This is Why Winning Bias is BAD (ft.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 сер 2023
- Players Choice Open Gym is the peoples’ show. Viewers are invited to join and get their NBA hot takes off. Tune in live to Open Gym every Tuesday, Thursday, & Friday @ 11AM PST/2PM EST.
🔴FULL EPISODE: ua-cam.com/users/liveQYbIKwvtCI8?...
🔵BECOME A MEMBER
➜ / playerschoiceshow
▶PLAYERS CHOICE OPEN GYM PLAYLIST
➜ • PC OPEN GYM
📎2ND CHANNEL
➜ / @playerschoiceclips
💎SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL
➜ bit.ly/subscribePCShow
🎧PODCASTS
➜ Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6HdAfxZ...
➜ Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id...
➜ Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
📱SOCIALS
➜ Instagram: bit.ly/PCShowIG
➜ TikTok: bit.ly/PCShowTikTok
➜ Twitter: bit.ly/PCShowTwitter
➜ Discord: / discord
➜ Snapchat: / ytqg595h
➜ Reddit: / playerschoice
➜ Twitch: bit.ly/3cIi0ea
➜ Dub: / @dubanaire
➜ Marz: / @marztalkssports
👕CHECK OUT OUR MERCH
➜ bit.ly/3CYDkH3
📧COLLABORATION/SPONSORSHIP INQUIRIES
➜ info@smck77.tv
#NBA #NBANews #NBATalk - Спорт
Can we just agree that performing on the biggest level does enhance your all time rank
I would agree. That's what's limiting Harden
Performing not winning
@@seansmith4311 bro if u perform and lose Nb cares curry 2019, bron 2017,18, jimmy 2020 and so on
@@Chillwitkelexactly. That’s the point of winning bias. We pretend guys played bad when they lose and pretend guys played good when they win. It’s dumb.
@@Chillwitkelmaybe not you but I do
the worst thumbnail ive ever seen
All the top players have won multiple championships
Also all of the top 10-12 players have well rounded skill sets, they do things at a historic level, and they all have dominant peaks
@@Matthew-xl5bc and that’s why they led their team to championships multiple times.
LOW gets in here wit no cam and just goes crazy screaming 😂😂😂😂😂
The point that people are missing about Karl Malone is to win a championship he needed to be a better playoff performer. It’s not the lack of rings that hold him backs, it’s his playoff scoring dropping and turnover issues. If Karl Malone was a better playoff performer he would be most likely top 15. Rings don’t determine greatness, the strengthens and the weaknesses of players determines greatness.
Man averaged 26 and 10 in 14 prime playoff run. 3rd a time in scoring, if he beat mj twice he would definitely be close to top 10
@@thialhoinj1971 His efficiency fell off a cliff in the playoffs. He had flaws and people need to giving 90s stars of the excuse, “they had to play against MJ”. The Jazz had a chance of winning a championship and Malone’s flaws play apart of the Jazz’s playoff failures.
If that’s the case then why isn’t their any players in the top 10 without atleast 2 rings? What is Moses Malone major weakness that limited him to one ring? He still won, and was a monster scorer and rebounder and was clearly great enough to be in the convo of the goats. But he simply didn’t win. Same with Jerry west. Didn’t have really any flaws in his game and always stepped it up in the playoffs. But he lost a lot. With atleast one more ring he’s definitely in the top 10-12 combo easily but with only one chip he falls short. So clearly rings have a large impact on greatness, considering it’s the main component sucess in sports. The goal is to WIN FIRST. All aspects individuality is secondary.
@@TheIcemanthomas All of the players in the consensus top 12 all have the skill set and peaks that separate them from most players in NBA history
@@TheIcemanthomas Moses Malone wasn't a good passer nor an elite defender. Jerry West for me personally doesn't have a top 15 peak. He doesn’t have any real weakness but he isn't a transcendent offensive player or two way player.
Winning should be important, stats and accomplishments will always matter. They don't need to always need be separate from each other. But the thing i always hear on the show is look at the efficiency, he didn't amount to anything, stats. There is ways to break it down without removing aspects of the game.
Malon averaged 26 and 10 in a 14 year prime playoff run. That's why he's 3rd on all time scoring list. If he won those two rings, he'll definitely be a all time top 15 player. Imaging beating mj in the final lol.
@@thialhoinj1971 Exactly, we can use many different ways to evaluate a player. The game is so vaste.
@@thialhoinj1971depending on how he performed
No one on the panel plays basketball not even recreationally look at low look at dub look at Marz 😂😂😂
That doesn't matter, you don't need to hoop to know a lot about basketball.
