If you're a star NBA player, do you need to win a championship to be considered great

[VictimOfChanges]

Of course not.

[mindkiss69]

I mean truely considered as a great player. I ask this because not to long ago Allen Iverson was asked this same question by Stephen A. Smith, and he said no-- he feels that if he doesn't win a championship that he thinks his career went well.

This question can be posed about any sport, but I think it's more relevant of a question in basketball, because it's a game that doesn't have many players on the court at one time so one players presence can affect the outcome of the game more.

My opinion on this is yes, you do have to win a championship to be considered great. Afterall, basketball is a team sport, your objective is to help your team win and as a leader and star of a team if you don't achieve the main goal throughout your career then what have you really accomplished? A star player gets a team built around him/her, and if their game isn't enough to propell his/her team to a championship then they're not great, just good.

I feel like players that say otherwise are lying to themselves. It seems to me that players that haven't won a championship yet and are in the twilight of their careers are the ones that make this statement the most-- "a championship doesn't really matter" . Take Charles Barkley for example, everyone remembers how desperately he tried to win a championship, he even went to the Houston Rockets for several years. Back then, he seemed like he wanted to win one, but now that he has retired and he didn't achieve his goal, he is downplaying the importance of a championship in order to save his legacy.

What do you think?

[mindkiss69]

Explain why you think you don't have to .

[SpacePuppet]

Well, I agree with VOC, but i'm gonna give MY explanation. Just because you don't get a ring, doesn't take away ANY of your greatness. One man cannot carry a team. Not even Michael Jordan, it's impossible. There have been plenty of great players in sports that were unfortunate to play on a bad team their whole career. Take Reggie Miller for example. He played for the Pacers, they were a good team, but the only time they made it to the finals, they were playing the Lakers, they stood no chance. Still, Reggie Miller was an incredible 3 point shooter, and just because he never got the gold, doesn't take those stats away. And what about Steve Nash? He don't have a ring, but he's MVP! Still impressive.

You don't need to win the finals to be great, you need great stats, clutch shots, and MVP awards. Things 1 man can accomplish.

[mindkiss69]

First, how did VOC's post get on top of mine? smh

Ok, that was a point I was going to bring up but forgot to. All these players like Barkley complain about how they where on bad teams but I think it's complete bullshit. Look at the Suns teams when he was playing with them. They had the best record 2 years in a row and lost to the Bulls once, and then got disgraced by the Rockets after holding a 3 games to 1 lead. Greatness as an ambiguous thing. To me, greatness is the top of the top. Star Players that never could climb to that next platue aren't great in my opinion. If you are a star player it's almost guranteed that you have large say in who joins your teams rosters. Iverson had an awesome team or a couple of years but could never win it. Barkley cries but do you honestly think that the bulls would have won 6 championships if it was him instead of Jordan that was part of the roster?

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by SpacePuppet
And what about Steve Nash? He don't have a ring, but he's MVP! Still impressive.


What? Nash isn't truly a great player, he's not that good on both sides of the ball.

The best example to look at this is probably Karl Malone. As good as Barkley was, he wasn't as good as Malone. I consider Malone to be a very very good player, that could just never get it done in the Finals. Is he a hall of famer? Yes. Is he a great player? It's debateable, but I'd say no. He couldn't win the big one, even with Stockton at his side. Although to his defense, he did make Greg Ostertag look halfway decent, and that's certainly not easy..

[Haddonfield]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
Is he a hall of famer? Yes. Is he a great player? It's debateable, but I'd say no.

ummm, Just a question...how can someone be in the Hall in your eyes but not a great player?

[Buck Turgidson]

No.

No one in their right mind can argue that Miller, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley and Bob Lanier weren't "great". It's foolish.

It does add some real luster to your career, without a doubt. But it's not the final determining factor.

In fact, some people get hung with some dumbass label, regardless. Any discussion of Wilt's career almost inevitably includes the obligatory smackdown of his status compared to Russell's, in spite of the fact that Wilt won two championships, with two different teams.

Granted, that looks relatively modest compared to Bill's career, but Russell was transcendently great, maybe the biggest winner in American sports history. To deride Wilt for not coming up to his level slights Russell as well as Chamberlian, by making Russell's mind boggling accomplishment seem like it's the baseline standard and not something that mere mortals can barely aspire to.

