How would we view a ringless LeBron?

[dreamshake34]

LeBron is considered a top 1-3 player all time in pretty much every online or in person discussion I’ve ever seen or been a part of. How far would he drop if you take away the championships but leave everything else intact?

I present to you the following scenarios…

2012 - LeBron still has his infamous Game 6 in Boston but suffers a game ending injury at the start of game 7. Boston advances and defeats OKC to win the Finals.

2013 - the Ray Allen corner 3 shot rattles in and out. Spurs rebound the ball and ice the game with some late FTs. Spurs win the Finals.

2016 - Curry hits a couple of late game heroic 3PT shots to win in the last seconds. Warriors win the Finals.

2020 - LeBron suffers an untimely unfortunate injury halfway through the Finals and doesn’t return. Heat capitalize on the opportunity and force a game 7 where Butler seals the deal. Heat win the Finals.

Everything else about LeBrons career remains exactly intact up to and including to this present day. How differently would he be seen in historical and ATG discussions? is he now lumped into the Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Steve Nash, Chris Paul tier of ATG players that just couldn’t get it done or would he still be viewed comfortably above them?

[Note30]

How would you view Jordan, Magic, Kareem, TD, Kobe, Shaq etc if none of them won any rings?

He would absolutely be lumped in with those other players except for the fact he might be viewed differently because he would have gone 0-10.

I think while people would put him in the same pool, he'd definitely be head and shoulders above them.

Keep in mind all of his current rings have supposed asterisks on them as well.

2012 Lockout ring/baby Thunder
2013 Ray Allen 3
2016 Draymond suspension/ Kyrie 3
2020 Mickey Mouse ring

Not saying I agree with the above statements, just what I've read.

[AEnigma]

He would be the best ringless player ever by a massive margin. On this forum, he would be seen like Garnett with Chris Paul luck — and to that point, being injured twice would indeed make him a worse player, and while I think it might be necessary in 2020 for him to miss Games 6 and 7 with injury, in 2012 I think the better alternative is to just say Bosh and Wade were injured in Game 6. That way you truly do have the same player just with two added injury games (onto a player who has never missed a postseason game because of injury).

Anyway securely top 15 and in plenty of people’s top 10, but you do kind-of need to win to be taken seriously in basketball… most sports, really. Dan Marino is respected in the NFL, but he is the only ringless quarterback you see in top 15 discussions. Marcel Dionne is probably the best NHLer to never win a cup, and I am not sure he typically makes top 30 all-time discussions. In soccer/futbol, I think pretty much every all-timer has some meaningful trophy… not sure where exactly Harry Kane ranks, but he seems to be the best with nothing, and top 30 feels like a stretch for him too. Barry Bonds is the only ringless guy with similar status to Lebron, and at that point we need to acknowledge all these sports are less superstar-reliant than in basketball.

If Lebron because of the above described bad luck wins zero, I would still think he deserves to be the #1 draft pick among all players in NBA history, and I think most neutrals would still look and see him as a better player than at that point clearly more successful players like Steph and Durant and Duncan, but never winning is a massive cap on a legacy. He would still have the MVPs, and people care about that enough to keep him comfortably above guys like Karl Malone, but you need to win to be taken as seriously as you should be.

[Owly]

How would you view Jordan, Magic, Kareem, TD, Kobe, Shaq etc if none of them won any rings?

He would absolutely be lumped in with those other players except for the fact he might be viewed differently because he would have gone 0-10.

I think while people would put him in the same pool, he'd definitely be head and shoulders above them.

Keep in mind all of his current rings have supposed asterisks on them as well.

2012 Lockout ring/baby Thunder
2013 Ray Allen 3
2016 Draymond suspension/ Kyrie 3
2020 Mickey Mouse ring

Not saying I agree with the above statements, just what I've read.

People can and do put asterisks on all rings. I believe there are videos about it.

And those asterisks (and people picking and choosing and believing in them as "asterisks" rather than contexts) are almost inevitably as silly as ring count player evaluation. There will not be every player healthy for any season. Context is really important in assessing the level of the team. If there's a referee thing as in 1951 or 1998 where one can argue black and white indisputable calls then that's important context in deciding the series and you may want to flag that up, okay. But the "asterisk" thing is sometimes pretty toxic (and sometimes biased). And at times silly because it seems to want to put a lot of weight on things being exactly as they were and the team level champ really matters for players and then also ... but if I flip certain shots in a particular direction ...

