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

[876Stephen]

Durant being ahead of Curry makes some sense. His career being far from over and his stats being all time great as opposed to everyone else's just being great.

Even still, he's played on great teams and probably should have won a championship by now.

And are people actually comparing baseball to basketball? Really?

A star player in baseball or a star qb in the nfl have much less impact than a star player in basketball. It's not comparable. Many more players on the field at a time. More reliance on everyone else etc. There all team sports but not all team sports are equal.

[Robceltsfan]

Durant being ahead of Curry makes some sense. His career being far from over and his stats being all time great as opposed to everyone else's just being great.

Even still, he's played on great teams and probably should have won a championship by now.

And are people actually comparing baseball to basketball? Really?

A star player in baseball or a star qb in the nfl have much less impact than a star player in basketball. It's not comparable. Many more players on the field at a time. More reliance on everyone else etc. There all team sports but not all team sports are equal.

Agreed, and as I said earlier, the all-time great you're going up against has more impact too.

Durant has lost to Dirk/Kidd....Lebron/Wade....Duncan/Parker (9 titles combined).

Curry beat Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and James Harden (0 titles combined) before beating Lebron's depleted as fuck Cavs.


CONTEXT GOD DAMN IT!!!

[AbeVigodaLive]

Rob getting destroid in this thread. lmbao

[876Stephen]

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.

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

[Robceltsfan]

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.

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

Those weren't Barkley's teams though. He wasn't given the prominent role and it was at the very beginning of his career. You're holding a guys winning accomplishments from his first 3 years against him.....when they were losing to the Celtics at full strength.....and then to the Bucks the following 2 years (with Moses not playing at all in either losing series). Then they blew up the team in his 4th season.

CONTEXT

[876Stephen]

Durant being ahead of Curry makes some sense. His career being far from over and his stats being all time great as opposed to everyone else's just being great.

Even still, he's played on great teams and probably should have won a championship by now.

And are people actually comparing baseball to basketball? Really?

A star player in baseball or a star qb in the nfl have much less impact than a star player in basketball. It's not comparable. Many more players on the field at a time. More reliance on everyone else etc. There all team sports but not all team sports are equal.

Agreed, and as I said earlier, the all-time great you're going up against has more impact too.

Durant has lost to Dirk/Kidd....Lebron/Wade....Duncan/Parker (9 titles combined).

Curry beat Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and James Harden (0 titles combined) before beating Lebron's depleted as fuck Cavs.


CONTEXT GOD DAMN IT!!!

Dirk beat KD to to get to the finals and win that title. If Dirk lost that series to the Thunder in 2011, then Dirk is ringless and his legacy is Barkley if not worse.

All you proving to me, is that Durant wasn't good enough to beat these players.

To be the best you have to beat the best. You play who's in front of you and beat them.

Durant still has time and i think he'll break through eventually. But he hasn't gotten it done up to this point.

[Robceltsfan]

Durant being ahead of Curry makes some sense. His career being far from over and his stats being all time great as opposed to everyone else's just being great.

Even still, he's played on great teams and probably should have won a championship by now.

And are people actually comparing baseball to basketball? Really?

A star player in baseball or a star qb in the nfl have much less impact than a star player in basketball. It's not comparable. Many more players on the field at a time. More reliance on everyone else etc. There all team sports but not all team sports are equal.

Agreed, and as I said earlier, the all-time great you're going up against has more impact too.

Durant has lost to Dirk/Kidd....Lebron/Wade....Duncan/Parker (9 titles combined).

Curry beat Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and James Harden (0 titles combined) before beating Lebron's depleted as fuck Cavs.


CONTEXT GOD DAMN IT!!!

Dirk beat KD to to get to the finals and win that title. If Dirk lost that series to the Thunder in 2011, then Dirk is ringless and his legacy is Barkley if not worse.

All you proving to me, is that Durant wasn't good enough to beat these players.

To be the best you have to beat the best. You play who's in front of you and beat them.

Durant still has time and i think he'll break through eventually. But he hasn't gotten it done up to this point.

No, you don't. Not all paths are equal.

See Olajuwon, Hakeem or Curry, Stephen

[AbeVigodaLive]

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.

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

THIS is why it's such a shame when guys like stephen dominate a discussion.

Barkley played only two seasons with Moses Malone. In his rookie season, the 76ers lost to Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics in the ECF. Everybody here has acknowledged that Larry Bird is better. So, what about the next year? The 76ers lost to the Milwaukee Bucks in 7 games? HaHA!!! Wait...

Moses was injured and didn't play. It must have been Barkley's fault for not stepping up in that series right? Consider...

Barkley averaged 27.6 ppg / 14.7 reb / 4.4 ast / 2.4 stl / 62.2% fg. Andrew Toney played 6 games that entire season. He started only 27 games on bad feet over 3 of the 4 seasons as Barkley's teammate. Barkley played 3 seasons with Erving... at the end of Erving's career... when he has his 3 worst pro seasons.

Yep... how did that team NOT win a title? Blame Barkley. All on Barkley.

