zimpy27 wrote: Well LeBron has 4 championships. Yes it's not near Russell at 11. But 4 is still plenty to make any case for top 10 or 5 or GOAT for most. Those who care about rings above all typically choose Russell but I don't think that's even more than 5% of NBA fans.
Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.
This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.
James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too
Are the only legit polls for goat the ones that James leads in?
Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.
This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.
James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too
Russell and Kareem have only 8 total vote combined in 110 votes right now(4 each)...It show how bad the voting can be
Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.
This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.
James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too
Are the only legit polls for goat the ones that James leads in?
I don't care about the polls...Like I said,popularity contest
The KnicksFix wrote:Tf??? Giannis, dirk and jokic rings def weigh more than any of the heat’s rings with LeBron, wade, bosh, and any of the warrior rings with KD, klay, Steph, draymond
Stop it
I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.
If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.
Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.
The KnicksFix wrote:Tf??? Giannis, dirk and jokic rings def weigh more than any of the heat’s rings with LeBron, wade, bosh, and any of the warrior rings with KD, klay, Steph, draymond
Stop it
I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.
If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.
Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.
That doesn't make the ring more impressive though. That supporting cast was more than enough to win in 23, which is the whole point here. It was just a weak path, similar to Giannis in 2021. Neither title belongs in the discussion with Dirks.
Lebron already has a strong argument over Jordan for GOAT so his 4 rings isn't what's holding him back. Nice try though.
Dubs were always Currys team. KD taking the most shots had no relevance in bearing on ranking. He is in the same boat as Karl Malone for me. Actually behind him if I'm being honest.
If this is a Jokic thread, just give it a rest already lol
Not even close. Jordan didn't hop around looking for a ring.
Lebron already has a strong argument over Jordan for GOAT so his 4 rings isn't what's holding him back. Nice try though.
Dubs were always Currys team. KD taking the most shots had no relevance in bearing on ranking. He is in the same boat as Karl Malone for me. Actually behind him if I'm being honest.
If this is a Jokic thread, just give it a rest already lol
Not even close. Jordan didn't hop around looking for a ring.
Jordan stans, when will they learn? Just lol at this "intelligent" and "well thought out" "rationale".
bledredwine wrote:There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog
1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks
hardenASG13 wrote: I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.
If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.
Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.
That doesn't make the ring more impressive though. That supporting cast was more than enough to win in 23, which is the whole point here. It was just a weak path, similar to Giannis in 2021. Neither title belongs in the discussion with Dirks.
I agree about Dirk, most impressive title that i have ever witnessed. But Jokic pretty much carried his team to the championship that year and Giannis dominated the finals in 21. How many players put up 50+ in a finals game?
Lebron already has a strong argument over Jordan for GOAT so his 4 rings isn't what's holding him back. Nice try though.
Dubs were always Currys team. KD taking the most shots had no relevance in bearing on ranking. He is in the same boat as Karl Malone for me. Actually behind him if I'm being honest.
If this is a Jokic thread, just give it a rest already lol
Not even close. Jordan didn't hop around looking for a ring.
:lol: Jordan stans, when will they learn? Just lol at this "intelligent" and "well thought out" "rationale".
I'm not a "Jordan stan". And unlike you, I have watched the NBA.
context. watch the games. if someone came along and averaged 40 pts in playoffs and dominated and his team flat out stank, i would prop him up. ive noticed, if a team loses, its star player underperformed. its less common the star player dominated and they still lost.
Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.
That doesn't make the ring more impressive though. That supporting cast was more than enough to win in 23, which is the whole point here. It was just a weak path, similar to Giannis in 2021. Neither title belongs in the discussion with Dirks.
I agree about Dirk, most impressive title that i have ever witnessed. But Jokic pretty much carried his team to the championship that year and Giannis dominated the finals in 21. How many players put up 50+ in a finals game?
I mean Jokic did have a teammate average 26/6/7 for that entire run. Giannis certainly did dominate the finals, that Suns team was phony though. They beat 3 badly injured teams on the way to the finals, and were embarrassed by Luka and the Mavs the following season. They had never won a playoff series as a group prior to that season. They had no staying power when up against a team with a healthy star player. Giannis did ball out against them though.
With how KD was playing, and Brooklyn winning the first 2 against them that year before losing Kyrie to injury in game 4, I just think and will always think they were gonna be bounced in round 2 had Kyrie not gotten hurt. Teams that win the first 2 games in a series win the series over 90% of the time, and Giannis led teams have lost to every contender quality team before and after that season.
