Rooscooter wrote:As is always the case with me..... rings are Team Accomplishments and player rankings are individual. So the rings don't play into it with me. How they played and performed under pressure is but not the team results.
I don't think rings are the end all be all. But when discussing great players, you have to bring rings into the equation. Clearly Baylor, Malone and Stockton get knocked down a peg for not having rings. Does that make Horry the greatest of the past 40 years? No. He's not great. But a basketball player can impact a game like no one else in any other sport (including QBs and starting pitchers). The difference is a QB isn't on the field half the time and a pitcher only goes every 4 games. A basketball players impact is HUGE on the outcome of the game and if you're the stud, your play goes a LONG way toward a W or an L.
Not to derail the thread but I just don't use MVP's and Championships as a metric to rank players. TEAMS win championships.
Here's the reason I don't use them.
8 teams account for 56 of them
So... if championships count then you have but a few players from which to choose.
Also.... Does Shaq ever win one without Kobe or Wade? Does Jordan without Pippen and Grant/Rodman? Does Duncan without Manu and Parker/Elliot/Robinson? Does Bird without McHale/Johnson/Parrish. Does Kareem without Magic/Big O?
It's a team accomplishment to me.
MVP's are a popularity contest. Need I say more than Nash over Kobe in Kobe's best 2 seasons as a pro?
I said I was in the minority here......
All of that aside I believe both of these guys are a little overrated IMO. Both had differing but basically equal impact. Duncan was consistent and Shaq was dominant.... for 3.25 quarters.