[Robceltsfan]

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.

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

THIS is why it's such a shame when guys like stephen dominate a discussion.

Barkley played only two seasons with Moses Malone. In his rookie season, the 76ers lost to Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics in the ECF. Everybody here has acknowledged that Larry Bird is better. So, what about the next year? The 76ers lost to the Milwaukee Bucks in 7 games? HaHA!!! Wait...

Moses was injured and didn't play. It must have been Barkley's fault for not stepping up in that series right? Consider...

Barkley averaged 27.6 ppg / 14.7 reb / 4.4 ast / 2.4 stl / 62.2% fg. Andrew Toney played 6 games that entire season. He started only 27 games on bad feet over 3 of the 4 seasons as Barkley's teammate. Barkley played 3 seasons with Erving... at the end of Erving's career... when he has his 3 worst pro seasons.

Yep... how did that team NOT win a title? Blame Barkley. All on Barkley.

Context?

[AbeVigodaLive]

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

THIS is why it's such a shame when guys like stephen dominate a discussion.

Barkley played only two seasons with Moses Malone. In his rookie season, the 76ers lost to Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics in the ECF. Everybody here has acknowledged that Larry Bird is better. So, what about the next year? The 76ers lost to the Milwaukee Bucks in 7 games? HaHA!!! Wait...

Moses was injured and didn't play. It must have been Barkley's fault for not stepping up in that series right? Consider...

Barkley averaged 27.6 ppg / 14.7 reb / 4.4 ast / 2.4 stl / 62.2% fg. Andrew Toney played 6 games that entire season. He started only 27 games on bad feet over 3 of the 4 seasons as Barkley's teammate. Barkley played 3 seasons with Erving... at the end of Erving's career... when he has his 3 worst pro seasons.

Yep... how did that team NOT win a title? Blame Barkley. All on Barkley.

Context?

Fuck context. Stephen wants to champion his pet projects... any way he can.

If that means throwing context or reason out the window... so be it.

[876Stephen]

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.

What? Barkley's early years were spent playing with Moses, Erving, Toney etc. Those are stacked fucking teams. I can absolutely fault Barkley for not winning in that era. If it was Barkley winning those titles instead of Bird and Magic, he'd be the one being considered top 5 player all time. To be the best, you need to beat the best. That's the whole point. Titles make or break legacies, as they should in the sport of basketball. Bird, Jordan, Magic etc aren't considered the best just for being all time great players. It's the titles. Stats and hardware are just used to supplement those titles.

I wont even get into Barkley's phoenix and houston years. Those teams were great as well.

Those weren't Barkley's teams though. He wasn't given the prominent role and it was at the very beginning of his career. You're holding a guys winning accomplishments from his first 3 years against him.....when they were losing to the Celtics at full strength.....and then to the Bucks the following 2 years (with Moses not playing at all in either losing series). Then they blew up the team in his 4th season.

CONTEXT

Which is why Erving and Moses aren't ranked than higher than they could have been. They played with each other and added Barkley to a team that was already a title team in 83. They had a great chance to win more but didn't.

In Barkley's once he entered his prime in Phoenix, playing with majerle, kevin johnson etc, still couldn't get it done.

Then in his later years with Houston playing with Hakeem, Drexler and the crew, still couldn't win.

At every stage in his career he lost with great teams. Early years, prime years and twilight years.

Can't give him a pass. That is the context.

[Robceltsfan]

So Barkley not carrying Doc and Moses to a title his rookie year as well as winning with Moses injured the next two years = Barkley's fault

Barkley not winning with KJ as his #2 and (haha) Dan Majerle as his #3 = Barkley's fault (Jordan & Pip had nothing to do with this)

Barkley not winning with Hakeem and Drexler when they were all 33+ years old = Barkley's fault


Great, thanks for all the context.

[Deez]

[876Stephen]

Agreed, and as I said earlier, the all-time great you're going up against has more impact too.

Durant has lost to Dirk/Kidd....Lebron/Wade....Duncan/Parker (9 titles combined).

Curry beat Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and James Harden (0 titles combined) before beating Lebron's depleted as fuck Cavs.


CONTEXT GOD DAMN IT!!!

Dirk beat KD to to get to the finals and win that title. If Dirk lost that series to the Thunder in 2011, then Dirk is ringless and his legacy is Barkley if not worse.

All you proving to me, is that Durant wasn't good enough to beat these players.

To be the best you have to beat the best. You play who's in front of you and beat them.

Durant still has time and i think he'll break through eventually. But he hasn't gotten it done up to this point.

No, you don't. Not all paths are equal.

See Olajuwon, Hakeem or Curry, Stephen

A title is a title. Plain and simple. A champion is a champion. I dont hold it against magic for playing trash in the west all those years or Hakeem winning when Jordan retired, or the 04 pistons beating a lakers team full of strife and locker room issues or russell playing in 8 teams league's winning titles. None of that matters. You play who's in front of you. You control what you can control.

And Barkley had a whole damn career to win, not just his early years in Philly. Prime years in phoenix and laters years in Houston.