Until people start giving weight to Mikan's seven rings, it's all a joke anyway. Trying to argue that Garnett or Dirk or Jokic's one ring makes them "greater" than Mikan just is silly. People contort themselves into pretzels defending their biases.
"Some rings are better than others" when the entire goal of the sport is to win a championship.
The premise that "rings are completely meaningless to an NBA legend’s legacy” is objectively false. Championships do matter—winning is the ultimate goal of basketball. But rings aren’t the only thing that defines a player’s greatness. Individual accomplishments—MVPs, stats, and dominance—are just as important. And let’s not ignore another major factor: circumstances. Team management, roster construction, coaching, and even luck all play a role in whether a great player ends up with rings or not.
MJ: The Perfect Balance of Individual Greatness and Team Success
Spoiler:
Jordan’s six championships solidify him as the greatest in many people’s eyes. But it’s not just the rings—his six Finals MVPs, five regular-season MVPs, and ten scoring titles prove he was dominant whether he won a title or not. However, let’s be real: Jordan’s situation mattered. Would he have won six rings without Scottie Pippen, Phil Jackson, and the Bulls’ front office surrounding him with elite role players like Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, and Steve Kerr? Maybe, maybe not. The Bulls were built perfectly around Jordan, and that structure helped him maximize his potential. Without that, we might be talking about him the same way we talk about Charles Barkley—an all-time great who just didn’t have the right situation to win.
LeBron James: A Testament to Individual Greatness and Team-Building Challenges
Spoiler:
LeBron’s career proves that championships alone don’t define a legacy—but they definitely boost it. He’s arguably the most well-rounded player ever, with four MVPs and more points than anyone in NBA history. But winning took work.
Unlike Jordan, LeBron had to switch teams to find the right structure for success. Cleveland’s front office failed him in his first stint, surrounding him with weak supporting casts. When he went to Miami, he finally had the teammates (Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh) and coaching (Erik Spoelstra) needed to win. Even then, he had to go through brutal losses in the 2011 Finals before learning how to win at the highest level. And let’s not forget 2016—beating the 73-9 Warriors took an all-time performance, but it also required Draymond Green’s suspension and key injuries to Golden State. Sometimes, luck matters, too.
Charles Barkley: The Reality of Greatness Without Rings
Spoiler:
Barkley was dominant—an MVP, a scoring and rebounding machine, and one of the best forwards ever. But he never won a championship, and that impacts how he’s remembered. The main reason? Circumstances outside of his control.
Barkley’s prime happened at the wrong time—his peak years overlapped with Jordan’s Bulls, Hakeem’s Rockets, and the loaded Western Conference of the ‘90s. Even when he played at an MVP level, he never had the right team structure to get over the hump. The 1993 Suns got close, but they ran into MJ at his best. Had Barkley been drafted into a better situation, or if a few key moments had gone differently, he might have a ring—and a very different legacy.
Bill Russell: The Ultimate Winner, But in the Right Circumstances
Spoiler:
On the flip side, you have Bill Russell, the greatest winner in NBA history with 11 championships. But here’s the thing: he played in a league with eight to 14 teams, meaning fewer competitors. And he was surrounded by multiple Hall of Famers, including Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, and Sam Jones. That doesn’t take away from his greatness—he was the defensive anchor, leader, and ultimate clutch player. But if Russell had been drafted by a bad organization instead of the Celtics dynasty? We might be talking about him very differently. His rings define his legacy, but he also benefited from elite team structure, management, and coaching (Red Auerbach). Greatness alone isn’t always enough—you need the right situation.
At the end of the day, winning championships is the goal. Rings separate the good from the great, and the great from the all-time legends. But saying they’re the only thing that matters is just wrong.
A player’s legacy is a mix of individual greatness and circumstances—the team around them, the front office decisions, coaching, and even luck. Some all-time greats never won because they ran into dynasties, had bad rosters, or just didn’t get the right breaks. Others won multiple rings because they had the perfect team structure.
The real measure of a legend isn’t just how many rings they have—but how much they contributed to winning and how dominant they were regardless of the circumstances. That’s why both rings and individual greatness matter in the GOAT conversation.
If Joker left Denver and took a pay cut to join Boston or OKC, and then went on to win 3 or 4 more rings, would you rank him higher all-time? Obviously, rings are important, but how you win is important too.
