If ________ wins a ring this year, they're now top ____ all time

[bigboi]

Just getting a ring doesn't mean much without context or else Patrick McCaw would have to be ranked above guys like Wilt and Hakeem on all-time lists. What matters is playing well and living up to or even exceeding expectations. For example Lauri leading the Jazz to a ring this season would be massive but would it really change his legacy that much more than if he took them to the WCF with the same level of play? In both cases expectations are exceeded individually and in a team context so the cherry on top of a ring would be nice but not the key reason for why Lauri would now be regarded significantly higher than before.

I think it only matters to actually win the ring for MVP level players who have yet to win a ring. Steph could win another 4 rings and it wouldn't really change anything because we know he's capable of that with a good enough team around him, the only factor here would be 4 extra seasons of presumably high level play. Jokic and Embiid are the clearest cases of guys who would benefit substantially from winning a ring because there are some doubts whether they could actually get it done, some of the younger guys like Luka and Tatum too but I feel like people still look at them as having more time.

Uh yes. No one gives af about wcf. That’s not an accomplishment, that Doesn’t matter in any sport. A ring changes the narrative completely. 10-20 years from now, when the next generation is looking at players, rings will come into play as always. If Lauri won a ring, his whole trajectory changes completely because it’d immediately make him a legend, carrying a crappy jazz team to the finals

[Dutchball97]

Just getting a ring doesn't mean much without context or else Patrick McCaw would have to be ranked above guys like Wilt and Hakeem on all-time lists. What matters is playing well and living up to or even exceeding expectations. For example Lauri leading the Jazz to a ring this season would be massive but would it really change his legacy that much more than if he took them to the WCF with the same level of play? In both cases expectations are exceeded individually and in a team context so the cherry on top of a ring would be nice but not the key reason for why Lauri would now be regarded significantly higher than before.

I think it only matters to actually win the ring for MVP level players who have yet to win a ring. Steph could win another 4 rings and it wouldn't really change anything because we know he's capable of that with a good enough team around him, the only factor here would be 4 extra seasons of presumably high level play. Jokic and Embiid are the clearest cases of guys who would benefit substantially from winning a ring because there are some doubts whether they could actually get it done, some of the younger guys like Luka and Tatum too but I feel like people still look at them as having more time.

Uh yes. No one gives af about wcf. That’s not an accomplishment, that Doesn’t matter in any sport. A ring changes the narrative completely. 10-20 years from now, when the next generation is looking at players, rings will come into play as always. If Lauri won a ring, his whole trajectory changes completely because it’d immediately make him a legend, carrying a crappy jazz team to the finals

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

[bigboi]

Just getting a ring doesn't mean much without context or else Patrick McCaw would have to be ranked above guys like Wilt and Hakeem on all-time lists. What matters is playing well and living up to or even exceeding expectations. For example Lauri leading the Jazz to a ring this season would be massive but would it really change his legacy that much more than if he took them to the WCF with the same level of play? In both cases expectations are exceeded individually and in a team context so the cherry on top of a ring would be nice but not the key reason for why Lauri would now be regarded significantly higher than before.

I think it only matters to actually win the ring for MVP level players who have yet to win a ring. Steph could win another 4 rings and it wouldn't really change anything because we know he's capable of that with a good enough team around him, the only factor here would be 4 extra seasons of presumably high level play. Jokic and Embiid are the clearest cases of guys who would benefit substantially from winning a ring because there are some doubts whether they could actually get it done, some of the younger guys like Luka and Tatum too but I feel like people still look at them as having more time.

Uh yes. No one gives af about wcf. That’s not an accomplishment, that Doesn’t matter in any sport. A ring changes the narrative completely. 10-20 years from now, when the next generation is looking at players, rings will come into play as always. If Lauri won a ring, his whole trajectory changes completely because it’d immediately make him a legend, carrying a crappy jazz team to the finals

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

[Dutchball97]

Uh yes. No one gives af about wcf. That’s not an accomplishment, that Doesn’t matter in any sport. A ring changes the narrative completely. 10-20 years from now, when the next generation is looking at players, rings will come into play as always. If Lauri won a ring, his whole trajectory changes completely because it’d immediately make him a legend, carrying a crappy jazz team to the finals

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

I don't know where you've been but people definitely haven't forgotten about the 02 Kings almost beating the Lakers. Even then you're arguing that Webber should be elevated if he had won a ring but that's how you get people thinking Isiah Thomas is a top 20 all-time player.