[Robceltsfan]

Dirk beat KD to to get to the finals and win that title. If Dirk lost that series to the Thunder in 2011, then Dirk is ringless and his legacy is Barkley if not worse.

All you proving to me, is that Durant wasn't good enough to beat these players.

To be the best you have to beat the best. You play who's in front of you and beat them.

Durant still has time and i think he'll break through eventually. But he hasn't gotten it done up to this point.

No, you don't. Not all paths are equal.

See Olajuwon, Hakeem or Curry, Stephen

A title is a title. Plain and simple. A champion is a champion. I dont hold it against magic for playing trash in the west all those years or Hakeem winning when Jordan retired, or the 04 pistons beating a lakers team full of strife and locker room issues or russell playing in 8 teams league's winning titles. None of that matters. You play who's in front of you. You control what you can control.

And Barkley had a whole damn career to win, not just his early years in Philly. Prime years in phoenix and laters years in Houston.

Great, thanks for that. At least you can admit that you have no rationale for your overzealous use of a ring as the end-all/be-all of player evaluation. Context doesn't matter to you, just the accomplishment. You've admitted that context doesn't matter at all to you, which ends our conversation. Stats matter a little.....rings matter a whole lot......and context can play hide-and-go-fuck-itself.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Sometimes, people tend to avoid discussions with me.

Probably a smart move.

[Deez]

Sometimes, people tend to avoid discussions with me.

Probably a smart move.

you tend to talk to yourself too often.

[876Stephen]

So Barkley not carrying Doc and Moses to a title his rookie year as well as winning with Moses injured the next two years = Barkley's fault

Barkley not winning with KJ as his #2 and (haha) Dan Majerle as his #3 = Barkley's fault (Jordan & Pip had nothing to do with this)

Barkley not winning with Hakeem and Drexler when they were all 33+ years old = Barkley's fault


Great, thanks for all the context.

It's no just Barkley's but when your the best player or one of the best player's on your team and you continually fall short your entire career, that's telling. Especially when all those other guys have won titles before. Erving, Malone, Hakeem, Drexler etc. Why is Barkley the only one to not win.

It's never Barkley's fault for not winning i guess. There's lot's of players that have actually won, that can use the not enough help excuse. Dirk's team in 2011 wasn't anything to right home about it. What about Kg in 08? He played with garbage in minny, and even he's broken through with players who were past their prime in pierce and allen.

Im not giving Barkley the excuse of terrible teammates. Very few star players in nba history get that excuse because their impact is gretaer individually than any other player on their roster or in sports.

[876Stephen]

No, you don't. Not all paths are equal.

See Olajuwon, Hakeem or Curry, Stephen

A title is a title. Plain and simple. A champion is a champion. I dont hold it against magic for playing trash in the west all those years or Hakeem winning when Jordan retired, or the 04 pistons beating a lakers team full of strife and locker room issues or russell playing in 8 teams league's winning titles. None of that matters. You play who's in front of you. You control what you can control.

And Barkley had a whole damn career to win, not just his early years in Philly. Prime years in phoenix and laters years in Houston.

Great, thanks for that. At least you can admit that you have no rationale for your overzealous use of a ring as the end-all/be-all of player evaluation. Context doesn't matter to you, just the accomplishment. You've admitted that context doesn't matter at all to you, which ends our conversation. Stats matter a little.....rings matter a whole lot......and context can play hide-and-go-fuck-itself.

No, context matters but if it mattered as much as you think it does, we could put every title in nba history in major "context" and put an asterisk next to every single one. The same asterisk put next to the warriors title is something i could easily do for any title winner in any sport ever.

[Robceltsfan]

So Barkley not carrying Doc and Moses to a title his rookie year as well as winning with Moses injured the next two years = Barkley's fault

Barkley not winning with KJ as his #2 and (haha) Dan Majerle as his #3 = Barkley's fault (Jordan & Pip had nothing to do with this)

Barkley not winning with Hakeem and Drexler when they were all 33+ years old = Barkley's fault


Great, thanks for all the context.

It's no just Barkley's but when your the best player or one of the best player's on your team and you continually fall short your entire career, that's telling. Especially when all those other guys have won titles before. Erving, Malone, Hakeem, Drexler etc. Why is Barkley the only one to not win.

It's never Barkley's fault for not winning i guess. There's lot's of players that have actually won, that can use the not enough help excuse. Dirk's team in 2011 wasn't anything to right home about it. What about Kg in 08? He played with garbage in minny, and even he's broken through with players who were past their prime in pierce and allen.

Im not giving Barkley the excuse of terrible teammates. Very few star players in nba history get that excuse because their impact is gretaer individually than any other player on their roster or in sports.

In year 1 together Hakeem, Barkley and Drexler were 33, 33 & 34. Pierce, Garnett and Allen were 30, 31 & 32. Pretty large difference. Can you name ANY team in history where their 3 best players were 33+ and they won a title?

Dirk had DPOY Chandler and an all-time great PG in Kidd. An arguably better cast than anything Barkley had in Phoenix.