2014 Anger General Geatest of All Time: #20 selection

[AbeVigodaLive]

I'm never going to reward a player for not winning a championship.

You aren't. You are rewarding him for winning three playoff series.

I get this, totally. And I agree if we're going to look at it this way.

But It's gets to a point where ppl start inching far too close to this line of thinking on championship levels:

Finals
----------

Lebron James: 2/5 > Hakeem Olajuwon 2/2

And that's not true at all.

Magic 5/9 isn't better than Duncan 5/6. It's equivalent.

woe. Can we move on? Seriously. I don't want to be mean.

And I don't want to be trolled. One or the other is happening... or will happen soon.

[Bush4Ever]

Lebron James: 2/5 > Hakeem Olajuwon 2/2

And that's not true at all.

Magic 5/9 isn't better than Duncan 5/6. It's equivalent.

I've been consistent on this from day 1.

But you are still aggregating.

What would the records look like if you look at their respective records at the Conference Finals level? Semis?

And so on...eventually their records would diverge at some level, if they had different levels of winning in sum.

[Y2K]

Lebron James: 2/5 > Hakeem Olajuwon 2/2

And that's not true at all.

Magic 5/9 isn't better than Duncan 5/6. It's equivalent.

I've been consistent on this from day 1.

But you are still aggregating.

What would the records look like if you look at their respective records at the Conference Finals level? Semis?

And so on...

That would be a different discussion, one that would have significance. But since those rounds aren't really considered the "big stage" ppl don't hold them in the same light.

But let's back up a min. A few threads ago, I mentioned about how, at this point in the rankings, rings are not going to factor in as much. Of course I just paraphrased but my point is that it shouldn't be so cut and dry about not picking a player with 0 rings over a player with 1+ ring. Elgin Baylor's teams were more competitive and consistent than maybe say the Washington Bullets of the 70s. They just faced a dynasty that only 2 teams defeated in 13 years. There's no Shame in not winning at least once.

While 1 > 0, it doesn't dismiss what the 60s Lakers accomplished while not having won a ring. I don't want ppl to be under the presumption that I disregard that completely because it's not true.

But when Stephen mentioned about the goal being winning once you get to the Finals, not just being there, I agree. Lebron's legacy isn't going going be how many times he's been to the Finals. It'll be how many rings does he have.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Lebron James: 2/5 > Hakeem Olajuwon 2/2

And that's not true at all.

Magic 5/9 isn't better than Duncan 5/6. It's equivalent.

I've been consistent on this from day 1.

But you are still aggregating.

What would the records look like if you look at their respective records at the Conference Finals level? Semis?

And so on...

That would be a different discussion, one that would have significance. But since those rounds aren't really considered the "big stage" ppl don't hold them in the same light.

But let's back up a min. A few threads ago, I mentioned about how, at this point in the rankings, rings are not going to factor in as much. Of course I just paraphrased but my point is that it shouldn't be so cut and dry about not picking a player with 0 rings over a player with 1+ ring. Elgin Baylor's teams were more competitive and consistent than maybe say the Washington Bullets of the 70s. They just faced a dynasty that only 2 teams defeated in 13 years. There's no Shame in not winning at least once.

While 1 > 0, it doesn't dismiss what the 60s Lakers accomplished while not having won a ring. I don't want ppl to be under the presumption that I disregard that completely because it's not true.

But when Stephen mentioned about the goal being winning once you get to the Finals, not just being there, I agree. Lebron's legacy isn't going going be how many times he's been to the Finals. It'll be how many rings does he have.

How does that relate to #20 on this list.

[Bush4Ever]

I've gone cross-eyed.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I've gone cross-eyed.

[Y2K]

But you are still aggregating.

What would the records look like if you look at their respective records at the Conference Finals level? Semis?

And so on...

That would be a different discussion, one that would have significance. But since those rounds aren't really considered the "big stage" ppl don't hold them in the same light.

But let's back up a min. A few threads ago, I mentioned about how, at this point in the rankings, rings are not going to factor in as much. Of course I just paraphrased but my point is that it shouldn't be so cut and dry about not picking a player with 0 rings over a player with 1+ ring. Elgin Baylor's teams were more competitive and consistent than maybe say the Washington Bullets of the 70s. They just faced a dynasty that only 2 teams defeated in 13 years. There's no Shame in not winning at least once.

While 1 > 0, it doesn't dismiss what the 60s Lakers accomplished while not having won a ring. I don't want ppl to be under the presumption that I disregard that completely because it's not true.

But when Stephen mentioned about the goal being winning once you get to the Finals, not just being there, I agree. Lebron's legacy isn't going going be how many times he's been to the Finals. It'll be how many rings does he have.

How does that relate to #20 on this list.

Brent Barry's case over Elgin Baylor that Stephen is debating.

[AbeVigodaLive]

That would be a different discussion, one that would have significance. But since those rounds aren't really considered the "big stage" ppl don't hold them in the same light.

But let's back up a min. A few threads ago, I mentioned about how, at this point in the rankings, rings are not going to factor in as much. Of course I just paraphrased but my point is that it shouldn't be so cut and dry about not picking a player with 0 rings over a player with 1+ ring. Elgin Baylor's teams were more competitive and consistent than maybe say the Washington Bullets of the 70s. They just faced a dynasty that only 2 teams defeated in 13 years. There's no Shame in not winning at least once.

While 1 > 0, it doesn't dismiss what the 60s Lakers accomplished while not having won a ring. I don't want ppl to be under the presumption that I disregard that completely because it's not true.

But when Stephen mentioned about the goal being winning once you get to the Finals, not just being there, I agree. Lebron's legacy isn't going going be how many times he's been to the Finals. It'll be how many rings does he have.

