How To Determine A Player's Greatness

Do the number of NBA championships determine a player's greatness?

This is a question that drives sports fans crazy. In my opinion, to define a great player by how many championships they have won is outrageous, however to define a team’s greatness on how many championships they have won is acceptable, because a championship is a team accolade not an individual accolade.

What defines a great player? In my opinion a great player is defined on individual accolades and not team accolades. An example of an individual accolade is a MVP, scoring title, defensive player of the year, getting inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, and so much more. Some great players Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Allen Iverson, and

All but 2 of these are Hall of Famers

There have been several great players who have been considered some of the greatest of all time who never won a championship. Is Bill Perdue better than Patrick Ewing? Is Steve Kerr better than Steve Nash? Is Ron Artest better than Charles Barkley? The answer to all of those questions is no. There stats are undeniably worse than the other person. The average basketball fan would maybe not even know who some of the first guys are.

Some of the two most comparable players are Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. The biggest difference between them is Tim Duncan has won five championships and Malone has not won any. Their stats lineup almost identical. The reason Malone could not get a championship was because of Michael Jordan and his team. The fault lies on the General Managers of the Utah Jazz for not making a good enough team to beat Michael Jordan’s superteam. I’m am not taking away from the fact that Jordan is one of the best players. He has 6 championships but he also has the individual accolades that make him