Outside wrote:DraymondGold wrote: In terms of guys left out...
I think 1967 Wilt is a big one. His only title run during the heart of his prime, and the only time Russell's Celtics were beaten during the heart of their prime. Without that run, the regular season stats would definitely carry Wilt's reputation to some extent, but I wonder how much the popular narrative would put him over Oscar or West. Would he just be seen as a regular season stat padder, who couldn't win in the playoffs until Russell retired? On the other hand, if the Celtics win so many uninterrupted, people could just start to think that Russell played on such a superteam that no one could touch him, which ironically might have the opposite effect of lowering Russell too. The fact that the Celtics did lose showed they could be beaten, and may have given Russell more of a narrative push for emphasizing how many times his team came through in the clutch, and how we was able to claim two more titles even after defeat at the hands of his rival.
1971 gives both Oscar his only championship. He used to be a consensus top ~13 guy right outside the top 10 only a few years back (that triple double record used to carry more weight pre-Westbrook). Without the ring, it's possible he would slide lower in the top 20 in popular opinion. Likewise, 71 gives Kareem his only championship of the 1970s, which ironically enough many consider to be his decade, and his only championship without Magic. It's hard to picture how that would change people's opinion of him, but he could be seen as more of a regular season performer, or more reliant on Magic.
There's been a slew of recent guys who were clearly boosted by a specific ring. 2016 LeBron's 3-1 comeback against the 73 Warriors really started his GOAT campaign in popular culture (while putting a narrative cap on how good Curry could be viewed). 2019 gave Kawhi temporary 'best in world' status in the popular opinion, even if it wasn't true -- Kawhi's playoff rises might be seen a lot less favorably without a ring as a superstar with a high offensive load. 2021 was huge for Giannis, helping him overcome a reputation of being a playoff choker based on his 2019 and 2020 performances, and buoying him to consensus top 3 status at minimum for quite a few years after. 2022 removed some of the doubt that 2016 instilled for Curry. 2023 of course boosted Jokic to best-in-world reputation. And we'll see what 2025 will do for Shai, but I suspect it will be a key part of his reputation as a Tier 1 superstar (and would have been a source of grain criticism if he had lost in the finals to the underdog Pacers). In the era of legacy talk and parity, each superstar's ring gets an excess of hype and discussion during each offseason. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but if I had to choose one, I would think Giannis' ring in 2021 will give his legacy/narrative the biggest boost of the recent crop of champion-winning superstars. But of course there's no way of knowing, so we'll just have to wait and see!
It's two titles instead of one, plus another finals run, but to me, Durant benefitted massively from his two titles with Golden State when, if most of NBA fandom had its way, he never would have gone there. Considering how his post-GS career has gone, he easily could be ringless if he hadn't gone to the Warriors, and I think he would be viewed much differently if that were the case.
Maybe his post-GS career being a disappointment can be attributed in part to his Achilles injury, but his behavior seems like the largest factor to me.
By going to Golden State, he's a two-time champion, two-time finals MVP, and part of what many consider the greatest team of all time. Without that, his career would be viewed much less favorably.
Fair, KD's definitely a guy who was boosted by those two championships and in particular those two FMVPs in casual reputation, despite so many people criticizing him for joining the Warriors and thinking it was a soft move. Casual fans complain about it being a soft move, saying those championships don't count as much as others, then have him like ~13th all time due to his two FMVPs. The idiosyncrasies of ring culture...
Personally, of the two-championship MVP-level players, I think Hakeem might fall in reputation more than KD or Wilt without his two rings. Hakeem's arguably the weakest regular season performer of the group (at least in casual reputation), so if you take away his two rings and his two best playoff runs, he has less to fall back on. Like you say, KD (and I would add Wilt) would be viewed very differently and much less favorably without their rings, but at the same time, they are still famously good scorers in the regular season, and that carries a lot of weight for people. The probably end up being seen as chokers, but still pretty great players. Maybe Durant ends up ~20th instead of ~13th on the ESPN lists, as possibly the best ringless player of all time?
Hakeem -- a defensive first guy without as many playoffs to show he's a playoff improver -- likely gets the Garnett treatment of being massively and oddly underrated in popular culture. So people would look at Hakeem and think... "MVP, 2x DPOY, 9x All Defense, 12x All star, one of the greatest defensive players of all time... #26th all time", which is a pretty big fall from ~10th all time in popular opinion.
