cardsunsfan
ASFN Lifer
I know this is changing subjects but with the Suns doing so well we have a day off until hopefully the next Nuggets Thrashing.. Looking at the Suns possibly having a chance to win a championship made me think of past championships and the arguments for the best player and teams ever.
One thing I don't understand when these arguments are made is why the percentage of times a player won in the finals is so important instead of how many times they made it to the finals. Isn't it more important to make the finals as many times as possible even if you lose, then lose more times in earlier rounds but are perfect in the Finals?
It also reminds me of the same thing in the NFL, some how Montana was still often considered greater than Brady by many until Brady racked up more NFL championships when they were equal but Brady had a lost a few championships I would say most argued he was worse. The ones Brady went to and lost seemed much worse than the years Montana didn't make it to the superbowl at all.
It is almost forgotten how many times Jordan didn't make it to the finals and somehow his legacy seems like it would be more tarnished if he had made it more times to the finals and lost.
I would probably lean towards James being the best player to ever play the game. He made it to more finals than Jordan and I feel overall with a lesser cast. I don't know if Jordan would have made it to as many Finals as James if given the same supporting cast James had. If James had Scotty Pippen and some of the other players Jordan had I think he would have been better off, even with the Heat cast which was already a little older when he got there. I don't know if Jordan would have won the year the Cavaliers won it with James. I think Anthony Davis would be as important as a Pippen if Davis didn't get hurt and James was the same age as Jordan was when he was still winning championships but obviously that isn't the case.
I also think James most likely would have flourished in Jordan's area where more physical play was allowed. James is so big and strong I think he would have adapted.
Anyways just my thoughts.
One thing I don't understand when these arguments are made is why the percentage of times a player won in the finals is so important instead of how many times they made it to the finals. Isn't it more important to make the finals as many times as possible even if you lose, then lose more times in earlier rounds but are perfect in the Finals?
It also reminds me of the same thing in the NFL, some how Montana was still often considered greater than Brady by many until Brady racked up more NFL championships when they were equal but Brady had a lost a few championships I would say most argued he was worse. The ones Brady went to and lost seemed much worse than the years Montana didn't make it to the superbowl at all.
It is almost forgotten how many times Jordan didn't make it to the finals and somehow his legacy seems like it would be more tarnished if he had made it more times to the finals and lost.
I would probably lean towards James being the best player to ever play the game. He made it to more finals than Jordan and I feel overall with a lesser cast. I don't know if Jordan would have made it to as many Finals as James if given the same supporting cast James had. If James had Scotty Pippen and some of the other players Jordan had I think he would have been better off, even with the Heat cast which was already a little older when he got there. I don't know if Jordan would have won the year the Cavaliers won it with James. I think Anthony Davis would be as important as a Pippen if Davis didn't get hurt and James was the same age as Jordan was when he was still winning championships but obviously that isn't the case.
I also think James most likely would have flourished in Jordan's area where more physical play was allowed. James is so big and strong I think he would have adapted.
Anyways just my thoughts.