Macrotus wrote:
so you saying W-W-W-W-W-W-L and W-W-W-L-W-W-W hold the same weight?
All else being equal specifically over a 7 year time span, yes.
But it never is equal on all other dimensions (for example, did the first guy lose out because everyone got old/retired? vs. losing with everyone at peak for the second guy?), and that's why you got to dig deeper. But it is certainly not the case the former is automatically better.
Last edited by Bush4Ever on Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Bush4Ever wrote:2/2 is obviously harder than 2/3, but that isn't really an issue that maps onto these discussion, since all these guys are playing that third year. You don't get to wipe away the third year of the first guy off the books.
The discussion should not be 2/2 vs. 2/3, it's
2/3 (WWL or LWW) vs. 2/3 (WLW).
You can do a lot of goofy things when you interject stop and start points at random places in continuous processes (like careers, or "performance", etc...).
Here is an example I used before: Name the players since 1980 to average 8 points, rebounds, and assists in a single season....
so you saying W-W-W-W-W-W-L and W-W-W-L-W-W-W hold the same weight?
Absolutely. But, of course, there is context in anything. But in the simple context of wins, or winning titles...6 out of 7 = 6 out of 7. The rest is just headline fodder.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Repeating definitely matters to a lot of people. Part of the reason Jordan is held in such high esteem, is the fact that he three-peated twice.
For me personally it makes no difference if you repeat or not. If Jordan had the exact same resume but he never repeated, it wouldn't change my view of him, but for a lot of people it would. That's just how it goes.
Bush4Ever wrote:2/2 is obviously harder than 2/3, but that isn't really an issue that maps onto these discussion, since all these guys are playing that third year. You don't get to wipe away the third year of the first guy off the books.
The discussion should not be 2/2 vs. 2/3, it's
2/3 (WWL or LWW) vs. 2/3 (WLW).
You can do a lot of goofy things when you interject stop and start points at random places in continuous processes (like careers, or "performance", etc...).
Here is an example I used before: Name the players since 1980 to average 8 points, rebounds, and assists in a single season....
Bush, I'm not arguing that 2/3 =/= 2/3. What I'm saying is that "WW" in a WWL is a greater feat than the "WL" and "LW" in WLW. Recall, I specifically stated "defending a crown" so I'm highlighting a period within an example, not trying to sum up a large example using this logic. I have never done so.
876Stephen wrote:Repeating definitely matters to a lot of people. Part of the reason Jordan is held in such high esteem, is the fact that he three-peated twice.
For me personally it makes no difference if you repeat or not. If Jordan had the exact same resume but he never repeated, it wouldn't change my view of him, but for a lot of people it would. That's just how it goes.
It would in my view. His teams were built to duplicate their success. Had they'd never repeated, Russell is GOAT. Jordan falls behind Kareem on my list.
876Stephen wrote:Repeating definitely matters to a lot of people. Part of the reason Jordan is held in such high esteem, is the fact that he three-peated twice.
For me personally it makes no difference if you repeat or not. If Jordan had the exact same resume but he never repeated, it wouldn't change my view of him, but for a lot of people it would. That's just how it goes.
It would in my view. His teams were built to duplicate their success. Had they'd never repeated, Russell is GOAT. Jordan falls behind Kareem on my list.
Really? Why? If Jordan had won 6 with no repeats......had as many MVPs.....more dominant stats.
You put Russel AND Kareem ahead of him? That seriously makes no sense.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Bush4Ever wrote:2/2 is obviously harder than 2/3, but that isn't really an issue that maps onto these discussion, since all these guys are playing that third year. You don't get to wipe away the third year of the first guy off the books.
The discussion should not be 2/2 vs. 2/3, it's
2/3 (WWL or LWW) vs. 2/3 (WLW).
You can do a lot of goofy things when you interject stop and start points at random places in continuous processes (like careers, or "performance", etc...).
Here is an example I used before: Name the players since 1980 to average 8 points, rebounds, and assists in a single season....
so you saying W-W-W-W-W-W-L and W-W-W-L-W-W-W hold the same weight?
Absolutely. But, of course, there is context in anything. But in the simple context of wins, or winning titles...6 out of 7 = 6 out of 7. The rest is just headline fodder.
This example is a very intriguing one. He's a good example:
1980-88 Lakers: W W L LW WW
2000-10 Lakers: WWW L L WW
876Stephen wrote:Repeating definitely matters to a lot of people. Part of the reason Jordan is held in such high esteem, is the fact that he three-peated twice.