Look at Steph's trainer, he has trained arguably the best
offensive player of all time
Talking about ball is a different skill than being good at ball
@@farhansarkar2394 you can't talk about hoop if you aren't actively hooping. I notice old heads don't develop old head brain until they give up the game. Stan Van Gundy is the smartest basketball mind I've ever had the privilege to be around and even as an old head he is still hooping and has a very smooth handle
@@farhansarkar2394almost none of these guys actually know anything about baseball. You don’t get skilled analysis here you get mentions of stats and narratives so nah his initial comment perfectly captures how people like these guys really speak on basketball
@@pandabear1576 We must be hearing different things than
Y’all up here lying about y’all don’t have winning bias. But when players miss the playoffs or can’t make it out of a certain round you guys switch their standings 😭 before the playoffs Giannas was undisputed beat in the world now that he lost in the first round and Jokic won the ring Jokic is the best in the world currently 😂 y’all be saying things up there to try and sound smart. If Russ wins a ring there is no way in hell he isn’t top 5 pg all time but he hasn’t so rn he is barely top 10 y’all be up here capping
Well there rankings haven't changed because they lost, it is because they performed and that effected the results.
Jokic rose to number one for most because he showed he could continue his offensive dominance in a playoff run (first time his team was healthy in his peak)
Giannis fell because his weaknesses offensively were exposed when many thought he got passed them.
@@farhansarkar2394 no it’s the fact that they are trying to say winning doesn’t affect any of there rankings especially all time. Jokic won 2 back to back MVPs no one thought he was the best in the world but he wins a ring the year he doesn’t win MVP and now skis crowned best of the world ? They are lyingggg. Cp3 would undoubtedly be top 3 PGs ever if he wins just 1 ring. Without that run he is 8-10.
@pjspointofview1545 there were people saying Jokic was the best in the world, you are just not in those spaces.
@@farhansarkar2394 nah what I’m saying is they are saying they don’t have winning bias and that’s a lie because winning bias is the only way you can make a case for Jokic being better than Embiid. If it’s skill set wise Embiid clears on both ends Embiid can score on all 3 levels has a handle and plays top5 defense in the league as to where Jokic is just the better facilitator and playmaker. But Jokic having the better roster and coach and ATP won more he is over Embiid and if you ask anyone on that panel today they will tell you the gap between the 2 is larger than life
@pjspointofview1545 The case for Jokic is simple, pretend your hooping 1 on 1.
Jokic is that dude that can't guard but it doesn't matter because he scores every single time. An unstoppable force. While Embiid can definitely guard and he a bucket but you can stop him and he isn't the best defender. Embiid is incredible but beatable while Jokic is damn near unstoppable.
On the court Jokic is so good at offense to the point where he can't be stopped. There is nothing you can besides hoping he misses while Embiid with the right tools can be easily taken advantage of.
Everyone in our top 10 has multiple rings… let’s stop the bs. We all have winning bias.
Speak for yourself
That is not what winning bias is my god it's like when someone has player A over player B because player A has more rings than player B AND that's it solely and when it's time to rank other players they won't keep that same consistency or they'll add context to those other players but not for Player A vs Player B
Even though your first point is true, It’s not mainly about the rings it’s about how good they were and their impact on winning. I personally have Charles Barkley over a guy like Dirk even though Barkley never won a ring
But is it in order from who won the most to least rings?
@@kingjaydex7464you don’t have ppl in your top 3 who never won a ring ofc nobody wins rings by themselves but your not gonna put someone who hasn’t won higher than someone who has in most situations
Finally SOMONE SAID IT , Low finally brought up that the reason we value chips is because that player played better to get that chip not the Chip itself . Most of the time the player elevates to get the ring and to win but we just dumb it down to he won with no context
Would u say kd elevated to get the rings he got then
@@shotspotter7882yes 2017 was the best version of kd
@@shotspotter7882 he did elevate , those are some of his best years defensive wise and offensive wise . Ofc his team was also better but he elevated and hit big shots at big times . They could have lost that finals series if he’s playing like shit and airballing those makes
@@t1h_tvj212 but then that draws the question of, would KD have been able to 'elevate' to that level w/o playing with a team like GS. It's pretty easy to have your way offensive/defensively when so much attention is being drawn to arguably the best backcourt in NBA history & DPOY. KD was phenomenal those years, but I think he's had much more meaningful playoff series where he elevated even more more than GS but doesn't get ANY credit bc he didn't win that year.
@@chickenfinger5258 im not talking about a series, I’m talking about the full playoffs run . But what series are u referencing
Winning Bias goes beyond championships. It erases so much of how the rest of the league was actually playing. For example we only hear about the Jazz versus the Bulls for Jordan's final 2 championships. 99% of people completely forget that the Pacers gave the Bulls far more trouble than the Jazz ever did during those playoff runs, and took them to game 7 and nearly won. And guess what? Jordan SUCKED in those games and nearly shot them out, yet Reggie was ON FIRE during those games. Let's look at the game 7 box score in 1998 Pacers Versus Bulls:
Reggie Miller - 22 pts on .538 FG shooting and .571 3 pt shooting
2nd best player on his team? Rik smits 13 pts on .429 shooting (as a big man nonetheless)
Jordan - 28 pts on .360 shooting, and he didn't even take a 3 so those were all 2 pt shots.
2nd best player on his team? Toni Kukoc 21 pts on .636 shooting
But no one remembers Reggie anymore besides die hard fans, and you'd think Kukoc is some bum, but his efficiency is the only reason they were even able to go to the finals that year.
Reggie had zero help and still nearly beat the Bulls. Winning bias erases actual history.
bruh if karl malone beat micheal jordan twice in the finals he would be top 10 yall cappin hard 😂
If he plays the same way, he’s not
He most definitely would be top 10
In order for him to beat mj he would be better at basketball
@@Abbad1579 that's cap, people only care if u win
@@Abbad1579 If he won he would have been top 10.
You can’t not put in the top 10 someone who is a 2 time champ, 2 MVP and second highest scorer in NBA History.
You guys need to stop lying and face reality.
You just talking in order to acting smart.
“Ouu got me feeling like a cowboy”😭😭
If if’s was fifths, we’d all be drunk. We have a winning bias because to win, you typically have to do some great or memorable. It may have taken for Malone to do more than he did to win those finals, so we WOULD look at him differently because he would’ve done something different. Had he won with the Lakers, how much credit do you think he would get? No one remembers that Gary Payton has a ring from Miami. But because Kyrie was great in the 2016 finals, we recognize he capacity for greatness in those type of moments and attribute it when ranking him. A nuanced conversation about winning bias isn’t bad for the game. Context matters.
Steve Nash was a generational offensive player. I can’t believe basketball fans hate a elite basketball player.
The real issue stems from people's desire to be able to identify the "x-factor" that differentiates one great player from another. It leaves a gap in knowledge that most people aren't comfortable with, so they tend to fill that gap (no matter how small it is) with whatever bias they seek to confirm.
Just because there's a gap in understanding, doesn't mean that you can just fill it with whatever you want if you're trying to be objective.
It's a "God of the Gaps" perspective, but for basketball.
"I think Karl Malone is overrated because he didn't perform well in the post-season against the Chicago Bulls. In the 1996-1997 season where Karl Malone averaged 27.42 PPG, he only averaged 25.95 PPG in the playoffs. He's just not an alpha like MJ was."
I'm sitting here like: "You're deriving that he's not an alpha from 1.47 PPG decrease between the regular and post-season?" No mention of the other 14 guys on the roster and how they matched-up to the Bulls? No mention of Coach Jerry Sloan and the offensive/defensive schemes they were running?
It's a simplistic take, so I can see the appeal. You don't have to do anything rigorous, and you don't run the risk of confronting the fact that what you believe is wrong...but it is stupid.
Great breakdown. This is completely accurate and easily viewable in sports debates.
They don’t actually remember or know what happened in the series. They just know Malones numbers from basketball reference and because they didn’t watch the games they just use nonsensical and undebatable words like he didn’t have “heart” or he wasn’t a “dawg” or he just didn’t have the “killer will.” I’ll freely admit I haven’t watched that many Karl Malone games cause I have no interest in him. As a result I don’t talk about Karl Malone because loud ignorance is just pointless.
@@j_the_don5160then they lie by saying, “I watched all the games on NBA Tv” knowing damn well they didn’t.
People can't differentiate from one"s own skill set to team accomplishments
The issue with trying to determine who is better in basketball is that players have different roles on different teams. Greg Popovich said Manu could’ve lead the league in scoring but his role was a 6th man so we don’t compare him to star players like Wade, Kobe, Jordan, etc. Manu skill set says he could be on that level if given the chance but we would never know. I think about Lebron being good at everything but if he was in situations where he didn’t have to be the playmaker or have to be rebound, we would look at him differently. People knock Kobe for not averaging 8+assists but the one year he was running point guard when Steve Nash was hurt for the Lakers, Kobe did a great job play making and was getting double doubles and leading that team to the playoffs before he got hurt so he had the skill set to play make but his role majority of the time was to score and defend so we didn’t see that side of him all the time.
I’m so glad that everyone in these comments agree with what I was saying I had a few other points that I failed to make during this argument but it looks like my point got across just fine
Good video. I got lost with football compression. It wasn't needed and the QB has the biggest influence on the game. Especially now in day. They get the most pay glory and blame but I understand what he saying. I agree with low and mars to
They would’ve definitely smoked the Jazz and the Cavs if the suspensions never hit Amare and Diaw. Those suspensions are just as bad as Draymond’s suspension. they just got up their seat and that’s it.