[mindkiss69]

No, I wouldn't consider Reggie Miller or Charles Barkley as great players. What they are is really, really good players. Isn't the whole point of team sports to win championships? If you haven't won a championship then you haven't achieved the main goal and all your accomplisments are secondary to the objective. If you are in this position, then I'd have to say that you haven't reached greatness yet.

Greatness to me is going past the high mark and being placed in immortality status. Charles Barkley never fully climbed that hill, he got close but he never was able to take over the crucial parts of the most important games when he had to.

Reggie Miller is the same. Infact I'd call him overrated in some standards. Yes he is a great clutch shooter, but did he ever take over games?.. no.

And like I said, do you honestly believe that Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing and all those other players that never won it would have won as many championships as Bird, Magic, and MJ did if they swapped spots with them? I think the answer is a resounding no.

[AnnoyingQuestionAsker]

First off, this is a great idea for a thread.

My opinion is that No you don't need a championship to prove greatness. I am not just talking about basketball, but in any sport. A championship adds to one's legacy. If you use winning a championship as a key factor in determining greatness, then how many countless scrubs who happened to be in the right place at the right time to win one. I would not consider those players great.

Next, only one team can win a championship every year. Seeing as how in the last 20 years, only the Pistons, Lakers, Rockets, Bulls, and Spurs have won championships. Only so many players ever have the chance to play in a championship game, let alone win one.

And doesn't Barkley have an Olympic Gold Medal as a member of the Dream Team? Being on that team (with the exception of Laettner) was proof of greatness. Same thing with Ewing, Stockton and Malone.

There are so many factors going into winning a championship that one player cannot make or break a team. There is no "I" in team.

Robert Horry is a very good player and he has a bunch of championships, but he is not a great player. He is a role player.

In my opinion, you must look at so many factors to determine greatness. You must look at a player's statistics, individual awards, skills, etc. A better criteria than championships is to compare a team before he got there, while he was there and how the team was afterwards.

Championships should be factored in, but in no way should they be the determining factor.

If they were, why would anyone want to play for the Clippers??

[Pulp_Joker]

I don't think you need a ring to be considered a great player. You can't deny Stockton, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, and many others were not great. However, you need a ring to be considered one of the greatest ever. When you look at the list of the ten greatest players (in most respects they would include MJ, Russell, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Oscar, West, and maybe Isiah or Duncan) the one defining quality is at least one title. So does a ring make you great? No. But do you need it to make you one of the greatest ever? Hell yes.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Pulp_Joker
When you look at the list of the ten greatest players (in most respects they would include MJ, Russell, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Oscar, West, and maybe Isiah or Duncan) the one defining quality is at least one title. So does a ring make you great? No. But do you need it to make you one of the greatest ever? Hell yes.

There's no "maybe" to Isiah Thomas being one the the ten best. He's the best player of his size to ever play the game.

Originally posted by mindkiss69
Reggie Miller is the same. Infact I'd call him overrated in some standards. Yes he is a great clutch shooter, but did he ever take over games?.. no.

This would come as quite a surprise to Knicks fans, who were repeatedly barbecued by Mr. Miller.

Originally posted by AnnoyingQuestionAsker
If you use winning a championship as a key factor in determining greatness, then how many countless scrubs who happened to be in the right place at the right time to win one. I would not consider those players great.

Like Chuck Nevitt. Wonderful fellow, but owns a large collection of prime NBA jewelry mostly for being in the right place(s) at the right time(s).

[bigred760]

No, a championship ring isn't necessary to make a great player - it certainly helps, but isn't a requirement. I do think that Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, and Karl Malone are great players. They were feared by opponents, made great plays, and helped their respective teams whenever they could. So they came up short as far as the playoffs are concerned; they did make it to the finals and just couldn't make it over the hump.

They don't have rings, but they have Olympic gold medals. Is one greater than the other?

One name I haven't heard (or read) mentioned is John Stockton. He's the NBA's all-time leader in assists AND steals. He is, no doubt in my mind, a great player. Yet, he doesn't have a ring.


Do you think that if you have a ring, you are a great player? Robert Horry has been on several championship teams, but would you consider him great. I'd definitely consider him clutch, and maybe fortunate (not taking anything away from him - he's a talented player) to be on teams with Shaq, Tim, and others. But great?

[Buck Turgidson]

I despise both Stockton and (especially) Malone but I have no problem whatsoever classifying each as great.

