won at least 1 title. Iverson is th eonly outlier of that group, in that he played with trash most of his career(especially offesnively).

Curry has an mvp just like all those other guys i just mentioned and he has greats stats as well. He's a great player just like those players. He's played on a great team with other good players like those other guys. There's only one thing that separates him from the others though.

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

That Michael Jordan and Hakeem guy stood in the way of the likes of Barkley, Stockton, Payton, and Ewing. What asses they are for doing that.

Steve Nash was on the 2nd best team in the L with Boris Diaw as his starting center?

What a failure. A loser!!! He shouldn't make the top 100. After all, we need to move Antoine Walker up...

[elmouse03]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Bonds had that PED thing.

[Robceltsfan]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Bonds had that PED thing.

I hate the prick....but he was top 10 all-time BEFORE he ever juiced.

[elmouse03]

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

That Michael Jordan and Hakeem guy stood in the way of the likes of Barkley, Stockton, Payton, and Ewing. What asses they are for doing that.

Steve Nash was on the 2nd best team in the L with Boris Diaw as his starting center?

What a failure. A loser!!! He shouldn't make the top 100. After all, we need to move Antoine Walker up...

Not before Randy Brown and Jud Buechler.

[Robceltsfan]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

They don't but it helps. 11 man sport, 9 man sport where you can only do so much. IN basketball you have a much bigger impact of the overall game.

Fair enough...but so does the great player(s) on the other team as well.

[elmouse03]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Bonds had that PED thing.

I hate the prick....but he was top 10 all-time BEFORE he ever juiced.

He was an ass before the roids. He just became a muscle bound ass after.

[Bush4Ever]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Because of the perception (not entirely untrue) that individual players can impact winning much more in basketball than football and certainly baseball.

[Y2K]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

[Robceltsfan]

I mean, let's take Durant as a for instance. He's been in the league 8 years and made the CF or Finals in 3 of those years. Those seasons he was eliminated by Dirk, Lebron, and Duncan. That's supposed to be his fault for "failing" against other all-time greats?

Meanwhile, Curry this year didn't go through a single champion until he met Lebron's depleted Cavs team....and then needed 6 to bring home the title. And Curry didn't even get the FMVP!!!

We're supposed to value Curry's short career over Durant's career, despite Durant having far superior stats and near-equal team achievement? Just because Curry's TEAM won a title with him? Fuck that.

Context, context, context.

[Robceltsfan]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Meh.....they lost so many that I forgot they actually won one.

[elmouse03]

The NBA seems to be the only sport where rings are held as the holy grail of player evaluation.

Nobody denies players like Bonds, Griffey and Maddux their due in baseball.

Nobody denies Barry Sanders, Dan Marino or Randy Moss their places in history.


Why do basketball players need a ring for confirmation of greatness?

Team of the 90s in the MLB and their 1 ring.

Great trio of pitchers none the less.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I mean, let's take Durant as a for instance. He's been in the league 8 years and made the CF or Finals in 3 of those years. Those seasons he was eliminated by Dirk, Lebron, and Duncan. That's supposed to be his fault for "failing" against other all-time greats?

Meanwhile, Curry this year didn't go through a single champion until he met Lebron's depleted Cavs team....and then needed 6 to bring home the title. And Curry didn't even get the FMVP!!!

We're supposed to value Curry's short career over Durant's career, despite Durant having far superior stats and near-equal team achievement? Just because Curry's TEAM won a title with him? Fuck that.

Context, context, context.

No room for that crap here.

[elmouse03]

I mean, let's take Durant as a for instance. He's been in the league 8 years and made the CF or Finals in 3 of those years. Those seasons he was eliminated by Dirk, Lebron, and Duncan. That's supposed to be his fault for "failing" against other all-time greats?

Meanwhile, Curry this year didn't go through a single champion until he met Lebron's depleted Cavs team....and then needed 6 to bring home the title. And Curry didn't even get the FMVP!!!

We're supposed to value Curry's short career over Durant's career, despite Durant having far superior stats and near-equal team achievement? Just because Curry's TEAM won a title with him? Fuck that.

Context, context, context.

No room for that crap here.

Not only did Curry not get the FMVP but he didn't even get a single vote for the award. He averaged 26 5rpg 6apg and 2spg in the that finals.

[Deez]

Durant should be nominated before Curry imo. I see 0 arguments for Curry.

[876Stephen]

Not to take away from your point as a whole, but Chuck won the MVP in 1993.

Good catch. Forgot about that.

I just don't put much stock into guys with pretty stats and nothing to show for those pretty stats. Nash, Iverson, Ewing, Paul, Durant, Barkley etc. They have an mvp's sure but it's the postseason that matters. And the thing is, all of those players have had the teams to get it done. They have all played with great players and should have won at least 1 title. Iverson is the only outlier of that group, in that he played with trash most of his career(especially offesnively).

Curry has an mvp just like all those other guys i just mentioned and he has greats stats as well. He's a great player just like those players. He's played on a great team with other good players like those other guys. There's only one thing that separates him from the others though.