We ALL know that if Lebron and Jordan went to the same number of Finals but never won one, no one would be calling them the GOAT. Numbers and eye tests matter but winning is what separates GOAT level players from the regular "greats"
WINNING.... SO BILL RUSSEL THE GOAT THAN. The bias is ridiculous. IF IT ABOUT WINNING bill Russel the goat of basketball. Im a lebron fan.
YA MAKING A BILL RUSSEL ARGUMENT
@@coreythomas3633 I make my GOAT arguments based on 40% stats, 40% winning& accolades, 20% impact/influence
I hate when they act like the argument is so black and white. Winning and Skill set matters equally a players skill is going to help him win and a player can have all the skill in the world (T-Mac, Harden, PG, Russell Westbrook (my favorite player) ) but if that skill never lead to winning as number 1-2 guys or w.e it’s easier for me to put guys over them who might not have as much skill. You can have all the skill in the world but if that drops in the playoff or you don’t elevate your team what’s the point. Look at guys like Jamal Crawford super skilled with the basketball he isn’t in the same boat as a guy like Paul Pierce who might not look as skilled going off pure eye test alone. It all matters we gotta stop treating basketball like it’s a math test here is no right or wrong answer Winning matters, skill matters, having good or bad teammates matters and so forth it all should go into account with ranking and comparing players. If it was purely based off winning Russell would be the GOAT if it was purely Skill we w would have guys like Penny, Harden, Kyrie, Kobe heck even Paul George would be the GOAT. Stop acting like oh I don’t care if they won or not how good was there skill we play the game to win. And on the other hand let’s not act like winning is all that’s too it Hakeem only has 2 chips and he is in a lot of peoples top 5-10 but he is considered the most skilled big man ever. Basketball is a game of multiple moving and fitting pieces all coming together to make it work. It’s a reason we can see a team like the ‘04 pistons beat the much more skilled ‘04 lakers cause it’s not all black and white so much more goes into it.
Low and Mars sound crazy af
But they are correct here. You should judge a player based on their functionality and skill sets at a team level, not judging player's mainly through outcome of a game.
Just because Jordan's Bulls lost in 1990 in the Eastern Conference Finals, doesn't mean Jordan wasn't the best player in the NBA and played at a level they gave his team a higher probability to win a title than anyone else.
@@blacknetsmedyou can judge a player by however you want to judge him
this is cap , cus if certain players won rings they would most definetly be higher so stop cappin !
Depending on how they perform and other contexts which why Hakeem is Over KD even tho they have the same amount of rings
@@qupope6955hakeem is not better at basketball than kd bro , kd is better at more things than hakeem
@@BabyBoiireactsstop, this is insane cap. Hakeem literally at his best is a top 5 talent all time. KD is not that
@@BabyBoiireactsbasketball isnt just about scoring lil bro
Winning bias is a me too crutch for Lebron
"Winning Bias is BAD" but everyone in your top ten everyone has chips
not because they have chips
It’s rare that an individual player is the only factor in winning a chip. It’s a team sport and you need other good players or for average players to have unusually great performances to win a championship. His status would definitely be elevated by winning chips especially if he defeated MJ and the Bulls. Who you beat certainly matters and manner in which you won. Malone is an all time great and a leading scorer of all time. Those rings would have an impact.
Nasty thumbnail 😂😂
The argument against winning bias is dumb. If you wanna crown guys for their skill sets that’s fine. But if those skillsets don’t produce winning than yea you’re aren’t the best or in that convo. Cuz elite hoopers are probably 35% responsible for their teams success not 15% that’s low as hell.
WINNING.... SO BILL RUSSEL THE GOAT THAN. The bias is ridiculous. IF IT ABOUT WINNING bill Russel the goat of basketball. Im a lebron fan.
@@coreythomas3633 you’re the problem lol. Everything has to be taken into its extremes with ppl like you. Winning matters. But there are other factors. It’s an important piece. You must be great in politics leaning so hard into an argument like that
Many have skills but converting skills under pressure is the great separator
This the Fiend Team and the Gruesome Twosome, get Ticket in here to cook these boys
When do we penalize someone for being 25% responsible? All the fucking time. Have you ever heard of a scapegoat? Welcome to reality 😂
Saying carmelo is only good is crazy young mars .
He is good that’s not bad
@sulwhale3171 lol oh yeah ? How is he only good? Since you know.
2:30
Marz face
I think the most recent example of this is people thinking that Lebron James wasn’t the best player in 2017 and 2018 finals where it was him vs prime KD, prime Steph and Prime Klay along with Prime Draymond. What were the expectations of him was he expected to beat that team ?
Listen we all know it’s a team game. But the star is responsible for what happens
That’s incorrect because I’ve seen stars do their jobs and still lose. You think the cavs make a 3-1 comeback with just Lebron balling out?
