Rings don't matter as much nowadays to judge an NBA legend's legacy

Drygon · Post #1 » by **Drygon** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:33 pm

Back in the days, I remember when people used to believe that winning a Championship was a gigantic deal-breaker to judge the legacy of a legendary NBA player.

However, rings are nowhere near as much of a deal nowadays. People are more aware that a lot of circumstances are involved with luck or other factors beyond a star player's control.

Instead, analytics + individual talent matters much more to judge someone's NBA legacy rather than a mere piece of metal.

Luka Doncic is much better player with a bigger resume than e.g. Jason Tatum who won a Championship on a stacked Celtic Roster. Nobody would put Kevin Durant over Hakeem Olajuwon in the all-time ranking for the same reason.

bledredwine · Post #2 » by **bledredwine** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:37 pm

I mean…. no. If a certain player has championships and finals MVPs, then they consistently know how to win as leader of the team.
Do Jordan's nonstop championships mean nothing as a leader? Duncan's? Kareem, Bird, Magic or Russell? These are the six best leaders in history.

Winning is the most important aspect of sports. How much did that individual impact winning? Did they consistently rise up to the occasion, dominate and win championships? That matters more than anything.

Achievements are also important, but now winning is more important than ever, because you have players with empty stats and nothing to show. Then you have players who can’t do it in the playoffs.

When did Tatum win FMVP? I totally missed it.

DCasey91 · Post #3 » by **DCasey91** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:38 pm

I agree. Teams wins championships

The caveat though because its 5x5 it's more weighted to the top. More or less a Pyramid and you want to form Voltron

Hence all the "Rings" culture

Far away from Baseball for a team's perspective for example. Ohtani was good when bases on, but had a subpar outing and worse was Judgey (Mookie my fav was awesome) in the playoffs. Way different game with separate impact

Putting a players overall ranking purely on the amount of rings is wrong thinking.

I know for a fact in a couple sports from players themselves have said that guy wasn't fit to tie his shoelaces. It's just that they were on a crap team or average team

More of a peaks person anyway so rings don't matter as much as the quality of play.

Chessboxer · Post #4 » by **Chessboxer** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:49 pm

bledredwine wrote:I mean…. no. If a certain player has championships and finals MVPs, then the consistently know how to win as leader of the team.

Winning is the most important aspect of sports. How much did that individual impact winning? Did they consistently rise up to the occasion, dominate and win championships? That matters more than anything.

Achievements are also important, but now winning is more important than ever, because you have players with empty stats and nothing to show. Then you have players who can’t do it in the playoffs.

When did Tatum win FMVP? I totally missed it.

I really hope we don't go down this path. Rings are important because they are a measure of competitive greatness, how the best players perform at the highest stage against the best competition in the league. Like ex GM of the Warriors Bob Myers said, the NBA playoffs are so different from the regular season, that it is almost a different sport. You have the best teams/players in the league, gameplanning to stop you in a controlled environment, a 7 game series.

It takes a measure of will, determination, and mental toughness to win a championship. It is not easy to win your last game of the season. These are things that analytics can't measure, and that is why Rings trump MVPs.

Post #5 » by **bisme37** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:52 pm

bledredwine wrote:I mean…. no. If a certain player has championships and finals MVPs, then the consistently know how to win as leader of the team.

Winning is the most important aspect of sports. How much did that individual impact winning? Did they consistently rise up to the occasion, dominate and win championships? That matters more than anything.

Achievements are also important, but now winning is more important than ever, because you have players with empty stats and nothing to show. Then you have players who can’t do it in the playoffs.

When did Tatum win FMVP? I totally missed it.

As someone who rode the Celtics rollercoaster over the course of Tatum's career, from the ups and downs to a title, a huge reason they finally broke through and won was precisely because JT did not care about winning FMVP.

As with many young stars, they come into the NBA wanting to score 50 every night and make allstar teams. The C's got better when JT realized he could score 50, or he could pass the ball and empower his teammates and play as a team and actually win a title.

A guy like Luka is still learning this and has not won. I disagree with the premise here (there's actually no evidence in the OP aside from the OP said so) and feel like putting such an emphasis on individual stats loses the plot on what's important in a team sport. And what happened to the importance of defense in this discussion?

The point of this whole thing is still to win, and great teams beat great players every time. Even the best players ever didn't win until they got a winning team around them.

Edrees · Post #6 » by **Edrees** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:53 pm

The reason nobody faults Luka for not getting a ring is because he's 25. If he doesn't have a ring at 35, his reputation will not be good, and you are deluding yourself if you think it will be. To your point nobody will think he's worse than Tatum even if he never wins one, sure,, but that really isn't saying much. If we're talking Legacy, we're comparing to other all time greats, not just contemporaries.