[ShotCreator]

I think his non-winning seasons(09, 10, 17) are probably his best overall.

I’m not seeing him any differently. Best career ever, with possibly the best peak.

But I’m a guy who thinks KG somewhat easily edged out the 00’s decade as best player, and that Chris Paul had a better career than Curry and Kobe by almost any measure(longevity and prime play, Curry might peak a tad higher for a season or two).

[Snakebites]

I think the response here is that Lebron WOULDN'T be ringless.

That is to say, he'd have to be fundamentally deficient as a player in ways that Lebron is not in order to be ringless.

It's a flawed premise. How would we view Allen Iverson if he had a career 60%TS?

This line of discussion MIGHT play better for a player like Dirk Nowitzki who put together one great title run, or KG who was ringless until going to a better team. And in that case I'd say they'd probably be viewed a bit differently without their rings but ultimately shouldn't be IMO.

[Cavsfansince84]

People can and do put asterisks on all rings. I believe there are videos about it.

And those asterisks (and people picking and choosing and believing in them as "asterisks" rather than contexts) are almost inevitably as silly as ring count player evaluation. There will not be every player healthy for any season. Context is really important in assessing the level of the team. If there's a referee thing as in 1951 or 1998 where one can argue black and white indisputable calls then that's important context in deciding the series and you may want to flag that up, okay. But the "asterisk" thing is sometimes pretty toxic (and sometimes biased). And at times silly because it seems to want to put a lot of weight on things being exactly as they were and the team level champ really matters for players and then also ... but if I flip certain shots in a particular direction ...

Overall I agree though I'd add that almost 100% of the time an asterisk is used by people its to discredit a title to further some other narrative people want to run with. I mean you can even do it with some of Russell's due to injuries to Wilt's teams in 68/69 or times where Jones had to hit shots that could make or break their season. People want to use asterisks instead of just accepting that nearly all titles have some degree of context that may have played into them without having to use an asterisk to delegitimize it or w/e.

[lessthanjake]

If that happened, he would be viewed as the ultimate disappointment. And rightfully so, since what we are positing is that a player ends up ringless who is *substantially* better than the other ringless greats. It would be easily the most disappointing of any ringless player. His defenders would point out that he was unlucky (which would be a very valid point, since we are basically positing a string of bad luck to get us to zero rings), but the general consensus would just be that he was a disappointing loser. As for where he’d rank, he’d be right at the top of the ringless-guys group, but not above guys who have won a bunch of titles. Fundamentally, though, the chances of everything shaking out in a way where someone as good as LeBron doesn’t win a title is virtually zero. So he’d either had to have cosmically bad luck or actually just be a materially lesser player than he was in reality.

[Note30]

I think the response here is that Lebron WOULDN'T be ringless.

That is to say, he'd have to be fundamentally deficient as a player in ways that Lebron is not in order to be ringless.

It's a flawed premise. How would we view Allen Iverson if he had a career 60%TS?

This line of discussion MIGHT play better for a player like Dirk Nowitzki who put together one great title run, or KG who was ringless until going to a better team. And in that case I'd say they'd probably be viewed a bit differently without their rings but ultimately shouldn't be IMO.

He would be if he hadn't formed all those super teams. Please.

[AEnigma]

I think the response here is that Lebron WOULDN'T be ringless.

That is to say, he'd have to be fundamentally deficient as a player in ways that Lebron is not in order to be ringless.

It's a flawed premise. How would we view Allen Iverson if he had a career 60%TS?

This line of discussion MIGHT play better for a player like Dirk Nowitzki who put together one great title run, or KG who was ringless until going to a better team. And in that case I'd say they'd probably be viewed a bit differently without their rings but ultimately shouldn't be IMO.

He would be if he hadn't formed all those super teams. Please.

There are maybe three title teams in league history which did not have multiple all-star calibre teammates in their prime and/or at least one other Hall-of-Famer, and pretty much all of them are seen as bottom-tier champions. The only meaningful difference is that the Cavaliers were never able to draft those types of players when they had Lebron.

[One_and_Done]

Provided he played the same I would view him exactly the same way.