So when Kobe had seasons where his team couldn't literally even make the playoffs, it's his fault?
@@datadude295 if your team is trash we as fans know when u should and shouldn’t make the playoffs. I wouldn’t expect Jordan Poole to lead wizards anywhere this year
Nah yall gotta stop. Steve Nash was mid.
Doesn’t matter how great at basketball you are you need your teammates too score at least 60-90 points between them to have any chance at winning the game 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
The problem with winning bias is when that's the only thing you consider.
I think we can all agree it's more complicated than that, yet I believe winning a championship is highly relevant. Consistently, we see that a team needs a top 5 NBA talent to win a chip. That's not always the case as you have a few won with overall team talent like this year with the Celtics.
The problem with using winning a championship as the whole metric is that it's quite obvious that it takes quite a bit of luck to win; however, that's why you need that best player in the world type of player in order to stack your deck, and it kind of becomes a chicken/egg argument.
I think how we measure Jokic is exactly how it should be done. We look at his counting stats and compare them to history, then we see that the advanced stats tell an even better story. We also have the testimonial of former players who gush about how unbelievable his game is, and finally, we have evidence with his greatness in post-season play. It's quite obvious we are dealing with an all-time great. This method is also apparent with other all-time greats like MJ, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird and so forth.
Even as a Jazz fan who lives in Utah, who's old enough to have watched Jazz basketball in the late 90s, I still can't check all of those boxes with the Mail Man. He was great, but obviously not in the upper tier. He's in a place where it's fuzzy to say whether he was in the top 20 or closer to 30 all-time. It's simply a matter of lack of evidence to put him higher or even to clarify where he fits exactly in the rankings.
15-20% is wild. Check Cavs win rate before and after Lebron. Check Celtics before Bird. I'd say 30% plus. Maybe 40
Cavs had injuries after lebron left
@@ThanosdidtherighthingSTOP THEY WAS NOT WINNING UNTIL BRON GOT THERE.
@@Thanosdidtherighthingso both times lebron left they went 19-63 and those were due to what players injuries ?
I gotta get on open gym
Get this mans off the thumbnail😭
Dub saying that stars are only responsible for 15-20% of their teams success, I just cant agree with.
If you getting paid the supermax at 35%, thats the bare minimum a superstar’s responsibility should be at. And for some guys at the very vey top like Giannis, LeBron, Jokic, Steph, KD, those guys would be worth even more if there wasnt a ceiling to what their contracts can be worth. They could be worth up to 50-60%, maybe even 70%. And ya you dont get 100% of the blame if you win or lose, but if youre a superstar, you def get a heavy chunk of it
It’s 15-20% because at the end of the day the coaches manage more of the game than any player will and that’s a fact. Unless you pull a lebron and erase a game winner and write your own, then you play the way the coaches want. They create inbound passes, they change the defensive scheme with signals and only then you can perform
@@pandabear1576 Coaches certainly have a bearing, but NOWHERE NEAR enough to lower a superstars responsibility to ~15-20%, thats just absurd.
Spoelstra is the best coach in the league, and at best he himself is worth about 10-15%. Whatever designs a coach draws up, its still on the players and the superstars to execute the right plays, make the big shots, and win the game. As great as Spoelstra is, Miami is going home in R1 if Butler doesnt score ~100 points in the last 2 games, including that ridiculous buzzer beater alley oop in G5, or any of the clutch big 3s he hit
@@pandabear1576 Execution of a superstar will always be faaar more valuable than the management of a coach. Thats why players now getting $300 mil when the absolute best coaches are just getting $80 mil
If winning matters so much to these people then why is bill russell never there goat ?
Bc although winning is obviously the most important thing, it’s not the only thing.
Because they don’t respect him. They prefer guys who play pretty and have rings too like mj, Kobe etc.
8 team nba is the reason he’s not the goat and before nba ABA merger
Jordan fans: “winning and rings are what matters not stats”
*Brings up Bill Russell*
Jordan fans: “uhhhh what’s his PPG in the Finals?”
@@Terror832 because there more teams at your local recreation center than the nba when Russell was in the league
😂but the first thing they’ll say out they fucking mouth is “kd never won without steph “
Y'all are so nasty about Giannis. His teammates are terrible every post season minus a few great games from Khris. His efficiency drops slightly, he still puts up great numbers with great defense, and y'all still say he's fraudulent for the crime of just taking it to the cup. On top of that, his gravity is unparalleled, other teams understand how dangerous he is it's just y'all who are confused. Just nasty
LeBron as a singular player does more for winning than anyone...Bron is better offensively and defensively doing it against better competion...no one cares that MJ won a fake DPOY that should be Hakeem's, Bron deserved his DPOY....MJs team also almost went on a championship run without him...his value does not compare, Bron won everwheere and won more than expected bc his teams were underdogs in 7/10 finals...Bron is clearly the GOAT, gold
A top 10 player must have changed the game.
