New Rule: Championships dont' count unless you were the best player on the team

[makeready]

one time i tried to calculate "ring points" - basically the number of rings multiplied by the number of other teams that were in the league that year. the idea being that it's harder to win a title in the modern NBA because it has such a wider pool of talent. it basically devalues all the celtics rings from the 60s in favor of kobe and MJ... and robert horry, who has the most (rings * teams beaten) in history.

once i applied a "had to be the best player on the team" filter, it's MJ.

[makeready]

Watch on YouTube

[UcanUwill]

What do you think? It could end the "Superteam" BS.

Wait, this is not mental exercise thread, but a real suggestion? Oh the humanity...

[UcanUwill]

When it comes to discussing player's legacies and/or hall of fame credentials

That way:

Wade has 1 ring, tied with Dirk
Curry has 1 ring
KD has 2 rings
Irving has 0 rings
Kobe has 2 rings, 1 less than Shaq

What do you think? It could end the "Superteam" BS.

i fail to understand this. what in tarnation do you mean???

He means, that for example Wade would never want to team up with leBron, cause if they win, Wade doesnt get the championship... Get it? I remind, this is a serious suggestion by the OP

[Texas Chuck]

one time i tried to calculate "ring points" - basically the number of rings multiplied by the number of other teams that were in the league that year. the idea being that it's harder to win a title in the modern NBA because it has such a wider pool of talent. it basically devalues all the celtics rings from the 60s in favor of kobe and MJ... and robert horry, who has the most (rings * teams beaten) in history.

once i applied a "had to be the best player on the team" filter, it's MJ.

It is harder to win 4 series than 2. It is harder to win against a larger pool of talent with no arbitrary limits on black players and with the international presence. You aren't wrong.

However, 8 teams with 12 man rosters versus 30 with 15 man rosters means the talent is far more concentrated. Take Bill Russell who played like 10% of the games of his NBA career against Wilt. Nobody in the modern NBA has anything like that. Dirk and Duncan played 15 years together in the same division and met 6 times in the playoffs and don't approach that. And forget just Wilt, he played West a ton and Oscar a ton. Those are all top 15 players ever and Russell is facing 1 or more of them in more than 20% of his games. And of course we add in Pettit and Baylor and now we are approaching half the games he ever played featuring an elite opponent. And there were other greats he faced.

I'm not sure we should be devaluing Russell's rings that much when you are talking about level of competition. Nobody was consistently facing the level of elite players he was and dominating them over and over again.

[jlokine]

This has one of the dumbest threads of all time. Or at least top 5

and t's not even off season.. with playoffs coming up. haha

[prophet_of_rage]

one time i tried to calculate "ring points" - basically the number of rings multiplied by the number of other teams that were in the league that year. the idea being that it's harder to win a title in the modern NBA because it has such a wider pool of talent. it basically devalues all the celtics rings from the 60s in favor of kobe and MJ... and robert horry, who has the most (rings * teams beaten) in history.

once i applied a "had to be the best player on the team" filter, it's MJ.

But that ignores talent dilution which was a big factor in MJ's title runs. He never faced a big 3 or big 4 like he had. His main challenge in the East was a one man Ewing team and in the West a two-man of Stockton and Malone.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk