Id rather be charles barkley,dan marino,and barry bonds than jud buchler,matt wilhelm,and craig counsell
Winning 5 MVPs in and of itself is unlikely, as you keep pointing out. I'm just trying to keep the argument fair by assuming they're on the same level.
I don't think it's too farfetched, but if you want a more believable comparison, consider Bron being guilted into staying in Cleveland and Dwade never gets injured and neither ever win another title. Unlike my example, LeBron is clearly the better player, but this should be believable enough for you.... I'd still rather be Wade with the title... tho this is closer.
THESE nikka ARE SLOW AROUND HERE....
OF COURSE EVERYBODY WOULD TAKE 5MVPS OVER BEING SOME BENCH PLAYER ASS nikka WITH A RING...
IM SURE THEY READ MY POST,
BUT DUDES CONSTANTLY
IMA THROW THIS shyt IN THE BUSHES IF THE OP IS ACTUALLY REFERING TO SOME BUM ASS nikka WITH A RING.
PAUL PIERCE OR STEVE NASH?
Five MVPs mean a lot, mean that you were a great player, accomplished a lot, were cherished by fans, oh, and by the way, earned a lot of money through contracts.
But in the end, there will always be some cac saying that YOU NEVER WON ANY CHAMPIONSHIP!
That's the thing the argument isn't fair or believable. A nikka with 5 MVPs is very likely to get a ring. The whole point of threads like these is to gauge the value that people put on individual accolades vs. team accmplishments.
As far as your example you would rather be the nikka who's career ended early rather than the nikka who played a long illustrious career with no rings but unanimous recognition as the better player and awards to back it up as well as hundreds of millions more dollars in off court earnings? A ring is that powerful to you that it outweighs all that?
Easy: In both scenarios, I'm me. In the title scenario, I'm playing on a great team, I have a lot of help, while my biggest competitor does not, so he wows folks every regular season (may even lead his inferior team to a better regular season record) and beats me for MVP... bear in mind, my "biggest competitor" may not be the same each year.
In the MVP scenario, my team sucks, I have to do more and I do so, wowing in the regular season, leading my team to far exceed expectations. However, in the playoffs, my team's holes become magnified and I'm never able to win a title.
My capabilities remain the same in both scenarios... and I'd rather have the title.
Exactly, which is why I said I'm the same caliber player, regardless, cuz that's the only fair way to gauge that question.
And I'm not sure where in my example I said one of the player's career ended early... I'm pretty sure I didn't say that at all...
How are you the same caliber player and one guy wins 5 MVPs and the other guys wins none? That number of MVPs is reserved for the greatest of the great (Mike, Kareem). Meanwhile Dirk and Pierce have championships as "the man" you taking their careers over Mike/Kareem's?
Generally speaking if you are "the man" on a championship team and in the running for MVP every year chances are you are gonna have an MVP award or two to show for it. It's actually kinda hard to seperate the two.