[Owly]

Uh yes. No one gives af about wcf. That’s not an accomplishment, that Doesn’t matter in any sport. A ring changes the narrative completely. 10-20 years from now, when the next generation is looking at players, rings will come into play as always. If Lauri won a ring, his whole trajectory changes completely because it’d immediately make him a legend, carrying a crappy jazz team to the finals

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

I agree with you on one thing ...
you responded to a post using the word "legacy" and to me that is about narrative driven, simplistic, superficial story of the league. And in that sense rings (especially as the perceived best player, often widely correlated with scoring and fame more than necessarily contribution at that point) are huge.

That said I'm inclined to agree with Dutchball97 here (and other players earlier regarding that standard of play and contribution to chance of winning by the individual are what is valuable to measure) that if the bounce of a ball one time on a single play - perhaps minimally, perhaps not at all influenced by that player - is going to wildly shift the view of a player.

I do disagree with mixing what many/most people care about, which as a descriptive ["what is"] argument is perhaps fine with "you literally play to win the game" which, whilst unclear, seem like it may be (and is certainly used by some as) a crude justification ["what should be"] of the crude measure of players which ... yes a championship is what teams do target but fails as an explanatory tool as to why what happened happened and seems to lead us towards/defend Salley>K Malone, Saul>Paul etc

I also disagree with the use of absolute language e.g. "absolutely", "no one cares", ""no one cares about almosts". I think many here do care about, for instance, the early 2000s Kings and the contribution of not just Webber but Stojakovic, Divac, Miller, Christie ...


There's a point where the debate seems to be arguing different terms.
Dutch argues "So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend?"
You argue: "No one cares about almosts or second places"
But it is isn't expressly acknowledged that the former argument (being argued against) sees reaching the finals as a significant tipping point, whilst you seem to be suggesting that only the title matters. That is, you're objecting to weaker versions of one another's argument.

[bigboi]

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

I agree with you on one thing ...
you responded to a post using the word "legacy" and to me that is about narrative driven, simplistic, superficial story of the league. And in that sense rings (especially as the perceived best player, often widely correlated with scoring and fame more than necessarily contribution at that point) are huge.

That said I'm inclined to agree with Dutchball97 here (and other players earlier regarding that standard of play and contribution to chance of winning by the individual are what is valuable to measure) that if the bounce of a ball one time on a single play - perhaps minimally, perhaps not at all influenced by that player - is going to wildly shift the view of a player.

I do disagree with mixing what many/most people care about, which as a descriptive ["what is"] argument is perhaps fine with "you literally play to win the game" which, whilst unclear, seem like it may be (and is certainly used by some as) a crude justification ["what should be"] of the crude measure of players which ... yes a championship is what teams do target but fails as an explanatory tool as to why what happened happened and seems to lead us towards/defend Salley>K Malone, Saul>Paul etc

I also disagree with the use of absolute language e.g. "absolutely", "no one cares", ""no one cares about almosts". I think many here do care about, for instance, the early 2000s Kings and the contribution of not just Webber but Stojakovic, Divac, Miller, Christie ...


There's a point where the debate seems to be arguing different terms.
Dutch argues "So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend?"
You argue: "No one cares about almosts or second places"
But it is isn't expressly acknowledged that the former argument (being argued against) sees reaching the finals as a significant tipping point, whilst you seem to be suggesting that only the title matters. That is, you're objecting to weaker versions of one another's argument.