[Note30]

I think the response here is that Lebron WOULDN'T be ringless.

That is to say, he'd have to be fundamentally deficient as a player in ways that Lebron is not in order to be ringless.

It's a flawed premise. How would we view Allen Iverson if he had a career 60%TS?

This line of discussion MIGHT play better for a player like Dirk Nowitzki who put together one great title run, or KG who was ringless until going to a better team. And in that case I'd say they'd probably be viewed a bit differently without their rings but ultimately shouldn't be IMO.

He would be if he hadn't formed all those super teams. Please.

There are maybe three title teams in league history which did not have multiple all-star calibre teammates in their prime and/or at least one other Hall-of-Famer, and pretty much all of them are seen as bottom-tier champions. The only meaningful difference is that the Cavaliers were never able to draft those types of players when they had Lebron.

You mean all the ones that played in LeBrons era?

2011 Mavs
2004 Pistons
2014 Spurs (old TD, old Manu, young KL)

I don't think any of these are bottom tier?

[Snakebites]

I mean, fine. Lebron might be ringless if he'd played his entire career with Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao. Who knows how many rings Kobe would have without Shaq if he was playing with Lamar Odom and Smush Parker as his number 2 and 3 scorers. And Jordan? I dunno, maybe with Charles Oakley as his robin he could have been a dynasty. But I doubt it.

It's irrelevant because that never would have happened that way.

[OhayoKD]

I mean, fine. Lebron might be ringless if he'd played his entire career with Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao. Who knows how many rings Kobe would have without Shaq if he was playing with Lamar Odom and Smush Parker as his number 2 and 3 scorers. And Jordan? I dunno, maybe with Charles Oakley as his robin he could have been a dynasty. But I doubt it.

It's irrelevant because that never would have happened that way.

Friendly reminder that cleveland team Lebron won with won about as much without lebron trying to win as the bulls without Jordan won trying to lose in 84 amd 86.

But you know, beating 73-win teams is just floor-raising

[homecourtloss]

I think the response here is that Lebron WOULDN'T be ringless.

That is to say, he'd have to be fundamentally deficient as a player in ways that Lebron is not in order to be ringless.

It's a flawed premise. How would we view Allen Iverson if he had a career 60%TS?

This line of discussion MIGHT play better for a player like Dirk Nowitzki who put together one great title run, or KG who was ringless until going to a better team. And in that case I'd say they'd probably be viewed a bit differently without their rings but ultimately shouldn't be IMO.

He would be if he hadn't formed all those super teams. Please.

Was this meant for the GB or YouTube comments?

[AEnigma]

He would be if he hadn't formed all those super teams. Please.

There are maybe three title teams in league history which did not have multiple all-star calibre teammates in their prime and/or at least one other Hall-of-Famer, and pretty much all of them are seen as bottom-tier champions. The only meaningful difference is that the Cavaliers were never able to draft those types of players when they had Lebron.

You mean all the ones that played in LeBrons era?

2011 Mavs

Kidd is in the Hall-of-Fame, Kidd was an all-star the year before and was at the end of his extended prime, and Chandler was an all-star two years later (and all-NBA one year later) with an at best comparable season.

2004 Pistons

Billups and Ben are in the Hall (as is Larry Brown), Billups and Rip were at the start of their primes, Ben was all-star/all-NBA and in his peak season, and Rasheed was in the middle of his prime (which was bookened with all-star appearances in 2001 and 2008).

2014 Spurs (old TD, old Manu, young KL)

… Four Hall-of-Famers (plus Popovich), Parker was an all-star/NBA that year, Duncan was an all-star/NBA in both surrounding years, and Kawhi was at the start of his prime.

I don't think any of these are bottom tier?

None of them apply to what I said. Closest is the Mavericks, who are generally regarded as a relative carry but definitely do get disrespected in all-time team discussions by virtue of being a relative one-off.

I also doubt you are arguing Lebron would be incapable of winning in place of the lead star of any of those “non-superteams”.

[Note30]

There are maybe three title teams in league history which did not have multiple all-star calibre teammates in their prime and/or at least one other Hall-of-Famer, and pretty much all of them are seen as bottom-tier champions. The only meaningful difference is that the Cavaliers were never able to draft those types of players when they had Lebron.