Robert Horry is definitely clutch. I've rooted both for and against teams he's been at the elite level with and he's always money. Like Vinnie Johnson.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
There's no "maybe" to Isiah Thomas being one the the ten best.



No way.


Michael Jordan
Hakeel Olajuwon
Oscar Roberston
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Julius Erving
Tim Duncan
Jerry West
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell


Thomas, top 20 maybe.

[AceD]

" consider Malone to be a very very good player, that could just never get it done in the Finals. Is he a hall of famer? Yes. Is he a great player? It's debateable, but I'd say no. He couldn't win the big one, even with Stockton at his side."

The man averaged 24 and 10 shooting 46% in the playoffs for his career. He certainly got it done. He's one of the top 3 PFs of all time, easily. Barkley I can understand being in the arguement, but Malone was eons ahead of Charles.

And I think he proved that he COULD win the big one, he just wasn't able to. If the refs call either Jordan's hack/steal or crossover/pushoff in game 6 of the 98 finals, the Jazz would have won that game. They'd already beaten the Bulls twice in that Finals and there would be no reason they couldn't win game 7. Not saying they would have, but they proved they were right there with the Bulls. Malone did everything he could that year, it just didn't happen.

To get back to the main argument, I do not think it is absolutely necessary to win a ring to be called "great." Anyone who says that Iverson is not a great player doesn't understand the game. Will he win a ring? Not in Philly. There are a few players who can be called great that have never won a championship. Not a lot, but a few. There are always special circumstances: two years ago, had Sam Cassell been healthy the Timberwolves would have beaten the Lakers in the WCF and could have definatly won the Championship. Alas, it didn't happen.

And isn't there inherent weakness in the argument that you HAVE to win one? If Malone had won with the Lakers, would that have validated him? Being the 4th scoring option? What if the Pistons put him on their active roster for the playoffs this year and they win it all? Does he suddenly become great? I think if you LEAD your team to a championship, you seal your greatness, but you do not HAVE to do that to be great, it just takes more throughout your career to prove that you are indeed great.

I will say that basketball is the only sport where it's worth having this argument because this is the only sport where one player can have so much control. A great player is football or baseball can't do enough to guarantee a win, ever. Look at this past year when Clemens lost games because he gave up 1 run through 8 innings or none through 7 but didn't get a win. Any position in NFL football, by itself, cannot guarantee a win. In basketball one player has more of a chance to control the entire game.

[mindkiss69]

"And isn't there inherent weakness in the argument that you HAVE to win one? If Malone had won with the Lakers, would that have validated him? Being the 4th scoring option? What if the Pistons put him on their active roster for the playoffs this year and they win it all? Does he suddenly become great? I think if you LEAD your team to a championship, you seal your greatness, but you do not HAVE to do that to be great, it just takes more throughout your career to prove that you are indeed great. "


What I meant is if you are a Star player on your team, if you are the one of the go to players. Malone was never a go to on the Lakers. Karl Malone and Stockton are the two that haven't won that I think are closest to greatness.

Here's my thinking with this question. When you are a star player, the majority of the teams success is going to be based on what you do. You have such a big impact on your team. I'm just saying, if you are TRUELY a great player, wouldn't your impact be enough to catipault your team into a championship? And, the "you can't do it alone" thing is true, but as a star player, your going to have a compitent team placed around you. The GMs are going to bend over backwards to make sure that you have complimentary players with you that will help your team win the big one.

Lets take a look at Iverson. Yes he scores lots of points and puts up flashy perfomances, but apparently his game isn't enough to win the big one. How great is he REALLY?. From Stackhouse to Larry Hughes, the sixers have done nearly everything but sign Shaq . He has had a good cast of players around him, you can even argue that the sixers roster minues Iverson of 2000-2001 was better than the Bulls lineup minus MJ of 1991-1992. Yet Iverson hasn't won a championship . You have to really break down his game, there has to be some reason that his star isn't getting the job done.

[mindkiss69]

Originally posted by bigred760
No, a championship ring isn't necessary to make a great player - it certainly helps, but isn't a requirement. I do think that Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, and Karl Malone are great players. They were feared by opponents, made great plays, and helped their respective teams whenever they could. So they came up short as far as the playoffs are concerned; they did make it to the finals and just couldn't make it over the hump.

They don't have rings, but they have Olympic gold medals. Is one greater than the other?

