Player Evaluations: Do Championships Determine Greatness?

[WelcomeBack]

Also to go with my point, this has to do with Kobe Bryant as well.

Many talk about how LeBron James is better than Kobe is. Using the argument of championships and being able to help win when it counts, wouldn't Kobe be considered better than James?

Just because Kobe is now considered a 'ball hog' (which is a whole other argument), and his 'rape' trial, he's not getting the credit he deserves.

[WelcomeBack]

But the funny part is that Montana scored more than Marino half the time on offense. You'd think with a bad D a team would score more points.

You'd hope so lol.

My point also being, that Marino did what he did with the little talent he had around him.

His TEAM wasn't great, therefore, no ring. He had amazing stats on a 'so-so' team.

[Steelersfan]

I think people put too much into who is better. When you get to the pro level you have to have the best team to win. A single player will not win it for you. He may fill out the team you need to win but it's not that person alone.
Who's better than who? Could Shaq beat Kobe 1 on 1? Could Bird beat Magic 1 on 1? Could Dominique beat Jordan? Some good players there but how do you really tell who is the best? You can make a case for a player being on a bad team (padding stats) or a player being on a good team.

[WelcomeBack]

Exactly. It's tough to determine basketball players and their individual greatness.

Football players, it's almost impossible. You can't put players one on one, cause things change day to day.

I'm feel that Marino was the best for what he did on an 'ok' team, but we'll never know what would happen if the roles were switched. I just don't like the argument of people using championships to determine a better player.

Which is why I wrote the article .