If you base a players greatness on their hardware alone, you don't know basketball. You would be lead to believe Robert Horry is a first ballot hall of famer with using that logic alone. And if you dig deeper, MVPs can come at times when dominant/elite players are scarce, NBA finals MVPs can come with a hot streak (potentially Danny Green), and Robert Horry can win many rings. All are skewed.

 

So how do you rank MJ, Kobe, and LeBron?

Great thread. I don't have anything to offer yet so I'll just keep reading. Good stuff. Lots to think about.

If you're just giving me those three and say rank them as far as pure talent, I go MJ, Lebron, Kobe. All three have done spectacular things. Kobe dropping 81 is something Lebron will never think about doing and Kobe isn't half the passer pr defender that Lebron is. There is no right or wrong order but MJ goes first.

If you're just giving me those three and say rank them as far as pure talent, I go MJ, Lebron, Kobe. All three have done spectacular things. Kobe dropping 81 is something Lebron will never think about doing and Kobe isn't half the passer pr defender that Lebron is. There is no right or wrong order but MJ goes first.

 

LeBron is better athletically, and more versatile in terms of playing different positions. Kobe is a far better jump shooter, IMO.

IMO Finals MVP and Season MVP are much better in determining how good a given player was. Players that won multiples of those two are what set players apart from others. One Finals MVP could be a fluke as a player gets hot at the right time. Same could even be said possibly for a single MVP, a player has a hot season and captures the media they could win one MVP. To win two(+) Finals MVP's or two(+) Season MVP's, well that's what the true Superstars do.

If rings are the measure, Bill Russell is the greatest player in history, bar none. However, no one that I know has ever claimed that.

The poll says which is most important to a player's legacy, that's easy to me, the ring. I don't think it's the end all be all personally, but for legacy purposes the rings matter. Anytime the guys without rings are discussed the fact they don't have a ring is always, ALWAYS mentioned.

Huge argument AGAINST counting the regular season MVPs, Nash has 1 more than Kobe, and Dirk has just as many. I quote the Legend, "When I found out that Kobe hadn't won an MVP award, I wanted to throw mine away."

I voted Finals MVP, because at those end up being the most dominant player on the team that also got a ring. If you look at the list with only a couple of exceptions it is a Who's Who of NBA All-Time Greats!!!

 

Can't vote for the Ring, because Juwan Howard got a ring last night sitting on the bench in a suit and tie. A lot of guys have rings, doesn't make them better than Barkley, Malone or Ewing.

 

Season MVP is the hardest to win IMO. You have to have an exceptional season and be the current darling of the media or at least the most talked about. A player that is a great steady player may never win an MVP, because that award goes to the one player that stood out head and shoulders above everyone else. Example Kobe has one MVP (really just 1?), he has been a top 2-3 player every year for the last 10 years in the league, but every year someone seems to have an exceptional year to win the award. If there was a Decade MVP or even 5 season MVP Kobe would have won in a walk due to his consistent excellence.

 

To win multiple Season MVP's is IMO the hardest award to win and at the end of the day may be the best measure of greatness.

But the poll question was most important to legacy. In that wording I don't think it's an argument.

 

Now if you go with the language in the first post of the thread "better measure of a player" then it's a completely different issue.

 

I think we are arguing 2 totally different things, are we arguing the thread starting question or the poll question.