One name I haven't heard (or read) mentioned is John Stockton. He's the NBA's all-time leader in assists AND steals. He is, no doubt in my mind, a great player. Yet, he doesn't have a ring.


Do you think that if you have a ring, you are a great player? Robert Horry has been on several championship teams, but would you consider him great. I'd definitely consider him clutch, and maybe fortunate (not taking anything away from him - he's a talented player) to be on teams with Shaq, Tim, and others. But great?


You guys are misreading me. What I mean is if you are the STAR player on your team, one of the GO TO GUYS. Robert Horry great?.. hmm that's very debatable lol. Greatness in clutch shots, yes, but greatness all around, like if you put him on a team with complimentary players around him and his team would win a championship great?... Certainly NOT.

[AceD]

"Here's my thinking with this question. When you are a star player, the majority of the teams success is going to be based on what you do. You have such a big impact on your team. I'm just saying, if you are TRUELY a great player, wouldn't your impact be enough to catipault your team into a championship?"

I would say no. Deep into the playoffs, yes. But no matter how great you are you can't do it alone.

"And, the "you can't do it alone" thing is true, but as a star player, your going to have a compitent team placed around you. The GMs are going to bend over backwards to make sure that you have complimentary players with you that will help your team win the big one."

Look at the Timberwolves. The team built around KG is a total joke. And don't bring up money, because Shaq is just one example of someone who makes just as much as KG but has an amazing supporting cast. Obviously this is a slightly different situation because of the Joe Smith fiasco costing them draft picks, but it's not like they lost a lottery pick.

"Lets take a look at Iverson. Yes he scores lots of points and puts up flashy perfomances, but apparently his game isn't enough to win the big one."

How is it not? He does EVERYTHING he can. When the lost to the Lakers in the finals, he absolutely led that team there himself and played outstanding in the finals, but got no help. The Lakers had arguably the 2 best players in the league, and the Sixers other than Iverson had no player in the top 40. If you don't think he has played well enough to win the big one, what do you expect him to do? Look at his numbers and tell me what more he could have done?

"How great is he REALLY?. From Stackhouse to Larry Hughes, the sixers have done nearly everything but sign Shaq."

That's quite a leap. Hughes...Stackhouse...Shaq? What exactly have Hughes and Stackhouse done in their careers? What did they contribute in Philly? Are you going to compare their re-signing of Dalembert to the Suns locking up Amare? Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh, but to say they "have done nearly everything but sign Shaq" is ridiculous. They haven't added a top 25 player to compliment AI.

"He has had a good cast of players around him, you can even argue that the sixers roster minues Iverson of 2000-2001 was better than the Bulls lineup minus MJ of 1991-1992."

Not only were the Bulls' role players better, but what about Pippen? He's one of the 25 best players of all time. MJ wins no rings without him.

"Yet Iverson hasn't won a championship . You have to really break down his game, there has to be some reason that his star isn't getting the job done."

Again, what more could he do? Should he be a top 10 rebounder? Score 50pts a night? Look, I see the point of your argument and I do agree that people these days are WAY to quick to label players great, but can you name me 1 team that has won a ring in the NBA with only 1 All-Star caliber player? Duncan has had Ginobli and Parker, the Pistons have a great all-around cast, and the Lakers obviously had Shaq and Kobe. Look at this year's contenders:

Miami - Shaq and D Wade.

Detroit - Again, great all-around cast.

Indy - O'Neal and Artest.

Houston - TMac and Yao.

San Antonio - TD, Ginobli, Parker.

Denver - The poor man's Detroit. Carmelo, Camby, Miller, Kenyon.

Look at Phoenix - one star goes down, they are still left with two, but they are counted out until Amare returns. You need more than one star to win. Period.

I also agree that you need to be LED by your star, but you have to have people who can contribute. The Timberwolves without KG would struggle to win 5 games this season, while the Heat without Shaq and the Suns without Amare still contend in most games and can win.

Again, I'm not trying to be harsh. But some of what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense, and I still know of no team that has won with only 1 star. So maybe there are no great players.

[Buck Turgidson]

I refuse to believe that a guy who sat on his ass, pouted and refused to go onto the court during the last seconds of a crucial playoff game simply because a play was designed to go to someone else could EVER be classified as one of the NBA's top 25 players.

"Without Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen would have been the world's tallest Domino's delivery man." - Michael Wilbon.

[AceD]

""Without Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen would have been the world's tallest Domino's delivery man." - Michael Wilbon."

