The Best of the Best

Is this something really worth looking at? Is this something really worth talking about? It comes up all the time, and it comes up frequently. The question is, does it really matter? Firstly, let's get this straight, we're talking about a game. That's right, read it closely, a game, G-A-M-E, game. Sure players get paid millions of dollars to play this game, but it's no less or more of a game because of that. The argument of "best", "better", and "bad" almost seems like a dumb, arbitrary way for ESPN and 2ksports to come up with player ratings for their game. "Player X is awesome, let's give him an overall rating of 97." "Player Y dominates in the post, let's give him rebound and low post ratings of 99." etc...

Why do I bring this up then? Well, I came across this interesting article (interesting and well-written at that) by Reed at Forum Blue and Gold. I actually stopped reading ESPN a while ago so I haven't had a chance to read the Bill Simmons article they keep talking about in there, especially since I feel like ESPN analysts are basically paid more to spout the same nonsense that Kelly Dwyer does, and I like how Dwyer writes better. If I want arbitrary judgment thrown out at a team I'll read Dwyer or watch Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley, if I want to know about a specific team, I'll go to SBNation or something.

Now that I've done all my prefacing, let's jump into the meat. I agree with Reed's first two premises (I can't comment on the third as I haven't read the Simmons article): Kobe Bryant is NOT Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant is NOT LeBron James. Due to the large number of variables that goes into the game of basketball when making such comparisons (i.e. skills, physical attributes, opponents, teammates, coach, rules, etc...) I believe that you could insert "better than" after the NOTs and still say it's true. On the same respect, I believe you could take the converse (Michael Jordan/LeBron James is not (better than) Kobe Bryant), and it would be true too. You can't make direct comparisons, furthermore, there's no real purpose to it. Basketball isn't tennis, in which, even if you have players with different games, they play each other and a clear victor is declared. I can say that Pete Sampras is better than Pat Rafter because Pete Sampras has consistently beaten Pat Rafter in Wimbledon. I can't say that Roger Federer is necessarily better than Pete Sampras because Sampras is 10 years older and therefore the two can never meet in their primes. If Federer beats Sampras's record for titles? Maybe, but hey, maybe Sampras's competition was stiffer, we'll never really know. Now jumping back to basketball from the tennis analogy, we can't make that kind of comparison, because even with same era stars, it's not a matter of Kobe playing LeBron, the team has to be taken into account too.

Let's take a look at some numbers:

Per Game:

		FG%		3PT%		FT%		PPG		RPG		APG		SPG		BPG		TO
Player A		45.5%		34.1%		84.0%		25.1		5.3		4.6		1.5		0.6		2.9
Player B		47.1%		32.8%		73.8%		27.5		7.0		6.7		1.8		0.9		3.3
Player C		49.7%		32.7%		83.5%		30.1		6.2		5.3		2.3		0.8		2.7

Ok, let's say per game isn't necessarily a fair comparison as some players have played more games than others.

Per 36 Minutes:

		FG%		3PT%		FT%		PPG		RPG		APG		SPG		BPG		TO
Player A		45.5%		34.1%		84.0%		24.8		5.2		4.6		1.5		0.6		2.9
Player B		47.1%		32.8%		73.8%		24.4		6.2		5.9		1.6		0.8		2.9
Player C		49.7%		32.7%		83.5%		28.3		5.9		4.9		2.2		0.8		2.6

Who's the best player? There's no real way of telling I suppose, but I would love to have anyone of those three on my team. If you haven't guessed already, these are the career averages of Kobe (Player A), LeBron (Player B), and Michael Jordan (Player C). So numbers don't tell us anything conclusive. Well what then determines which player is the best? I could throw Dwayne Wade into the conversation and his numbers would be remarkably similar (career averages of 25.2 points, 4.9 rebounds, and 6.7 assists per game). Is it the number of rings?

Bill Russell has 11, no one doubts Russells greatness, then there are a bunch of Celtics from the 60s that have anywhere from 7 to 10, Celtics whom I've never heard of before. Robert Horry has 7. Michael Jordan has 6, Steve Kerr has 5, Kobe has 4, and LeBron has none. Heck, even Antoine Walker has one, heck, even Sun Yue and Mengke Bateer have one. Even Adam Morrison and Brian Scalabrine have one. So rings obviously isn't a good comparison, otherwise, LeBron is worse than Kobe, who is worse than Jordan, all of whom are worse than Robert Horry (and all of whom are worse than Sam Jones).

What about the ultimate intangible of "making his teammates better"? Well, it's hard to say which player is better at "making his teammates better". Is it winning percentage? Statistics? If either were the case, then Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash make their teammates awesome. The more I think about the concept of "making his teammates better", the more I realize that most of it is pretty much an utter load of crap. The main influence that players have on one another is attitude and habits, granted given that case, then it's possible that certain veteran players or more proven players imprint their own good attitudes and habits on the team, however, when people talk about "making teammates better" this isn't what they're talking about, the effect that players have on each other off of the hardwood or in practice is generally referred to as "lockerroom influence", "making his teammates better" then, is what? Is it changes in statistical production? Well, if that's the case, then players that are good at "making teammates better" shouldn't need a good supporting cast, because he should make them good just simply by being on the floor with them. Obviously this isn't the case, as we see the woes of the Hornets and Cavaliers these past couple of years. No player is going to turn another player from a 10-2-2 guy to a 20-5-5 guy just by merit of playing next to him. Is it then the number of assists? Creating opportunities for other teammates? Well, that's not really the case either, because assists are a two way street. The ideal case is that the player "making his teammates better" creates an easy bucket for his teammate, hence the assist. However, what also counts as an assist, is if I pass the ball to my teammate and he creates his own shot (in a given amount of time). I got an assist, I made my teammate better, right? Also, there is the onus on the recipient of the play/assist/opporutnity to make the bucket. If my teammate draws a double-team and kicks it out to me and I brick the open jumper, does that mean my teammate isn't trying to play unselfishly and "make his teammates better"? These are probably the foremost reasons why I don't really like that phrase.

My point is simply this, there's no real reason to say who is better and who is the best. Really, there isn't. They're different players, and to some extent playing a different game, they play against different opponents with different teammates. Can there be a definitive best? No. Let's just then appreciate these athletes for the gifts and talents they bring to the game then.