Marz point is pointless. Lebron has played with great teammates. Most the greats have
no way u couldnt understand the point
To me, the problem with those jazz teams, wasn't juss that malone declined in the playoffs. They needed some type of elite scoring wing.
The offense was too predictable. You will live with the percentage. You can't stop every possession.
No one saying it’s all on malone he’s still an all time great but if he was a better playoff performer he would be better at basketball which is obvious and he might have a ring
They were the 2018 rockets of the 90s
Smartest winning bias bot
Skill set over intangibles?
this keem guy is doubling down on an egregious take
The biggest winning bias recipient I ever seen was dirk in 2011 everybody is a dirk fan now but go back and read some of the articles were written about dirk and how he was a soft choker
Facts after Pau got his two rings they talked about how Pau had surpassed Dirk and if you were to suggest that today you would get dragged
But it’s also about how he performed in that playoff run and the finals. Winning bias is just raising somebody ranking just because he got a ring but Dirk elevated his game during that historic finals run and his performances directly impacted his team winning a championship against really good teams in every round.
@@voiceofreason2674Dirk didn’t play with Kobe and with no other all star teammates.
@@Sbcmlg28247 respect for Dirk but I do wanna say that putting Tyson Chandler next to him was the best move they ever did. Completely freed him up to stay fresh and save a little more elevation for his turn arounds late games
@@voiceofreason2674 You’re right. Not only Chandler but the whole core make up of that team fit together very well and they knew how to play together as a team to compliment each others play styles. That championship run will always be one of my favorites.
I think a lot of the reasony Why Malone isn't too high on everybody's list...its probably bec of that Personal issue he had
What's the point of sports if winning isnt the main priority
Ofc the nerds dont care about winning wouldn't expect anything else.
They never said they didn’t care about winning but you got it
If we are debating the best or whose the goat rings are gonna be brought up imagine if MJ didn’t win a single ring would ppl still say he’s the best player ever? I don’t think so if lebron was 0-12 in the finals he wouldn’t be in the conversation either it’s not the end all be all winning isn’t the only thing that matters … but it does matter regardless of your the reason or not you lost or won it so how can you claim to be the best if you never won
Karl Malone didn’t even deserve to win the 1999 MVP. It should’ve been Tim Duncan or Shaquille O’Neal
Yo why low not on the panel anymore?
too early
Can’t make it
This panel needs some age and wisdom.
This is an asinine argument; you cannot help but play the result.
That’s reality.
The whole concept of "winning bias" is stupid. #1. You play to win. #2. Individually, a great basketball player has more of an impact on a game than just about any other athlete in any team sport. Malone isn't criticized because he doesn't have a ring; he's criticized because he played poorly when he had the opportunity to win rings. Very different.
Facts
Yea but there are players that elevated poors team to all time great levels that still weren’t able to get over the hump due to circumstances.
2009 LeBron elevated a mediocre Cavs team to ATG levels and got even better in the post season and still lost. Should he not receive a ton of credit despite losing?
@@nykareem2001 Nope he loss to a team he was favorite to beat
@chad-sethgreenidge6795 we shouldn't worry about people who do that. It should NOT be held vs Lebron they lost in '09 to the Magic (despite being the favorite): Lebron, individually, was great that series, and that Magic team was a terrible match-up for that Cavs team (Magic had HUGE wings vs Cavs small wings/guards). Many other great players have elevated sub-par teams to do much more than they should have: Jordan with '89 Bulls; Magic with the post-Kareem Lakers; Kobe with the '06 Lakers. If you take Kobe off that Lakers team and replace him with an average 2 guard, that team doesn't win 15 games. Instead, they won 45 games in a loaded Western Conference. Context always matters. If Malone had played great in the Finals and lost (kinda like Barkley did in '93), then it's not so bad. But you can make the argument that the Jazz lost - not once, but twice - because he played so below normal for him.
@@timstark4731 agreed. I am in the middle of watching the 97 finals and there were so many winnable games that Malone choked away
People in this comment section dont seem to understand what winning bias means. Obviously if in your career you underperform throughout the playoffs and thats the reason why you dont win you should be viewed in a lesser light. Winning bias applies to players who play good but still lose and vice versa. But people are too lazy to go back watch and evaluate their actual impact on the game so they use whether or not they won or loss as a way to view their impact.
List your top 5 players all time. Count the rings.
Skills don’t mean ish if it doesn’t produce winning. If the purpose is to win the game and your skills don’t produce winning then what doesn’t those skills mean. And 99% of the time these guys on PC(not all) rank players and skills, they only briefly mention defense or not at all.