How does that relate to #20 on this list.

Brent Barry's case over Elgin Baylor that Stephen is debating.

I've only seen Barry > Baylor because 1 "NBA" title.

I need more than that to take his claim seriously. To be honest, I find his takes beneath me to the point that any discussion would be too one-sided and boring. Sorry to come off as a pretentious prick in this case... but THUS FAR... that's all I've seen in his takes. If it was a troll thread, I'd engage. It's a basketball thread, so I expect some legit discussion points or insight to keep me engaged.

[Bush4Ever]

Damn man, Abe is elite as shit.

I'm impressed.

[Deez]

It's great to make multiple finals but it does hurt your case somewhat when you fail everytime to win atleast 1 ring.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Damn man, Abe is elite as shit.

I'm impressed.

Thank you. In all honesty, obviously, I'm willing to discuss anything at this point other than this crap.

[Bush4Ever]

Thank you. In all honesty, obviously, I'm willing to discuss anything at this point other than this crap.

Now, to gain a sense of perspective...this is how I feel every day about almost everything almost everyone discusses. What you are feeling right now.

Do you get why I'm sort of mentally ill?

[AbeVigodaLive]

Thank you. In all honesty, obviously, I'm willing to discuss anything at this point other than this crap.

Now, to gain a sense of perspective...this is how I feel every day about almost everything almost everyone discusses. What you are feeling right now.

Do you get why I'm sort of mentally ill?

I thought you were just fucked in the head.

[Bush4Ever]

I thought you were just fucked in the head.

I am. But I'm a reflection of what I'm forced to deal with also.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I thought you were just fucked in the head.

I am. But I'm a reflection of what I'm forced to deal with also.

Oh. Usually, I'm really good at dealing with people dumber than me. And, sometimes... even those smarter than me.

[876Stephen]

LOL at Abe acting like a pretentious fuck, even though he's given no tangible reasons why Baylor should be ranked ahead of Barry other than finals appearances and being a great scorer. BTW, Barry was just as good, and probably a better scorer than Baylor was. He was definitely a better all around player.

It's the same thing when you said Nash is greater than Kidd because when he's a better shooter and that's it. Ignoring the fact that every other tangible and intangible way to compare the 2 was either even or favored Kidd.

Basically all your saying is Baylor's 8 finals appearances is better than Barry's 1 finals appearance, 1 title and 1 fmvp.

One more point, the same people who bash lebron for having a losing record in the finals are the same one's who making excuse after excuse Baylor and his 0-8 record in the finals.

You guys are fucking hypocrites.

[Y2K]

How does that relate to #20 on this list.

Brent Barry's case over Elgin Baylor that Stephen is debating.

I've only seen Barry > Baylor because 1 "NBA" title.

I need more than that to take his claim seriously. To be honest, I find his takes beneath me to the point that any discussion would be too one-sided and boring. Sorry to come off as a pretentious prick in this case... but THUS FAR... that's all I've seen in his takes. If it was a troll thread, I'd engage. It's a basketball thread, so I expect some legit discussion points or insight to keep me engaged.

In Stephen's defense, he has gone in depth some on why he's picking Barry over Malone and Baylor. There was also a discussion on how his ABA career should be judged, as Barry Was elite and a winner in both leagues.

[Y2K]

LOL at Abe acting like a pretentious fuck, even though he's given no tangible reasons why Baylor should be ranked ahead of Barry other than finals appearances and being a great scorer. BTW, Barry was just as good, and probably a better scorer than Baylor was. He was definitely a better all around player.

It's the same thing when you said Nash is greater than Kidd because when he's a better shooter and that's it. Ignoring the fact that every other tangible and intangible way to compare the 2 was either even or favored Kidd.

Basically all your saying is Baylor's 8 finals appearances is better than Barry's 1 finals appearance, 1 title and 1 fmvp.

One more point, the same people who bash lebron for having a losing record in the finals are the same one's who making excuse after excuse Baylor and his 0-8 record in the finals.

You guys are fucking hypocrites.

Oh snap...lol. You got it from here, bro.

I'll just kick back and

[AbeVigodaLive]

Brent Barry's case over Elgin Baylor that Stephen is debating.

I've only seen Barry > Baylor because 1 "NBA" title.

I need more than that to take his claim seriously. To be honest, I find his takes beneath me to the point that any discussion would be too one-sided and boring. Sorry to come off as a pretentious prick in this case... but THUS FAR... that's all I've seen in his takes. If it was a troll thread, I'd engage. It's a basketball thread, so I expect some legit discussion points or insight to keep me engaged.

In Stephen's defense, he has gone in depth some on why he's picking Barry over Malone and Baylor. There was also a discussion on how his ABA career should be judged, as Barry Was elite and a winner in both leagues.

I didn't see those responses. So they don't count, obviously.

[876Stephen]

LOL at Abe acting like a pretentious fuck, even though he's given no tangible reasons why Baylor should be ranked ahead of Barry other than finals appearances and being a great scorer. BTW, Barry was just as good, and probably a better scorer than Baylor was. He was definitely a better all around player.

It's the same thing when you said Nash is greater than Kidd because when he's a better shooter and that's it. Ignoring the fact that every other tangible and intangible way to compare the 2 was either even or favored Kidd.

Basically all your saying is Baylor's 8 finals appearances is better than Barry's 1 finals appearance, 1 title and 1 fmvp.

One more point, the same people who bash lebron for having a losing record in the finals are the same one's who making excuse after excuse Baylor and his 0-8 record in the finals.

You guys are fucking hypocrites.

Oh snap...lol. You got it from here, bro.

I'll just kick back and

Abe started this shit. I'm happy to engage him.