OT: Measuring An NBA Player's Legacy
One question I find myself wondering amid this whole free agency whirlwind is how do we measure the not-quite-so-obvious legacies of professional basketball players. For instance, Magic Johnson says NBA stars are measured by championships, and since Kobe just got his 5th this summer, Magic says the two are now equal. Michael Jordan has 6 and is considered the best player of all time even though he does not have the most titles.
But when stars share the stage, how much credit does each claim for a championship? Humor me for a second and suppose Bosh/Lebron end up with 5 championships at the end of their career (Wade would thus have 6) where does that put them? Are they equal with Kobe by this metric? Is Wade equal to MJ? (almost certain this is a resounding no here, just throwing it out there).
Also, in terms of measuring a player -- and this is perhaps my biggest wonder -- how far down do you credit the "championship"? For instance, on the Bulls squad generally Jordan gets most of the credit, and Pippen and Rodman are considered great "Robin" talent to his "Batman." Other players like Steve Kerr are considered good role players but not great. However, every team isn't the same. The Lakers teams from the early 2000s were considered Shaq, Kobe, and role players (despite excellent efforts from Fisher and others). If the Heat win a few championships, is Bosh considered a role player to Lebron and Wade even if he puts up similarly monster numbers?
That's what I love about the championship Pistons teams. It was never about one guy.
... he puts up monster numbers, he is not a role player. Some of the role players from the bulls teams, luke longley, steve kerr, didn't put up huge numbers. If they all perform up to hype, they will be the next big 3.
I thought if an NBA player had slept with at least two of the Kardashian sisters, they were not a role player.
Tough to define legacy. Is Dan Marino the best QB of all time? Many would argue so.
MJ changed the game (each game he played in, as well as the overall NBA and endorsement aspect.)
Michael Jordan won 3 consecutive NBA titles (twice.) I mean I don't know about you all, but I just knew the Bulls were going to win, particularly during and after 1996 season. MJ never lost a series in the Finals.
But, perhaps the most overlooked aspect about MJ's career is that he was elected to 9 All-Defensive first-team teams, as well as 3 steals titles. He was the real deal.
He never lost a series in which he had home court.
I posted a long list of his awards/accomplishments in another thread. I tend to agree with Simmons's TBOB when it comes to legacy stuff... except where the Celtics homerism came in
There isn't really a good answer to this question IME. Unless somebody comes out and wins ten championships on a team of schmucks, no one will ever be able to say conclusively who the best player of all time is.
How we view LeBron over the next ten years will depend a lot on how much of the credit he gets for any championships they might have won.
This is why people love sports so much though. If it was just a matter of ranking people and teams by who is the best, we'd miss out on all the conversation and argument that's so much fun.
I think it takes more than immense talent to truly separate oneself. Plently of players throughout NBA history have had the physical tools to be truly great players, but only a select few were/are able to combine that with the necessary balance of killer instinct and ability to play as part of team in order to propel them into the pantheon of the greatest of the great.
That's what separates players like Jordan and Russell from the LeBrons and Wilts of the NBA. Sure, LeBron and Wilt has superior talent, but they lacked the ability to put it together with the mental aspect and become truly great players like Jordan and Russell.
Its not all about pure talent when evaluating the greatest of the great, IME.
I don't know if you have heard but Bill Simmons released this "Book of Basketball" last year in October.
You should check it out.
I've heard of it, but I'm not particularly interested in paying for his take on things. He's a decent writer, but only by comparison to the absolute garbage poured out next to him all over ESPN.
Asterisk added for Bill Russell, because going by the championships metric, he wins hands down with eleven(!). Some even argue that number of championships being equal, Bill Russell still should be considered the GOAT.
I don't think you'll find an argument for saying however that Michael Jordan is the greatest player of the modern era of the NBA.
I think the major knock on Lebron moving to the Heat is that the Heat isn't his team... it's Dwyane Wade's team. I think some SI write made the comparison that if Wade is to the Yankee's Jeter, then Lebron is A-Rod. A-Rod, great as he was, couldn't win on his own and needed the supporting cast of the Yankees (and what a supporting cast... jeesh) to finally win a championship. But they never were and never will be A-Rod's Yankee teams, they were Jeter's.
In a similar regard, I think if James/Wade/Bosh go on to win a championship, or two, or three, etc. They will never be Lebron's teams... he may lead them in scoring, triple-doubles and be voted MVP, but those Heat championship teams will be Wade's teams, not Lebron's.
I think that fact will end up "tarnishiing" (it's not the exact word I want to use, but it's close) Lebron's legacy... the fact that he couldn't do it for his home state team, the fact that he chose the "easy" road as opposed to building a championship legacy in Cleveland... the fact that he jilted his home state team on an ESPN special (The Decision, jeeez... ego trip much?)... those facts will all keep him from surpassing Jordan in most people's eyes. You could even make the argument that even if he wins more championships than Magic or Kobe, that Lebron's rings with the Heat won't carry the same weight.