There is a bit of luck involved with winning a title in this league. You have to be on a team with the right chemistry, the right coach, the right system, being good at the right time (i.e. other teams could have been good enough but ran into teams like the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls dynasties). You have to have a supportive owner. There are a ton of factors involved that are completely out of the hands of the players. So, no matter how great you are it doesn't mean you will win a title. Barkley was unstoppable in his prime and one of the best PF EVER bar none. Not winning a title doesn't make a player a loser.Russell Westbrook is ultimately like Charles Barkley or Allen Iverson: a great talent but a loser as far as winning a championship. It doesn't interest me how many whatever and whatever Westbrook averaged. I only wonder why it didn't lead him anywhere near a championship, and blame him for it.
You can say "he does what he's paid to do, win games" only if you think all games matter equally. That is, only if you think regular-season games are as important as playoff games.
Now if you said certain guys in this league are natural losers because they are toxic to their organization, destroy chemistry that is different. Those guys exist. For example, Allan Iverson is probably on my list. No not because of the stupid "practice" speech. Because he was notorious for showing up late for practices, not studying other teams and there were examples where he refused to comeback into games which takes its toll. Marbury fought with every coach he ever played for. Sprewell fought with teammates and coaches. Again, not saying it's not debatable but I can buy the argument about guys like this being losers. Has nothing to do with titles.
Last edited: