RealGM

Kinda the old debate about how much weight do rings need to have on one's perception and all time ranking, but how does your view of SGA and Halburton change if OKC/Indy win the chip this year? Assuming they have the highest importance for their respective teams

SGA not in the slightest. I already know who he is.
Halliburton? Hard to see Indy winning without him being great, so it would mean he led a pretty big upset. Yeah it would elevate him some in my eyes for sure.

Assuming they won because of SGA/Haliburton rather than someone else really stepping up, yes, it does. There are a lot of guys that are great in the regular season that don't carry it through in the playoffs and that hurts them like James Hardin. On the other hand, there are guys that make the NBA finals their showcase and to me, that helps them showing they can get it done under the most pressure against the toughest foes like Walt Frazier. So, it definitely helps them in the scenario you described.

not likely.

i know the public wide content mill is waiting this thing to to end to either coronate one or trash the other. if thunder wins sga a top 3 guard season pf all time, if the pacers win hali is a superstar bla bla and all that nonsense

but to me the results don't change much

if sga sucks or go full desperate like the glimpses of bad body language he's shown in game 5 vs denver, i might be a bit disappointed and suspicious.

on hali, in my eyes he doesn't have anything to lose here, only win. honestly think he'll disappear under dort bully ball/full court press he played against ant, like almost everyone in the league. i think he'll be unfairly criticized all the offseason if the pacers don't win... so anything possible he shows i'll receive with great praise, as the great player i think he is.

Winning a championship is winning a championship. It's that last 0.1% of the season and whoever is able to squeeze it out then that truly says something about you as a player.

I think the difference between where Haliburton would land on all-time lists with this year’s title compared to not winning a title would be enormous. Without a title, he’s likely to be a “that guy was an all-star level guy who maybe peaked into all-NBA territory” sort of player. Those guys don’t really get into all-time discussions much. With this title, he’d be a “star guy who led his team to a title” and that is actually pretty rarified air. And it’d be even more rarified air when we account for the fact that they’d have had to beat a 68-win, 12.7 SRS team to do it, and Haliburton would’ve made repeated game-winners in the playoff run. So it’d be a super memorable playoff run from him.

With SGA, obviously a title would matter a lot, because it always matters. But when you’re already a guy who has won MVP, you’re kind of already up there in all-time great discussions regardless of winning a title. A title definitely elevates an MVP-winner further, but you’re already high enough that you kind of need multiple titles in order to leapfrog a lot of people.

Depends entirely on how they play. If the series is a repeat of yesterday where SGA plays pretty good, but not flawlessly, Haliburton plays pretty poorly, and its the supporting casts that make all the difference then my view of SGA would go up and my view of Haliburton would go down

durantbird wrote:Kinda the old debate about how much weight do rings need to have on one's perception and all time ranking, but how does your view of SGA and Halburton change if OKC/Indy win the chip this year? Assuming they have the highest importance for their respective teams

OP portion bolded. But also, as the PGs for their respective teams, they have some (not total of course) responsibility for how their teammates play and Indiana shot around 9 points better than OKC with the same differential in 3 point %.