Everyone ranked higher than Malone had teammate better than Stockton. Malone was #2 alltime scorer.
Bro you’re sayin if Malone swept Jordan back to back those years he not even in the discussion for top 10 all time ? He’d def be right there or RIGHT outside it
What herm edwards say? “YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME…HELLO”
15-20 percent responsible for winning ? Are you drunk ? Superstars have the BULK of the responsibility towards winning. That’s why they get the bulk of the blame when they win or lose. Why ? Because the disparity in talent is SO GREAT between superstars and role players, superstars are expected to raise their game to a level no one else can. 90 percent of the time, if you have a superstar who raises their level of play, all the role players have to do is be decent at best and you can win games.
Winning Bias is something created by this new "Participation Era" to validate players like LeBron and all his failures.
Winning bias is terrible and mj is my goat bro
I agree to certain degree but context is important in these conversations
exactly💯
Winning Bias is like saying Allen Iverson was better than James Harden b/c Iverson went to Finals.
Even though the main positive on that Sixers Team was their Defense.
Allen Iverson gets over credited for making the Finals on a fluke run.
While Harden has made far more deep runs in the Playoffs.
@blacknetsmed The sixes defense was great but that's only half the game so what Allen did still matters. Harden gets pegged back not because of who he's faced but because he consistenly comes up small in the defining moments of a series despite playing with great talent for a majority of a his career.
I don’t get dub’s point
Melo and CP3 were never in basketball shape
For example, if lebron won In 2011, that don’t exempt the fact that he played terribly and the fax woulda been dat dwade carried him that year, despite Them winning, lebron wouldn’t have been the reason why. If the player’s performance is the reason why they have that chip, that elevates them higher, not just winning the chip, you have to play at a higher level than u did in the regular season, u just got to
But if he played better and was the best player in that series. It would.
Y’all in these comments literally just don’t listen. If you did, you’d realize there’s nothing to disagree with. Winning bias has nothing to do with where you rank guys based on how much they won. It’s about how you change the tone of the way a guy performed based on the result of the game. An easy example is D Wade in game 6 of the 2013 NBA finals. He didn’t play well. Matter of fact, he was bad. He played a bad game and his team carried the load and they won. A lot of people will lie to your face and say Wade played well cause they won the game. I’m not sure why I bother explaining this though because those who don’t listen to what those in the video are saying certainly aren’t going to listen to me.
Give me lebrons athleticism (+) height( - )the bowleggedness id be the undisputed goat
Everything matters winning performance Everything no way low or marz would have someone as the goat with zero rings
Funny how Marz made a bunch of excuses for Nash but when it comes Melo and T-Mac they’re just not that good despite Nash having better teams than both of them
It’s funny too because he said the West was stacked and they ran into the Spurs when Melo played in that same stacked west and ran into those same Spurs and Lakers teams multiple times.
TMac and Melo have functional limitations in their games.
Melo was a poor defender; on almost every team he's been on the Defense got better when he left the court.
Terrible ball stopper which made it easier for the Defense to collapse on him.
Tracy Mcgrady outside of 2003 was an Allen Iverson-level scorer.
Meaning Mcgrady wasn't efficient enough as a scorer to justify his Usage and spearhead strong offenses.
Nash didnt win cos he and his team were bad defensively and the west had better teams. melo didnt win cos he was a poor passer playmaker and defender and his teams werent good enough to win either. tmac didnt win cos he struggled with shot selection decision making injuries and his teams werent good enough either. i dont think ive ever said melo shouldve won nor tmac
@@MarzTalksSports So you’re saying just like T Mac and Melo he wasn’t good enough right?
@@Sbcmlg28247 did u listen to the video? i never said melo wasnt good enough to win i said hes not ranked higher cos he didnt win its cos hes not as good as other people. if melo won that wouldnt have made him better unless he actually got better himself. same with nash. same with tmac. same with chris paul. anyone who didnt win
Mars and lo go HARD for players with the biggest holes in history IE
Nash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jokic
Dirk
Luka
But say KD and melo and PG got holes in they’re phucking game. Like cancel these two from talking about anything ever 🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️omfg
I'm with yall on rating a player's skills and how long they did it for (longevity), but Marz mentioned a player's impact as well. Is that counting stats or their impact on winning which is still wins at the end of the day?
They never stand “ten toes down”. Every player they grade is based off a different set of rules and evaluation
Impact is how their play affects their team good or bad has nothing to do with counting stats. Impact on winning is what YOU do specifically for your team to win not winning in general which has to do with your team the other team luck etc
Skills is what you think it is but impact is just anything you can do help your team play better. Such as defense or running in transition, those aren't exactly skills but they for sure help in game.
You can measure impact primarily through film, watching all the good and bad things a player does in a game.
@@du2thurl42 how do you measure one players 20/10 to another players 20/10 in winning!?
@@goatjameskingdombecuase you actually look at the game of basketball and see what’s going on. One player can score 20 efficiently in the flow of the offense, while the other can score 20 inefficiently while being a ball stopper. The first person is gonna have a better impact on winning becuase their 20 is helping the team more then the latter player
Maybe If Melo had SUPERTEAM's Like LeBron he would have won championships. I don't get it LeBron plays on STACK Superteams that's the only reason he barely won 4. If you gave Melo Prime Melo those same teams he would won atleast 2 he is more CLUTCH than LeBron. The man never had the teams LeBron orchestrated. This is FACT. The separation between Melo and Bron is team dynamics Bron had the SUPERIOR teams.
LeBron fans can't win the winning debate..so now they want to change the Narrative...WINNING WILL ALWAYS MATTER
Facts lol
Jordan is low’s goat
LeBron won 4 rings as the main guy. How is he not a winner 😂
@@nykareem2001and lost 6 times, Lebron fans are DISINGENUOUS
@@adrijiyudaI guess it’s better to lost in a earlier round 🤣 he won 4 rings regardless. You play to win right ? And the only way to win is compete for a championship so 6 losses is a overused troll point
LOW contradicts himself too much I seen him say tim Duncan was better than Kobe in certain years because the Spurs won that year or his team had a better record. According to this logic in this video Kobe was better easily if winning don’t matter. Nobody was picking tim over Kobe back then
Duncan was anchoring all time defenses during that time Kobe could never if his life depended on it
@@omarionbrown3075 Kobe has 9 defensive 1st teams Duncan has 10 let’s not act like Kobe isn’t a all time great defender!! Also if you listened to the video they clearly said your teammates have nothing to do with how good you are at basketball. Tim Duncan also had great defenders on his team! So that’s my point as well they contradicting themselves
@@gzzomega7661but that's not what he said he said Tim Duncan was ANCHORING he's right Kobe has never done that plus TD HAS NEVER had a teammate that as good as a player like Shaq the same Shaq that teams were LITERALLY building their teams to gameplan against said player. Plus TD was literally a top 10 player from the jump and already one of the best defenders in the league in his first year Kobe was never that good
Well they definitely picked Tim over Kobe in the early 2000s. This isn't a good argument since they peaked and declined at different times
@@farhansarkar2394from 2000-2010 Kobe went to 7 finals
Duncan went to 3 finals in that same span. Duncan went to 3 finals outside the 2000s
2000-2010 was Kobe's era..
Rings don't equal greatness. If Bron doesn't tuck tail and run from Cleveland and staus there forever he may never have a ring. Durant doesn't go to GS he never wins rings..... we are looking at them the in the same list as Malone and Barkley. Bron and Durants ""rings"" are artificial in the sense of being earned by what they were able to do. They ran to rings
yes if michael jordan loses game 6 and 7, karl malone's skill set did change because you can argue that it was effective enough to be a part of a winning effort. that's the entire lens, was your skillset/ability conducive to winning. when you were lucky enough to be in those positions did your play win or lose? how important were you to the win? leading your team to the chip and not playing up to par but still winning is different than if you lose...
WINNING.... SO BILL RUSSEL THE GOAT THAN. The bias is ridiculous. IF IT ABOUT WINNING bill Russel the goat of basketball. Im a lebron fan.
@@coreythomas3633 bill russell and kareem have GOAT cases... lebron still fighting magic. Magic might be less of an individual player but he didnt have a 3 year flameout like lebron 09-11
@@coreythomas3633he played in the pre-merger. Who cares,
@@austinhowser7838 90s was the expansion league so yes WEAK COMPETITION
@@bboywolf bill Russel has 5 mvps LIKE JORDAN. BUT ACCOMPLISH MORE IN 13 YEAR'S. Stop it
What is Malone Missing that makes him not top ten?
Rings
Rings, notorious playoff dropper, “actions” outside the NBA
@@Lexio3031 those are in your criteria in ranking players? And how do yall measure “playoff droppers”? 🤔
@@dtg0342 exactly..! So if he had two rings with his current resume, he is top 10. Easily
@@goatjameskingdom Yes beating the Bulls in 97&98 also finishing his career top ten in rebounds 2nd in scoring 2 MVPs absolutely
😂
This is nasty from Dub, Mars & Low ………. NASTY !!!!!!!!
Karl Malone is in nobody’s top 10, stop the cap. Winning always matters.
We would look at Karl Malone totally different if he took two championships off of Michael Jordan that would have changed NBA history so much and then you add potentially getting a third ring even as a bit of a diminished player in 2004 he easily would’ve been top 10. Look at how people view Eli Manning in football and he wasn’t even on the level of Karl Malone.