For me personally it makes no difference if you repeat or not. If Jordan had the exact same resume but he never repeated, it wouldn't change my view of him, but for a lot of people it would. That's just how it goes.
It would in my view. His teams were built to duplicate their success. Had they'd never repeated, Russell is GOAT. Jordan falls behind Kareem on my list.
Really? Why? If Jordan had won 6 with no repeats......had as many MVPs.....more dominant stats.
You put Russel AND Kareem ahead of him? That seriously makes no sense.
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
y2ktors wrote:
It would in my view. His teams were built to duplicate their success. Had they'd never repeated, Russell is GOAT. Jordan falls behind Kareem on my list.
Really? Why? If Jordan had won 6 with no repeats......had as many MVPs.....more dominant stats.
You put Russel AND Kareem ahead of him? That seriously makes no sense.
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
I seriously don't get it.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Really? Why? If Jordan had won 6 with no repeats......had as many MVPs.....more dominant stats.
You put Russel AND Kareem ahead of him? That seriously makes no sense.
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
I seriously don't get it.
I've said this many times about Y2ktors. He picks the result he wants and then works backwards to defend it. It leads to many inconsistencies that he is completely blind to. It is what it is.
Really? Why? If Jordan had won 6 with no repeats......had as many MVPs.....more dominant stats.
You put Russel AND Kareem ahead of him? That seriously makes no sense.
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
y2ktors wrote:
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
I seriously don't get it.
I've said this many times about Y2ktors. He picks the result he wants and then works backwards to defend it. It leads to many inconsistencies that he is completely blind to. It is what it is.
I'm 100% consistent in the fact that I don't believe in viewing shit at face value.
Macrotus wrote:
so you saying W-W-W-W-W-W-L and W-W-W-L-W-W-W hold the same weight?
All else being equal specifically over a 7 year time span, yes.
But it never is equal on all other dimensions (for example, did the first guy lose out because everyone got old/retired? vs. losing with everyone at peak for the second guy?), and that's why you got to dig deeper. But it is certainly not the case the former is automatically better.
circumstance applied to almost everything in life. I always put that into consideration...especially when it comes to player era.
y2ktors wrote:
Because those Bulls were built to have repeated success and as the greatest individual talent to play in the NBA, that's a big letdown. We'd also be taking some iconic moments away from him because many of them were done while they were winning championships.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
I seriously don't get it.
What part of letdown don't you get?
So weren't the Kareem/Magic teams "built to have repeated success"???? God damn, they had more talent than most any team in NBA history......AND a fucking cakewalk to the Finals every year.
What about all HIS letdowns? They don't count against him?
#stilldoesntmakeanysense
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
I guess I just don't get it. Are you deducting championships from Jordan...or simply making them not be 3-peats? If the latter, how does Kareem differentiate himself from Jordan then? Jordan has equal rings, equal MVPs, more Finals MVPs, more dominant stats relative to his peers..........there's nothing you can place in Kareem's favor outside of longevity and volume stats. And Kareem's rings were spread apart with the exception of one B2B.
I seriously don't get it.
What part of letdown don't you get?
So weren't the Kareem/Magic teams "built to have repeated success"???? God damn, they had more talent than most any team in NBA history......AND a fucking cakewalk to the Finals every year.
What about all HIS letdowns? They don't count against him?
#stilldoesntmakeanysense
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
y2ktors wrote:
What part of letdown don't you get?
So weren't the Kareem/Magic teams "built to have repeated success"???? God damn, they had more talent than most any team in NBA history......AND a fucking cakewalk to the Finals every year.
What about all HIS letdowns? They don't count against him?
#stilldoesntmakeanysense
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Oh man this thread got long and is hard to read through on mobile. Other than OP, I still don't see anyone has addressed my point about the historical impact of Magic and Bird vs Duncan. Seems like this did not factor in at all in the #2 vote. Also Duncan's main rival was probably the Lakers, and he came up short usually vs them in the playoffs, 99 being the one big exception to that. Also it's not that he never repeated, he never EVEN CAME CLOSE to repeating. The only time Spurs even made the conf finals in a repeat year, they got destroyed 4-1 by the Lakers, and that wasn't even the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.
y2ktors wrote:
What part of letdown don't you get?
So weren't the Kareem/Magic teams "built to have repeated success"???? God damn, they had more talent than most any team in NBA history......AND a fucking cakewalk to the Finals every year.
What about all HIS letdowns? They don't count against him?
#stilldoesntmakeanysense
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