You mean all the ones that played in LeBrons era?

2011 Mavs

Kidd is in the Hall-of-Fame, Kidd was an all-star the year before and was at the end of his extended prime, and Chandler was an all-star two years later (and all-NBA one year later) with an at best comparable season.

2004 Pistons

Billups and Ben are in the Hall (as is Larry Brown), Billups and Rip were at the start of their primes, Ben was all-star/all-NBA and in his peak season, and Rasheed was in the middle of his prime (which was bookened with all-star appearances in 2001 and 2008).

2014 Spurs (old TD, old Manu, young KL)

… Four Hall-of-Famers (plus Popovich), Parker was an all-star/NBA that year, Duncan was an all-star/NBA in both surrounding years, and Kawhi was at the start of his prime.

I don't think any of these are bottom tier?

None of them apply to what I said. Closest is the Mavericks, who are generally regarded as a relative carry but definitely do get disrespected in all-time team discussions by virtue of being a relative one-off.

I also doubt you are arguing Lebron would be incapable of winning in place of the lead star of any of those “non-superteams”.

You can easily do that for any team if you put a qualifier for anytime in their careers.

[OhayoKD]

You mean all the ones that played in LeBrons era?

2011 Mavs

Kidd is in the Hall-of-Fame, Kidd was an all-star the year before and was at the end of his extended prime, and Chandler was an all-star two years later (and all-NBA one year later) with an at best comparable season.

2004 Pistons

Billups and Ben are in the Hall (as is Larry Brown), Billups and Rip were at the start of their primes, Ben was all-star/all-NBA and in his peak season, and Rasheed was in the middle of his prime (which was bookened with all-star appearances in 2001 and 2008).

2014 Spurs (old TD, old Manu, young KL)

… Four Hall-of-Famers (plus Popovich), Parker was an all-star/NBA that year, Duncan was an all-star/NBA in both surrounding years, and Kawhi was at the start of his prime.

I don't think any of these are bottom tier?

None of them apply to what I said. Closest is the Mavericks, who are generally regarded as a relative carry but definitely do get disrespected in all-time team discussions by virtue of being a relative one-off.

I also doubt you are arguing Lebron would be incapable of winning in place of the lead star of any of those “non-superteams”.

You can easily do that for any team if you put a qualifier for anytime in their careers.

By that vantage point, Lebron had no all-stars when he won in 2016

[Rishkar]

LeBron is considered a top 1-3 player all time in pretty much every online or in person discussion I’ve ever seen or been a part of. How far would he drop if you take away the championships but leave everything else intact?

I present to you the following scenarios…

2012 - LeBron still has his infamous Game 6 in Boston but suffers a game ending injury at the start of game 7. Boston advances and defeats OKC to win the Finals.

2013 - the Ray Allen corner 3 shot rattles in and out. Spurs rebound the ball and ice the game with some late FTs. Spurs win the Finals.

2016 - Curry hits a couple of late game heroic 3PT shots to win in the last seconds. Warriors win the Finals.

2020 - LeBron suffers an untimely unfortunate injury halfway through the Finals and doesn’t return. Heat capitalize on the opportunity and force a game 7 where Butler seals the deal. Heat win the Finals.

Everything else about LeBrons career remains exactly intact up to and including to this present day. How differently would he be seen in historical and ATG discussions? is he now lumped into the Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Steve Nash, Chris Paul tier of ATG players that just couldn’t get it done or would he still be viewed comfortably above them?

He'd drop from second (behind Russell) to fourth (behind Russell, Jordan, and Kareem)

[migya]

I mean, fine. Lebron might be ringless if he'd played his entire career with Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao. Who knows how many rings Kobe would have without Shaq if he was playing with Lamar Odom and Smush Parker as his number 2 and 3 scorers. And Jordan? I dunno, maybe with Charles Oakley as his robin he could have been a dynasty. But I doubt it.

It's irrelevant because that never would have happened that way.

To be really objective, if Kyrie didn't make that shot in 2016, they don't win, Allen doesn't make his, they don't win, Butler and Adebayo weren't injured, they probably don't win as it went to six anyway. OKC was close in all games and could've won with a little more experience (and refs calling things). Lebron had a fair amount of luck, in truth. It is what it is and he has four.