RealGM

In your case, they are mutually exclusive.

You either make the Hall of Fame, but win 0 championships

Win 1 or more championships, but don't make the Hall of Fame

What would you rather accomplish?

Would you rather have 6 rings but no Hall or Hall but 0 rings? How many championships do you have to win in order to make up for not making the hall?

ie would you rather have the career of Robert Horry or that of John Stockton?

Hall of Fame, better individual excellence than being a second fiddle and riding a better players **** to a ring.

ubernathan wrote:Hall of Fame, better individual excellence than being a second fiddle and riding a better players **** to a ring.

I understand your thinking but the HOF is a vote and good players can get screwed.

Dennis Johnson, Jojo White, Maurice Cheeks, and Andrew Toney are examples.....Byron Scott and Danny Ainge are less obvious but still in a somewhat similar situation.

None the title teams those first four guys played on was going to win the title without them.

It cuts both ways. A great player on bad teams will take the HOF but excellent players that fall short of the HOF will take the title IMO.

HOF, because i will forever be remebered as a Hall of Famer, champions fade quickly...

hof because even ira newble can win a championship.

Alex_De_Large wrote:hof because even ira newble can win a championship.

Mengke Bateer has a ring.

HOF easily.

You actually have to be good to be in the HOF. On the other hand, you can Darko your way to a championship ring.

Hall of Fame easily. You make a lot more money having a HoF career too. You'll get max contracts, etc while a player with rings can be the 5th guy or even the 6th guy on his team getting paid the MLE.

HOF.

/thread

Ask Charles Barkley or John Stockton if they would trade in their Hall of Fame for 1 ring.

Ask Darko if he would trade his ring for the HOF.