Meaningless? No. But if you're using rings to evaluate how good an individual player is, you're doing it wrong. The reality is so much about winning a championship is out of a players control, their supporting cast, coaching, front office, opposing teams, injury, and just random bounces of the ball.
hardenASG13 wrote: That doesn't make the ring more impressive though. That supporting cast was more than enough to win in 23, which is the whole point here. It was just a weak path, similar to Giannis in 2021. Neither title belongs in the discussion with Dirks.
I agree about Dirk, most impressive title that i have ever witnessed. But Jokic pretty much carried his team to the championship that year and Giannis dominated the finals in 21. How many players put up 50+ in a finals game?
I mean Jokic did have a teammate average 26/6/7 for that entire run. Giannis certainly did dominate the finals, that Suns team was phony though. They beat 3 badly injured teams on the way to the finals, and were embarrassed by Luka and the Mavs the following season. They had never won a playoff series as a group prior to that season. They had no staying power when up against a team with a healthy star player. Giannis did ball out against them though.
With how KD was playing, and Brooklyn winning the first 2 against them that year before losing Kyrie to injury in game 4, I just think and will always think they were gonna be bounced in round 2 had Kyrie not gotten hurt. Teams that win the first 2 games in a series win the series over 90% of the time, and Giannis led teams have lost to every contender quality team before and after that season.
Miami was a weak opponent in the finals but Denver beat a good young Minnesota team, Durant/Booker in Phoenix, and swept James and Davis Lakers. They breezed through the west. They were pretty dominant during their run. But yea Murray was great.
Im just giving credit to Giannis because he was so dominate throughout that playoff run. And clinching the title with 50 was an all time performance. Dirks is the best but you gotta give props to Jokic and Giannis for their championship too.
Homer38 wrote: This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.
James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too
Are the only legit polls for goat the ones that James leads in?
I don't care about the polls...Like I said,popularity contest
I agree that James, Russell, and Kareem have a case for goat. And you mention popularity contest and for some people yes. How many on here were alive to watch Kareem play, much less Russell? I mean there are probably quiet a few who are too young to have watched Jordan, or at least prime Jordan. So they are voting off stats and emotion. Kareem especially only having 4 votes out of that many votes is silly.
You have to look at everything: Stats, wins, rings, playoff runs, context etc.
A guy like Steve Nash, in my opinion, got incredibly unlucky a few times and should have had at least 1 ring:
1) Dirk gets hurt in the WCF in 2003 and Mavericks lose a close series to the Spurs who win the chip. 2) Amare tears his ACL in the 2006 season and Nash still leads the Suns to game 6 of the WCF. 3) In 2007 Amare and Diaw get suspended for a pivotal game 5 for BS reasons and Suns lost in 6 to the Spurs who went on to win the chip. 4) In 2010, Suns lose a heartbreaker to a Ron Artest game winner in game 5 of the WCF and Lakers go on to win the chip.
Had Nash led the Suns to a ring we probably think of him more like a top 15-20 player of all-time instead of a top 30-35 of all-time.
aliasxn wrote:If Joker left Denver and took a pay cut to join Boston or OKC, and then went on to win 3 or 4 more rings, would you rank him higher all-time? Obviously, rings are important, but how you win is important too.
It depends on his performance. If he was dominant and winning finals MVPs while winning rings also then yes, he would be ranked higher.
God I'm so sick of this narrative. This holds way more weight in a sport like baseball or football where you can't be expected as a singular player to impact the outcome of games as much. But it's the ultimate loser mentality to say "championships don't matter" in basketball where a superstar player can literally be responsible for your team's entire offensive output (heliocentrism) as well as, at worst, 20% of your team's defensive impact on the other end.
Being a two-way NBA superstar is like being an All-Pro NFL QB who's also a Pro Bowl caliber edge rusher on defense. It's the one team sport where these guys impact the game in such a way that championships should be a major defining factor in how their legacies are viewed unless they're clearly just coasting to a ring on the back of a stacked super-team and/or having a mediocre statistical playoff run. Like, Jrue Holiday's 2-rings and Robert Horry's 7-rings obviously don't mean as much as Giannis or Dirk's one ring. This shouldn't really be that complicated, but people love to do these mental gymnastics for narrative/agenda purposes and can never recognize that there's clearly a middle ground between "championships mean everything" and "championships mean nothing". And the most damning evidence that makes you know this is true, is that literally no one ever tries to craft a Barkley or Karl Malone GOAT case.
Jordan stans, when will they learn? Just lol at this "intelligent" and "well thought out" "rationale".
