Twistedargument wrote:
This whole argument about who has contributed most to teams is flawed. Whether LJ was added to Miami and they started winning or Pippen/others added to Bulls and they started winning is all the same result. No one is arguing that LJ or MJ could win games by themselves. To win the championship a great team is requirement, period. The question is, how are you measuring the GOAT? You need to discuss #of rings, scoring and clutch situations. MJ has these locked down so far, so come back when LJ retires and let us know how the numbers stack up.
I am going to have to deduct you 1/2 point for some reasoning flaws in an otherwise reasonable post. When you say we need to discuss # rings, scoring, and clutch shooting that is reasonable.
But the critical criterion for GOAT has to be that individual players total contribution to the teams success. (That's why you got your deduction) Really you could be the greatest player ever and win no rings. # of rings are a factor but more reflective of the team they played on. If # of rings was a huge factor than the following players would have to be rated higher than Jordan based on # of rings: Russell - 11, Sam Jones - 10, Tom Heinsohn - 8 and there are a bunch more.
Its not just high scoring either. Clutch shooting is a factor but we would need data to determine who is clutch. I haven't seen data.
Bottom line is that you need to measure that individuals effect on the team to determine greatness. The previous poster did that.