RealGM

of course rings -shouldnt- determine how good a player was, but in practice they often do (they probably influence even people who try not to use them as a evaklation tool)

so everyone reputation would take a hit without then (or a boost with them) but who would be the biggest losers and gainers?

for example, imagine a world where harden, curry, durant, kawhi, chris paul all have the same numbers of rings, how would that change their reputstions and standings in historical rankings compared to now?

if lebron lost in 13 and 16 while curry 4-peated after durant joined (lets say lebron still outplayed curry but warruors barely won game 7) would -we- have curry over lebron now?

what if robinson had a better team and won hakeem rings with hakeem still outplaying him in losses? would we discuss robinson above him now?

what players legacies do you think would be the -biggest- changers with a bit more or less team siccess? (aka championships) whether here or in the general public opinions?

Dirks rep drastically changed after 11............He wouldve been unfairly labeled a choker and playoff bed **** if that didnt happen. **** ppl were ready to **** on him after that meltdown choke against the Blazers when Brandon Roy turned back the clock round 1

Webber.

*2002

Depends on what changes to make the results change. Do these star players still play at exactly the same level but their teammates are worse/opponents better or do they lose now because the player in question himself plays worse?

Dutchball97 wrote:Depends on what changes to make the results change. Do these star players still play at exactly the same level but their teammates are worse/opponents better or do they lose now because the player in question himself plays worse?

they play at the same level but rivals play better, teammates play worse, key close games go the other way

it can be realistic too, the lakers were not losing in 2001 but they -easily- could have lost in 2000 and 2002, how would shaq be viewed then?

Russell with 2 to 4 rings instead of 11 would most likely drop out of the top ten altogether.


Wilt with only one ring would most likely drop out of the top ten altogether.


If Hakeem has zero rings then most people likely get more critical about his countless first-round exits in the playoffs.


If Malone has 2 rings over a legendary dynasty in the Bulls then he is most likely viewed as a top ten player ever.



Shaq with only 2 rings to his name is most likely viewed as the biggest disappointment in basketball history.

Kyrie Irving.

I'm not sure he would be sought after by contenders if he didn't have a ring.

If Kobe wins in 2008.

He'd have 6 rings

3 Finals MVP's

Two three-peats

He also would be 6 and 1 in the finals.


Kobe most likely as a result of this would be viewed nowadays as a top 5 player of all time.




But on the other hand, If Kobe loses in 2010 to Boston.

He'd have 4 rings

1 finals MVP

He would also be 4 and 3 in the finals.



Kobe as a result of this would most likely never be ranked as a top ten player ever

With zero rings, people dismiss Bill Russell as a Dikembe Mutombo level defensive force that isn't good enough to be much more.

With more rings (say 8), people look at Wilt as the GOAT and take his individual dominance much more positively.

I think if David Robinson beats Olajuwon and Houston in 95 and wins one other, either 94 or 96, as the only star for his team, he likely would be seen as top 10, definitely top 12.

Karl Malone and John Stockton would be rated significantly higher had they won even just one championship. If they had won three straight, from 96-98, Malone is top 10 and Stockton top 20.

Harden? Imagine if he beats golden state and then the cavs one of those 2 times.

The reputation changed big time for Dirk when he won the title in 2011

falcolombardi wrote:of course rings -shouldnt- determine how good a player was, but in practice they often do (they probably influence even people who try not to use them as a evaklation tool)

so everyone reputation would take a hit without then (or a boost with them) but who would be the biggest losers and gainers?

for example, imagine a world where harden, curry, durant, kawhi, chris paul all have the same numbers of rings, how would that change their reputstions and standings in historical rankings compared to now?

if lebron lost in 13 and 16 while curry 4-peated after durant joined (lets say lebron still outplayed curry but warruors barely won game 7) would -we- have curry over lebron now?

what if robinson had a better team and won hakeem rings with hakeem still outplaying him in losses? would we discuss robinson above him now?

what players legacies do you think would be the -biggest- changers with a bit more or less team siccess? (aka championships) whether here or in the general public opinions?

Robinson won as many rings as Hakeem, does it partially answer your question?

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:of course rings -shouldnt- determine how good a player was, but in practice they often do (they probably influence even people who try not to use them as a evaklation tool)

so everyone reputation would take a hit without then (or a boost with them) but who would be the biggest losers and gainers?

for example, imagine a world where harden, curry, durant, kawhi, chris paul all have the same numbers of rings, how would that change their reputstions and standings in historical rankings compared to now?

if lebron lost in 13 and 16 while curry 4-peated after durant joined (lets say lebron still outplayed curry but warruors barely won game 7) would -we- have curry over lebron now?

what if robinson had a better team and won hakeem rings with hakeem still outplaying him in losses? would we discuss robinson above him now?

what players legacies do you think would be the -biggest- changers with a bit more or less team siccess? (aka championships) whether here or in the general public opinions?

Robinson won as many rings as Hakeem, does it partially answer your question?

But he was not the man in his 2 rings

Homer38 wrote:

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:of course rings -shouldnt- determine how good a player was, but in practice they often do (they probably influence even people who try not to use them as a evaklation tool)

so everyone reputation would take a hit without then (or a boost with them) but who would be the biggest losers and gainers?

for example, imagine a world where harden, curry, durant, kawhi, chris paul all have the same numbers of rings, how would that change their reputstions and standings in historical rankings compared to now?

if lebron lost in 13 and 16 while curry 4-peated after durant joined (lets say lebron still outplayed curry but warruors barely won game 7) would -we- have curry over lebron now?

what if robinson had a better team and won hakeem rings with hakeem still outplaying him in losses? would we discuss robinson above him now?

what players legacies do you think would be the -biggest- changers with a bit more or less team siccess? (aka championships) whether here or in the general public opinions?

Robinson won as many rings as Hakeem, does it partially answer your question?

But he was not the man in his 2 rings

This is a problem with player fans like you. You are always focused on one man in a TEAM sport. Robinson earned his championships by contributing to his team with his elite play. We can always debate who is better or not, but this obsession with who is "the man" doesn't belong in a team sport like basketball. There is too many celebrity fans in basketball these days, it's become similar to music industry where every artist has their army of fans that constantly argue agaisnt each other.

Gooner wrote:

Homer38 wrote:

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:
Robinson won as many rings as Hakeem, does it partially answer your question?

But he was not the man in his 2 rings

This is a problem with player fans like you. You are always focused on one man in a TEAM sport. Robinson earned his championships by contributing to his team with his elite play. We can always debate who is better or not, but this obsession with who is "the man" doesn't belong in a team sport like basketball. There is too many celebrity fans in basketball these days, it's become similar to music industry where every artist has their army of fans that constantly argue agaisnt each other.

Never said that Robinson did not deserve his 2 rings ... In fact he was for my part very underrated and this is unfair to be judge by only one bad series as for Robinson(in 1995 vs Hakeem)

It's just that in 1999,Duncan was the best player of the spurs and in 2003 he was in his last year of his career and for Hakeem was the clear cut best player of the rockets... This is pretty obvious,unless you think Scottie Pippen's rings(even if he was crucial to the bulls) have the same value that Jordan

Homer38 wrote:

Gooner wrote:

Homer38 wrote:
But he was not the man in his 2 rings

This is a problem with player fans like you. You are always focused on one man in a TEAM sport. Robinson earned his championships by contributing to his team with his elite play. We can always debate who is better or not, but this obsession with who is "the man" doesn't belong in a team sport like basketball. There is too many celebrity fans in basketball these days, it's become similar to music industry where every artist has their army of fans that constantly argue agaisnt each other.

Never said that Robinson did not deserve his 2 rings ... In fact he was for my part very underrated and this is unfair to be judge by only one bad series as for Robinson(in 1995 vs Hakeem)

It's just that in 1999,Duncan was the best player of the spurs and in 2003 he was in his last year of his career and for Hakeem was the clear cut best player of the rockets... This is pretty obvious,unless you think Scottie Pippen's rings(even if he was crucial to the bulls) have the same value that Jordan

Of course Pippen's rings have the same value as Jordans, they won it together. Jordan is a better player, but they won the championship together. There is no Jordan as we know him without Pippen.

Gooner wrote:

Homer38 wrote:

Gooner wrote:
This is a problem with player fans like you. You are always focused on one man in a TEAM sport. Robinson earned his championships by contributing to his team with his elite play. We can always debate who is better or not, but this obsession with who is "the man" doesn't belong in a team sport like basketball. There is too many celebrity fans in basketball these days, it's become similar to music industry where every artist has their army of fans that constantly argue agaisnt each other.

Never said that Robinson did not deserve his 2 rings ... In fact he was for my part very underrated and this is unfair to be judge by only one bad series as for Robinson(in 1995 vs Hakeem)

It's just that in 1999,Duncan was the best player of the spurs and in 2003 he was in his last year of his career and for Hakeem was the clear cut best player of the rockets... This is pretty obvious,unless you think Scottie Pippen's rings(even if he was crucial to the bulls) have the same value that Jordan

Of course Pippen's rings have the same value as Jordans, they won it together. Jordan is a better player, but they won the championship together. There is no Jordan as we know him without Pippen.

It's fine if you're consistent with that for all the players

Scottie Pippen.

He had two realistic opportunities to win a title without Michael Jordan. First was in 94 and the other was in 00. Both times he lost in a hard fought game 7. Imagine if Scottie Pippen's pulls out either one of those titles. His legacy would be completely different.

Ewing with a ring would have had a pretty complete resume.