So, it would be more impressive to get knocked out of the 1st round or miss the playoffs entirely 7 times, only to win a ring on visit #8... than to make it to the Final 8 times only to lose to a superior team? Just saying... hypothetically...
Winning rings is more impressive. The other stuff, I couldn't care much less about.
I don't care that the 87 lakers played shit for competition before defeating Boston, while Boston had to go thru The Bucks and Pistons just to get to the Finals, in which they lost. The Lakers won the championship which means that they got the job done.
Elgin Baylor's teams didn't get the job done not one single time.
BUTTTT, that shouldn't be the biggest thing on which he's judged on because he was a heck of a player.
I prefer a deeper analysis of the game. Otherwise, I'd think Derek Fisher was a better NBA player than Derek Harper.
Context does matter. And it's more interesting than the black-white view based on a very linear definition based on laziness or convenience over anything else by select posters.
876Stephen wrote:Plus i didn't know we were giving credit for finals appearances now. I though the goal was to win it once you get there. That's what matters. No one cares that Lebron has 5 finals appearances. They only care about how many he's won. Same with any other player.
I feel the same way.
So you are saying that Baylor never wanted to win any of those finals he been to?
876Stephen wrote:Plus i didn't know we were giving credit for finals appearances now. I though the goal was to win it once you get there. That's what matters. No one cares that Lebron has 5 finals appearances. They only care about how many he's won. Same with any other player.
I feel the same way.
So you are saying that Baylor never wanted to win any of those finals he been to?
It's not about wanting at all. It's about did you win or did you not and Baylor didn't.
Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
But what about when comparing Player A with Player B?
A 1st round exit as a #1 seed and a Finals loss against a top-notch dynasty holds equal weight? Why would you limit yourself to such thinking?
vcsgrizzfan wrote:Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
We are talking about rating players. If you don't understand the context and don't put any weight into making deep runs in the playoffs even if you don't win it, you are being overly simplistic. Who you beat and how you got there and who you lost to all matter to some extent. If you don't get that when you are rating your players, then you are not rating them as well as you should.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
We are talking about rating players. If you don't understand the context and don't put any weight into making deep runs in the playoffs even if you don't win it, you are being overly simplistic. Who you beat and how you got there and who you lost to all matter to some extent. If you don't get that when you are rating your players, then you are not rating them as well as you should.
When one is rating players, they should also be analyzing performance, impact, skillset, etc., which is about far more than team accomplishments.
I'm never going to reward a player for not winning a championship. But we can't ignore the endless data and analysis that comes about regardless of the result.
y2ktors wrote:
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
We are talking about rating players. If you don't understand the context and don't put any weight into making deep runs in the playoffs even if you don't win it, you are being overly simplistic. Who you beat and how you got there and who you lost to all matter to some extent. If you don't get that when you are rating your players, then you are not rating them as well as you should.
When one is rating players, they should also be analyzing performance, impact, skillset, etc., which is about far more than team accomplishments.
I'm never going to reward a player for not winning a championship. But we can't ignore the endless data and analysis that comes about regardless of the result.
What are you using to measure "skillset?"
So, you agree that a 1st round loss against a #8 seed (or missing the playoffs entirely) is no worse than averaging 41/18 while losing in Game 7 (in OT) of the NBA Finals to one of the greatest teams in NBA history?
y2ktors wrote:
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
We are talking about rating players. If you don't understand the context and don't put any weight into making deep runs in the playoffs even if you don't win it, you are being overly simplistic. Who you beat and how you got there and who you lost to all matter to some extent. If you don't get that when you are rating your players, then you are not rating them as well as you should.
When one is rating players, they should also be analyzing performance, impact, skillset, etc., which is about far more than team accomplishments.
I'm never going to reward a player for not winning a championship. But we can't ignore the endless data and analysis that comes about regardless of the result.
You are swinging at windmills here. Nobody said that you ignore performance, impact, skillset etc. What was said was that you also need to look at team accomplishments and their role in those team accomplishments, particularly in the playoffs. There is no magical cut off where winning a title is 100 and losing in the finals is 0, as is not making the playoffs or losing in the first round. If you approach it that way, you are being far too simplistic.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:Abe is clearly right here. Of course making it to finals matters and you have to have context in your analysis. One of the reasons I didn't rate Malone as highly as the board did was that he and Stockton had so many first round exits (and lost to weaker teams a number of times) and only made two finals in all their years together. If you approach it that the only thing that matters is winning the whole enchilada, that's just ridiculously simplistic and is poor analysis. Of course making it means far less than winning it, but suggesting it doesn't matter at all is just silly in my opinion.
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
But what about when comparing Player A with Player B?
A 1st round exit as a #1 seed and a Finals loss against a top-notch dynasty holds equal weight? Why would you limit yourself to such thinking?
I won't reward either because they didn't win the championship. But beyond that, neither can be dismissed because again, there is critical info that gets taken into account.
y2ktors wrote:
It depends on what one is trying to analyze. If one is analyzing performance and impact then of course one must not disregard finals appearances, playoff appearances, etc.
But If the goal is go win championships then coming in second is not the accomplishment. It's the consolation and I don't believe in consolation prizes.
But what about when comparing Player A with Player B?
A 1st round exit as a #1 seed and a Finals loss against a top-notch dynasty holds equal weight? Why would you limit yourself to such thinking?
I won't reward either because they didn't win the championship. But beyond that, neither can be dismissed because again, there is critical info that gets taken into account.
With all due respect, you've painted yourself in a corner and are just being silly now.
But what about when comparing Player A with Player B?
A 1st round exit as a #1 seed and a Finals loss against a top-notch dynasty holds equal weight? Why would you limit yourself to such thinking?
I won't reward either because they didn't win the championship. But beyond that, neither can be dismissed because again, there is critical info that gets taken into account.
With all due respect, you've painted yourself in a corner and are just being silly now.