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

They cant always win, but unless you spend most of your career playing with garbage like A.I, then yes. If your a great(some consider you all time great) you absolutely should win a title. All of those guys(including curry)played on teams and with players that were good enough to win a championship. Obviously guys like Durant and Paul still have lot's of career left to accomplish this.


How do you separate Nash, Durant, Barkley, Ewing, Paul, Payton, Curry, Kidd, Drexler etc. They all have great stats. Some of them have mvp's. They have all played on greats teams, teams that were good enough to win championships, And some have titles.

However only 1 of them has a title as the clear cut, best and most valuable player on the team.

Titles and more specifically lead dog titles are always the most important variable for me that separates players who all have greats stats.

[Deez]

Good catch. Forgot about that.

I just don't put much stock into guys with pretty stats and nothing to show for those pretty stats. Nash, Iverson, Ewing, Paul, Durant, Barkley etc. They have an mvp's sure but it's the postseason that matters. And the thing is, all of those players have had the teams to get it done. They have all played with great players and should have won at least 1 title. Iverson is the only outlier of that group, in that he played with trash most of his career(especially offesnively).

Curry has an mvp just like all those other guys i just mentioned and he has greats stats as well. He's a great player just like those players. He's played on a great team with other good players like those other guys. There's only one thing that separates him from the others though.

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

They cant always win, but unless you spend most of your career playing with garbage like A.I, then yes. If your a great(some consider you all time great) you absolutely should win a title. All of those guys(including curry)played on teams and with players that were good enough to win a championship. Obviously guys like Durant and Paul still have lot's of career left to accomplish this.


How do you separate Nash, Durant, Barkley, Ewing, Paul, Payton, Curry, Kidd, Drexler etc. They all have great stats. Some of them have mvp's. They have all played on greats teams, teams that were good enough to win championships, And some have titles.

However only 1 of them has a title as the clear cut, best and most valuable player on the team.

Titles and more specifically lead dog titles are always the most important variable for me that separates players who all have greats stats.

Good points but Curry doesn't have a lead dog title yet.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Good catch. Forgot about that.

I just don't put much stock into guys with pretty stats and nothing to show for those pretty stats. Nash, Iverson, Ewing, Paul, Durant, Barkley etc. They have an mvp's sure but it's the postseason that matters. And the thing is, all of those players have had the teams to get it done. They have all played with great players and should have won at least 1 title. Iverson is the only outlier of that group, in that he played with trash most of his career(especially offesnively).

Curry has an mvp just like all those other guys i just mentioned and he has greats stats as well. He's a great player just like those players. He's played on a great team with other good players like those other guys. There's only one thing that separates him from the others though.

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

They cant always win, but unless you spend most of your career playing with garbage like A.I, then yes. If your a great(some consider you all time great) you absolutely should win a title. All of those guys(including curry)played on teams and with players that were good enough to win a championship. Obviously guys like Durant and Paul still have lot's of career left to accomplish this.


How do you separate Nash, Durant, Barkley, Ewing, Paul, Payton, Curry, Kidd, Drexler etc. They all have great stats. Some of them have mvp's. They have all played on greats teams, teams that were good enough to win championships, And some have titles.

However only 1 of them has a title as the clear cut, best and most valuable player on the team.

Titles and more specifically lead dog titles are always the most important variable for me that separates players who all have greats stats.

So... you think the '01 Sixers were a better team than any of Suns's WCF teams with Nash?

[Robceltsfan]

Good catch. Forgot about that.

I just don't put much stock into guys with pretty stats and nothing to show for those pretty stats. Nash, Iverson, Ewing, Paul, Durant, Barkley etc. They have an mvp's sure but it's the postseason that matters. And the thing is, all of those players have had the teams to get it done. They have all played with great players and should have won at least 1 title. Iverson is the only outlier of that group, in that he played with trash most of his career(especially offesnively).

Curry has an mvp just like all those other guys i just mentioned and he has greats stats as well. He's a great player just like those players. He's played on a great team with other good players like those other guys. There's only one thing that separates him from the others though.

So every great player should win a title? I don't think there's enough seasons to go around for everyone bruh.

They cant always win, but unless you spend most of your career playing with garbage like A.I, then yes. If your a great(some consider you all time great) you absolutely should win a title. All of those guys(including curry)played on teams and with players that were good enough to win a championship. Obviously guys like Durant and Paul still have lot's of career left to accomplish this.


How do you separate Nash, Durant, Barkley, Ewing, Paul, Payton, Curry, Kidd, Drexler etc. They all have great stats. Some of them have mvp's. They have all played on greats teams, teams that were good enough to win championships, And some have titles.

However only 1 of them has a title as the clear cut, best and most valuable player on the team.

Titles and more specifically lead dog titles are always the most important variable for me that separates players who all have greats stats.

There is context in everything. There's injuries, there's system players played in, there's coaching blunders. Faulting a guy like Barkley for not winning in the Bird/Magic/Jordan era is silly to me. Barkley's cast in Philly wasn't anything to write home about, and by the time he was on "good enough teams" in Phoenix, he was losing to Jordan's Bulls and Hakeem's Rockets.