Not sure if Wilbon has said that, but if he did he stole it from Rick Reilly. Alas. It's still one of the supidest, most small-minded statements ever made in sports.

I see your argument, which is the same on that every Pippen-hater has. But isn't that as logical as refusing to believe that Mike Tyson was a great fighter because he was also a rapist, bit a guy in the ring, etc? Yes, Pippen made a mistake by doing that, but that has no bearing on how good of a player he was. And every player has made mistakes, and Piipen made very few. Pippen revolutionized the game and was a great player who made one huge, glaring mistake. But that mistake takes nothing away from his gifts on the court. You have EVERY right to not like him and to have your opinion, but to say he's not a top 25 all time player BECAUSE of that is a little much, I believe.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by mindkiss69
You guys are misreading me. What I mean is if you are the STAR player on your team, one of the GO TO GUYS. Robert Horry great?.. hmm that's very debatable lol. Greatness in clutch shots, yes, but greatness all around, like if you put him on a team with complimentary players around him and his team would win a championship great?... Certainly NOT.


Okay - still, I don't think you need to win a championship to be considered great. Karl Malone & John Stockton were the leaders of their team and are great players - future hall of famers. Same thing with Charles Barkley. Hell, Clyde Drexler didn't win a ring until he went to Houston, but was considered great when he played in Portland. A ring is not a necessity, but it definitely helps - no question there.

[mindkiss69]

Originally posted by AceD
"Here's my thinking with this question. When you are a star player, the majority of the teams success is going to be based on what you do. You have such a big impact on your team. I'm just saying, if you are TRUELY a great player, wouldn't your impact be enough to catipault your team into a championship?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say no. Deep into the playoffs, yes. But no matter how great you are you can't do it alone.

Hell, I know that you can't do it alone, but as a star player you have a supporting cast built around you, great star players make the game changing plays that win the important games. Deep into the playoffs is one thing, there have been many players that have led their teams deep into the playoffs but to get over the edge you gotta dig deep and that's where your star really shines. Take Garnett for example, you gotta admit that a roster of Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Walter Z, Hudson, and Mark Jackson is a pretty decent one. You have 2 all stars, two great shooters, and a decent rebounder and low post player. Add Garnett to the mix and what you have is a team that should win a title. I watched that Lakers, T Wolves series, and I have to be honest, Garnet choked in the last couple of games. He tried hard but they just didn't make it. Not only that, but Garnet has only been out of the first round once in his entire career. Would you call that a great player who's a good leader, or a guy with enormous potential that just doesn't know how to get the job done? I think the later is the better description.



"And, the "you can't do it alone" thing is true, but as a star player, your going to have a compitent team placed around you. The GMs are going to bend over backwards to make sure that you have complimentary players with you that will help your team win the big one."

Look at the Timberwolves. The team built around KG is a total joke. And don't bring up money, because Shaq is just one example of someone who makes just as much as KG but has an amazing supporting cast. Obviously this is a slightly different situation because of the Joe Smith fiasco costing them draft picks, but it's not like they lost a lottery pick.

You're right, this years team isn't too pretty, but dog, if Garnett is a star the squad should be performing better . Out of the first round in 9 fuckin years?, come on now.

"Lets take a look at Iverson. Yes he scores lots of points and puts up flashy perfomances, but apparently his game isn't enough to win the big one."

How is it not? He does EVERYTHING he can. When the lost to the Lakers in the finals, he absolutely led that team there himself and played outstanding in the finals, but got no help. The Lakers had arguably the 2 best players in the league, and the Sixers other than Iverson had no player in the top 40. If you don't think he has played well enough to win the big one, what do you expect him to do? Look at his numbers and tell me what more he could have done?

I agree with you on the Lakers series, but with Iverson, I feel the scoring is there , yes, but that's not the only thing that makes someone great. The guy players hard, don't get me wrong, but somehow his game isn't fitted to win the big one. With Iverson, I think it's more so the way he plays--real agressive-- that makes it "seem" like he's doing all that he can do, but I'll sum it up like this. Remember when Jordan was dropping 63 on the Celtics and putting a hurting on the Cavs teams? What you saw was a guy that was running around the court, dribbling with the ball between his legs, and more often than not, ignoring his players. The average basketball fan was probably given the impression that there is absolutely nothing else the guy can do in order for his team to win, however that opinion was proved to be false. In my opinion, that MJ wasn't the great MJ, Mike really only started becoming "great" when he transcended his game. With the introduction of Phil Jackson, you saw a Mike that was more of a leader. And, I don't mean leader as in scoring alot of points, I mean leader as in a player that understood the team concept. Mike began sharing the ball more, encouraging his teammates and what you saw was a reversal of fortune for the Bulls. They then went on to win 3 straight championships afterwards. I think it's more so the way that Iverson plays that in most instances hinders his teams overral performance. You can only get so far as a one man scoring machine. There is an element that goes along with a championship ring and that element is something that only the great ones are able to figure out. I don't think that Iverson has figured that out yet.