No, no one cares. Realgm is a tiny basketball forum. General public doesn’t care, Reddit the biggest basketball forum doesn’t care, Twitter another huge basketball forum doesn’t care. A lot of realgm’s takes would be viewed as ridiculous anywhere but here. We have folks seriously comparing Larry Bird and Dirk. No, the average basketball fan couldn’t care less about Chris Webber and the kings. They didn’t win so they effectively became irrelevant. People don’t care so much that Chris Webber with the same career with a ring that year would’ve been a SHOE IN for the HOF. Get real, idk why this forum tries to act like sports isn’t about championships. That’s all that people care about. Championships will always trump all, no matter what someone’s stats are. Someone can tell me all they want that Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning do this and that, but that doesn’t matter because Tom Brady simply won more end of the day.

So my point stands. Lauri Markannen making WCF is irrelevant, no one will care about that even 3 years from now (see Luka, KD, Westbrook, Harden, etc) but him winning a chip this year changes his whole trajectory, narrative and he starts being called best young player and all this other jazz. Rings drives sports, nothing else. So back to the topic

[bigboi]

Just because some people in the future can't be bothered to take a look at NBA history beyond rings doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother in the present either. So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend? That's a shallow way to look at basketball imo.

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

I don't know where you've been but people definitely haven't forgotten about the 02 Kings almost beating the Lakers. Even then you're arguing that Webber should be elevated if he had won a ring but that's how you get people thinking Isiah Thomas is a top 20 all-time player.

Idk where you been. No one CARES. That’s like saying people care about the 08 Hawks because they almost eliminated the championship Celtics in the playoffs. I promise you, that team doesn’t even cross the mind of the average NBA fan. And yes, Webber would’ve been inducted into HOF right away with a ring. And yes, IT is rated high because he has rings. That’s part of the game, to win. I feel like some of you never played sports before. No one cares about the team that almost did something. That’s just a fact of life

[parsnips33]

I'm somewhere between "obviously winning a ring matters more than making it to the conference finals" and "literally nothing besides winning a ring matters"

[Owly]

Yes. It means absolutely nothing. Are you new to this? Do people remember Chris Webber and the kings almost beating the lakers in early 2000s? No, no one cares. Now if Kings had won a ring then I guarantee you, the narrative changes completely and he’s an auto legend. And that’s how sports have always been, you literally play to win the game. No one cares about almosts or second places. This is across literally every single sport, I don’t understand how you’re even arguing this. Jim Kelly lost 4 super bowls and no one gives af about him, if he won even just 1 then the narrative completely shifts and he’s considered one of the greats.

I agree with you on one thing ...
you responded to a post using the word "legacy" and to me that is about narrative driven, simplistic, superficial story of the league. And in that sense rings (especially as the perceived best player, often widely correlated with scoring and fame more than necessarily contribution at that point) are huge.

That said I'm inclined to agree with Dutchball97 here (and other players earlier regarding that standard of play and contribution to chance of winning by the individual are what is valuable to measure) that if the bounce of a ball one time on a single play - perhaps minimally, perhaps not at all influenced by that player - is going to wildly shift the view of a player.

I do disagree with mixing what many/most people care about, which as a descriptive ["what is"] argument is perhaps fine with "you literally play to win the game" which, whilst unclear, seem like it may be (and is certainly used by some as) a crude justification ["what should be"] of the crude measure of players which ... yes a championship is what teams do target but fails as an explanatory tool as to why what happened happened and seems to lead us towards/defend Salley>K Malone, Saul>Paul etc

I also disagree with the use of absolute language e.g. "absolutely", "no one cares", ""no one cares about almosts". I think many here do care about, for instance, the early 2000s Kings and the contribution of not just Webber but Stojakovic, Divac, Miller, Christie ...


There's a point where the debate seems to be arguing different terms.
Dutch argues "So if the Jazz lost a close game 7 in the WCF it'd mean nothing but if one or two shots fall the other way and they do make it to the finals now suddenly Lauri is a legend?"
You argue: "No one cares about almosts or second places"
But it is isn't expressly acknowledged that the former argument (being argued against) sees reaching the finals as a significant tipping point, whilst you seem to be suggesting that only the title matters. That is, you're objecting to weaker versions of one another's argument.

