JeremyG wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 7:32 pm
Well I guess to sum up my lengthy posts in one sentence: I don't see how the greatest play can be anything other than a game winner.
... I never that that it can't be a great play unless it leads from a sure loss to a sure win. My logical argument was that, all other factors being equal, the more directly a play contributes to a win, the greater it is.
I can provisionally agree with that, with the caveat that all other factors are never going to be equal. I don't agree that "most directly contributing to a win" is the biggest factor in determining a play's "greatness", just that it's an important factor.
I guess my definition of "greatest play" is more along the lines of "most important singular play." Now, in a particular circumstance, that could very well be a game-tying three. For that 2006 first round series, I don't think anyone would argue the fact that Tim Thomas' shot was the most important singular play with regard to the outcome of that series. And obviously Ray Allen's game-tying three was the greatest play of the 2013 NBA Finals, as there was no game-winner to compare it to. (I agree with the rebounders getting credit, too.)
I think what you're saying here is: you do see how the greatest play can be something other than a game winner. Because there's more to this exercise than just a list to be checked off without any further thought. Good.
Yes, I would count Paxson's and Jordan's shots as "game winners" but I would rank a true buzzer-beater to win a championship ahead of them in terms of greatness.
Almost certainly, the mythical "buzzer beater in game 7 that turns a championship loss into a championship win" for any team would immediately be recognized as the most impactful single play in NBA history. We've never really had anything quite like that - true buzzer beaters are rare enough that we almost always remember them (see: Book lying on the floor in the bubble) and buzzer beaters in the playoffs rarer still.
Game winning buzzer beaters in deciding games in the playoffs can be counted on a total of two fingers, and they make an interesting contrast: Kawhi over Embiid in game 7 of the Eastern Conference semifinals, the ball bouncing four times on the rim to break a 90-90 tie and send Toronto into the finals, where they won the franchise's only championship. And Michael Jordan over Craig Ehlo in a deciding game 5 (shorter first-round series back then) in 1989 with the Bulls trailing the Cavs 100-99 -- still the only shot in NBA history that turned a game and series loss into a win on a buzzer beater.
So which of those shots is "greater"? The Raptors might have gone on to win in OT (playing at home) even if the fifth bounce on that shot takes it out of the basket. But it took place deep in the playoffs, and the team it benefited eventually won the whole thing, aided by great play from its one-year rental superstar and, frankly, a lot of injuries to the even-better team they were playing. But Kawhi miraculously made it through those playoffs, and that shot is part of his and the team's lore forever.
The Jordan shot was the single most impactful playoff shot ever, in terms of winning a single series. The Bulls were going to lose and depart from the first round; then they didn't, with zero chance for Cleveland to change that outcome. But it was early in the playoffs, and in a year when the Bulls weren't quite ready to take their place as the best team in the East or the league yet. So it didn't lead directly to winning it all that year, but it was a big stepping stone in helping to kickstart Jordan's legacy as the ultimate winner and cold-blooded killer, and the Bulls did get a lot of extra playoff experience, advancing until they ran into a championship-level Pistons team in the Eastern Conference finals.
My point isn't to tell you why one of those shots is "greater" than the other one; I can't do that, because there's no set formula that leads to a "right" answer. For what it's worth, I like the Jordan shot for its singular quality, its timelessness and (most of) the career that it helped to define (not you, 1993, you can fuck off), but I'll certainly listen to arguments about the Kawhi shot; it's magical and great in its own way, and almost certainly led more immediately to a championship. The point is to go beyond algorithmic thinking like "this happened in the first round and therefore can't matter that much; this happened in a year when the team didn't advance that far and doesn't mean as much; this only sent the game to overtime and doesn't mean as much ...." I don't think that works when you're talking about "greatest" or even "most impactful single" plays, because all of the context matters in making this stuff memorable and great.
And yeah, we're talking about basketball here, this weird mix of athletics and art and entertainment and history and human beings doing amazing and crazy and stupid things, and some of us have the audacity to somehow want to feel connected to the whole of it, and want to remember back to the cool ways that it's tied into our lives. And as with anything else that we try to feel connected to, we're going to want to remember and examine and even argue about what we consider to be important, and we're gonna push back when someone is arrogantly dismissive of it. So when you wanted the only possible definition of "great" with regards to all those memories to be the one you arrived at with your one-dimensional logic and your pat "this is the only way" answers, I didn't agree and I don't agree.