"How great is he REALLY?. From Stackhouse to Larry Hughes, the sixers have done nearly everything but sign Shaq."

That's quite a leap. Hughes...Stackhouse...Shaq? What exactly have Hughes and Stackhouse done in their careers? What did they contribute in Philly? Are you going to compare their re-signing of Dalembert to the Suns locking up Amare? Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh, but to say they "have done nearly everything but sign Shaq" is ridiculous. They haven't added a top 25 player to compliment AI.

Stackhouse was the 3rd pick of the draft when they signed him, he's still a very good and capable player in the league. Fuck, Jerry Stackhouse vs Scottie Pippen, if you ask most people, they would say that JS isn't that far apart in skill level from Scottie.
And, any team would like to have a Larry Hughes on their roster. The sixers have acquired so many talents over the years. Motombo-- good center, Derrick Coleman, Mckey, Hughes, Webber.. those are all good players. I'm not saying these are the greatest players, all I'm saying is that these players are compitent NBA players. They aren't Sam Bowe.

"He has had a good cast of players around him, you can even argue that the sixers roster minues Iverson of 2000-2001 was better than the Bulls lineup minus MJ of 1991-1992."

Not only were the Bulls' role players better, but what about Pippen? He's one of the 25 best players of all time. MJ wins no rings without him.

]again, I gotta disagree. Livingston, Grant, Paxon, Will Purdue vs Mckey, Eric Snow, Motombo.. I'd say that's a toss up.

"Yet Iverson hasn't won a championship . You have to really break down his game, there has to be some reason that his star isn't getting the job done."

Again, what more could he do? Should he be a top 10 rebounder? Score 50pts a night? Look, I see the point of your argument and I do agree that people these days are WAY to quick to label players great, but can you name me 1 team that has won a ring in the NBA with only 1 All-Star caliber player? Duncan has had Ginobli and Parker, the Pistons have a great all-around cast, and the Lakers obviously had Shaq and Kobe. Look at this year's contenders:

Miami - Shaq and D Wade.

Detroit - Again, great all-around cast.

Indy - O'Neal and Artest.

Houston - TMac and Yao.

San Antonio - TD, Ginobli, Parker.

Denver - The poor man's Detroit. Carmelo, Camby, Miller, Kenyon.

Look at Phoenix - one star goes down, they are still left with two, but they are counted out until Amare returns. You need more than one star to win. Period.

I also agree that you need to be LED by your star, but you have to have people who can contribute. The Timberwolves without KG would struggle to win 5 games this season, while the Heat without Shaq and the Suns without Amare still contend in most games and can win.

Again, I'm not trying to be harsh. But some of what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense, and I still know of no team that has won
with only 1 star. So maybe there are no great players.

What have I said that doesn't make sense? Malone and Stockton, Ewing and Starks, Barkley and Kevin Johnson, again, Barkley, Clyde Drexler and Hakeem Olajuwon, Reggie, Rick Smiths, Marc Jackon, Dale Davis and Antonio Davis. Those aren't stars that complimented those guys? Look at the years those guys like Reggie, Chuck, and Karl played with the complimentary players I listed, those complimentary players where named to the All-Star game or where at least All- Star worthy. How isn't that sufficient help?

And about the no team that has won with only one star, alot of people would argue that the 1993-1994 Houston Rockets where filled with a bunch of bums that complimented Hakeem. And what about the Bill Walton Trailblazers ?

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by AceD
Not sure if Wilbon has said that [...]
I don't customarily go around making shit up just to "win" arguments on message boards.

[AceD]

"I don't customarily go around making shit up just to "win" arguments on message boards."

All I was saying was that if Wilbon said it, he stole it from Rick Reilly. I don't know why you had to take offense to it. I didn't say you made a mistake, I didn't say you were wrong, I was simply honest and said that I hadn't heard Wilbon say it. I believed you that he said it. I was just stating the original source.

"Take Garnett for example, you gotta admit that a roster of Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Walter Z, Hudson, and Mark Jackson is a pretty decent one. You have 2 all stars, two great shooters, and a decent rebounder and low post player. Add Garnett to the mix and what you have is a team that should win a title. I watched that Lakers, T Wolves series, and I have to be honest, Garnet choked in the last couple of games."

But Cassell was MAYBE 50% for that series health-wise, so that has to factor in.

"He tried hard but they just didn't make it. Not only that, but Garnet has only been out of the first round once in his entire career. Would you call that a great player who's a good leader, or a guy with enormous potential that just doesn't know how to get the job done? I think the later is the better description."

Look at those teams that he got the 8th seed with, though. They were awful. And #8 seed? How many times has the #8 seed upset the #1? Not very often. A lot better teams didn't make the playoffs some of those years because KG put that team on his back. KG has never had the luxury that Shaq and Duncan have had in being able to miss a lot of games or play small minutes towards the end of the season, because he had to go all out every game to get a win. Shaq could coast 5-10 games, sit out 15 more and still get a lot of wins because of Kobe. KG can't do that.

"You're right, this years team isn't too pretty, but dog, if Garnett is a star the squad should be performing better . Out of the first round in 9 fuckin years?, come on now."

Back to what I said. Show me which of those series they could have won. The reason the playoffs are not single elimination is so the best team usually wins.

"I agree with you on the Lakers series, but with Iverson, I feel the scoring is there , yes, but that's not the only thing that makes someone great. The guy players hard, don't get me wrong, but somehow his game isn't fitted to win the big one. With Iverson, I think it's more so the way he plays--real agressive-- that makes it "seem" like he's doing all that he can do, but I'll sum it up like this. Remember when Jordan was dropping 63 on the Celtics and putting a hurting on the Cavs teams? What you saw was a guy that was running around the court, dribbling with the ball between his legs, and more often than not, ignoring his players. The average basketball fan was probably given the impression that there is absolutely nothing else the guy can do in order for his team to win, however that opinion was proved to be false. In my opinion, that MJ wasn't the great MJ, Mike really only started becoming "great" when he transcended his game. With the introduction of Phil Jackson, you saw a Mike that was more of a leader. And, I don't mean leader as in scoring alot of points, I mean leader as in a player that understood the team concept. Mike began sharing the ball more, encouraging his teammates and what you saw was a reversal of fortune for the Bulls. They then went on to win 3 straight championships afterwards. I think it's more so the way that Iverson plays that in most instances hinders his teams overral performance. You can only get so far as a one man scoring machine. There is an element that goes along with a championship ring and that element is something that only the great ones are able to figure out. I don't think that Iverson has figured that out yet."

You have your opinion, but perhaps you need to watch some more Sixers games. Iverson does everything he can to get guys involved. Years ago, like MJ's old teams, the only chance they had to win was if they dropped 40+ points. Now AI has a little help, but come on. CWebb has had a decent start, but we all know his body won't hold up. Korver and Iggy are solid, but they are not exactly Pippen and Kerr. Or even Ginobli and Parker, for that matter. To say that AI hasn't figured that out yet is ridiculous. Of course he knows what it takes to win. He does what he can.

"Fuck, Jerry Stackhouse vs Scottie Pippen, if you ask most people, they would say that JS isn't that far apart in skill level from Scottie."

And those people would be jackasses who know nothing about basketball. Stackhouse was never near Pippen.

"again, I gotta disagree. Livingston, Grant, Paxon, Will Purdue vs Mckey, Eric Snow, Motombo.. I'd say that's a toss up. "

Okay, I can buy that. But Pippen swings that in a huge way.

"And about the no team that has won with only one star, alot of people would argue that the 1993-1994 Houston Rockets where filled with a bunch of bums that complimented Hakeem. And what about the Bill Walton Trailblazers ?"

Okay, even if you believe that, those players complimented their stars in a much better way than anyone who has surrounded AI. And with KG, only the year they went to the Western CF did they have a good fit, then Sam got hurt.

So are you willing to say Ben Wallace is a better player than KG? Billups than AI? Rasheed than KG, Barklay, Malone? Where does it end? I don't have a problem with criteria, but I just think to say to be great you MUST win a championship is a little limiting and small-minded.