No, no one cares. Realgm is a tiny basketball forum. General public doesn’t care, Reddit the biggest basketball forum doesn’t care, Twitter another huge basketball forum doesn’t care. A lot of realgm’s takes would be viewed as ridiculous anywhere but here. We have folks seriously comparing Larry Bird and Dirk. No, the average basketball fan couldn’t care less about Chris Webber and the kings. They didn’t win so they effectively became irrelevant. People don’t care so much that Chris Webber with the same career with a ring that year would’ve been a SHOE IN for the HOF. Get real, idk why this forum tries to act like sports isn’t about championships. That’s all that people care about. Championships will always trump all, no matter what someone’s stats are. Someone can tell me all they want that Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning do this and that, but that doesn’t matter because Tom Brady simply won more end of the day.

So my point stands. Lauri Markannen making WCF is irrelevant, no one will care about that even 3 years from now (see Luka, KD, Westbrook, Harden, etc) but him winning a chip this year changes his whole trajectory, narrative and he starts being called best young player and all this other jazz. Rings drives sports, nothing else. So back to the topic

Oaky so last go round on this, now it's clear that you are arguing not only "is" but "should"
1) You're talking to "no one" ... okay ....
2) Not sure if you read the post but you seem to have missed:
a)the point where what mainstream think point was essentially granted, not contested.
b) the part where the fallacy of titles as a measure of players because it's superficial and doesn't look at how titles are won and might be won. if we don't have vastly superior tools independent of titles then team one with titles in multiple locations (just in case one thought they were lucky, though I don't know why, that doesn't come into it)
Charles Johnson ('75, '78 champ)
Steve Kerr ('96, '97, '98, '99, '03)
Robert Horry ('94, '95, '00, '01, '02, '05, '07)
John Salley ('89, '90, '96, '00)
James Edwards ('89, '90, '96)

bench
Will Perdue ('91, '92, '93, '99)
Slater Martin ('50, '52, '53, '54, '58)
Pep Saul ('51, '52, '53, '54)
Gerald Henderson ('81, '84, '90)
Ron Harper ('96, '97, '98, '00, '01)
James Jones ('12, '13, '16)
Lindsey Hunter (’02, ’04)
Wally Walker (Trail Blazers ’77, Supersonics ’79)
Jack Coleman (Rochester ’51, St Louis ’58)
Walt Davis (Philadelphia ’56, St Louis ’58)
Earl Cureton (Philadelphia ’83, Houston ’94)
(ABA additions)
Tom Thacker ( once NBA ‘68 Celtics, ’70 Pacers - also NCAA Cincinnati ’61, ’62)
Bill Melchionni (once NBA '67 76ers, '74 and '76 Nets)
Jim Eakins ('69 Oaks, '76 Nets)
Ted McClain ('75 Colonels, '76 Nets)

would be vastly better than team 2
(I'll limit myself to non-active players, lest they suddenly make their entire career better retrospectively by winning a title including leaving Paul, Harden ... off the board)
John Stockton
Reggie Miller
Elgin Baylor*
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing

bench
Charles Barkley
George Gervin
Bob Lanier
Tracy McGrady
Steve Nash
Dominique Wilkins

* = (going with what seems to be basketball narrative history perception here, in the actual, literal sense he did get a ring for '72 [does that mean those just discovering this have to elevate him]- could sub in Barkley and bring Alex English onto the bench if necessary)

It's an argument that Sam Cassell was better at the start and end of his career than [edit to complete thought: ... in his prime.]

Honestly you now seem to be arguing for popular perception = right/truth/all that matters, (whilst contribution "doesn't matter") which ... yeah ...

{edit addition/footnote] Fwiw, titles aren't the only thing that matter even in the narrative significance of a simplistic model of NBA history. Pete Maravich was never a champion (and never close to one as a significant player, if you know, contribution and how you play actually matters), Gus Williams was. But flash and a particular type of statistical contribution and race and a tragic narrative arc mean Maravich is a far more "cared about", player that typical narrative seems to deem significant, with books and movies about him.

[giordunk]

If LeBron wins a title this year it's still not enough for him to surpass MJ in some people's eyes??