Imagine if Harden won 1 ring and Finals MVP. His entire image would be different.

phanman · Post #7 » by **phanman** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:01 pm

Disagree completely. Rings have never matter as much as they do now. Especially if you haven't broken through and won at least one, it limits how high you can ultimately rise and essentially plateau until you can win. There's a reason why guys like Chuck and Karl Malone have continued to drop in the all time rankings as guys like Dirk, Giannis and KG have won theirs. It's especially true if you have any shot of getting into the top 10 where everybody has multiple rings.

In regards to Tatum's case, stacked team or not he won. Going forward his career is going to be viewed a lot differently than if he didn't ultimately lead his team all the way. Winning 4 straight playoffs series is incredibly difficult and likewise with all the extra scrutiny that comes with playing in the Finals. I mean just look at what it did for KD.

jbsays · Post #8 » by **jbsays** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:04 pm

How is KD and Olajuwon an argument for this? Olajuwon won his first ring without another HOF'er on the roster. How many times has this happened? Olajuwon was also clearly the best player on both of his championship teams, not sure you can say the same for Durant.

Effigy · Post #9 » by **Effigy** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:09 pm

Rings shouldn't matter that much, but they're low hanging fruit and easy for people to point at who are bad at analysis.

My go to for this is Lebron. If Lebron never left Cleveland the first time he'd probably have 0-1 rings. He'd be the exact same player, but since he would never have teamed up with hall of famer after hall of famer, he doesn't win rings and so people wouldn't consider him the GOAT or #2 GOAT.

EmpireFalls · Post #10 » by **EmpireFalls** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:13 pm

Who had a better career?

Kevin Garnett vs Tony Parker
James Harden vs Klay Thompson
Charles Barkley vs Scottie Pippen

NZB2323 · Post #11 » by **NZB2323** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:13 pm

How about we use rings, Finals MVP, advanced stats, and circumstances to rate a player?

I’m fine with Hakeem ahead of Durant and Doncic ahead of Tatum, but we have Hakeem ahead of Malone, Durant ahead of Harden, and Jokic ahead of Doncic in part because of rings.

RB34 · Post #12 » by **RB34** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:28 pm

A lot of people these days are player fans. They jump from Star to star, without having any skin in the game.

Rings matter if you want to engage in legacy discourse, no one is forcing you to do that though.

YogurtProducer · Post #13 » by **YogurtProducer** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:34 pm

bisme37 wrote:As someone who rode the Celtics rollercoaster over the course of Tatum's career, from the ups and downs to a title, a huge reason they finally broke through and won was precisely because JT did not care about winning FMVP.

Just had to laugh at this :lol:

What exactly were the downs?

Was it losing in the ECF in 7 in his rookie year? Or making the finals by year 5? Or winning the title by year 7?

YogurtProducer · Post #14 » by **YogurtProducer** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:35 pm

EmpireFalls wrote:Who had a better career?

Kevin Garnett vs Tony Parker
James Harden vs Klay Thompson
Charles Barkley vs Scottie Pippen

Garnett, Harden, and Barkley.

Not really fair to hold it against a player they were not a part of stacked teams where a dozen + other guys could do what they did :lol:

JustBuzzin · Post #15 » by **JustBuzzin** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:38 pm

Facts

It's why Jokic can get called the GOAT with 1 championship. We living in weird times. You have to adapt to the new environment. If Jokic is the GOAT then we must accept he's the MF'n GOAT!

WiggOuts · Post #16 » by **WiggOuts** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:44 pm

The rings argument is so overblown. Ofcourse its important to win championships but like others have said, team win, not players alone.

Also, not all chips are equal. All those rings BOS got back in the day when they had most of the best players in the league on their team arent worth much. Rings like Lebron going back to CLE and beating the Warriors or Dirk beating the Heat are worth 10x those.

hauntedcomputer · Post #17 » by **hauntedcomputer** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:48 pm

I have been a fan of the NBA since 1969 and I never even heard the word "legacy" until Lebron started using it before he'd done anything.

LeBronSpaghetti · Post #18 » by **LeBronSpaghetti** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:50 pm

Mathematically the OP is right. Winning 5 rings when there are 15 teams in the league isn’t the same as winning 5 rings with 30 teams in the league. There are more teams, more talent, and more parity in the league today.

Black Jack · Post #19 » by **Black Jack** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:52 pm

jbsays wrote:How is KD and Olajuwon an argument for this? Olajuwon won his first ring without another HOF'er on the roster. How many times has this happened? Olajuwon was also clearly the best player on both of his championship teams, not sure you can say the same for Durant.

Durant was the best player on both of his title teams, let's keep it real. Curry deferred to him on offense plus Durant was guarding LeBron in single coverage and providing rim protection.

Black Jack · Post #20 » by **Black Jack** » Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:53 pm

JustBuzzin wrote:Facts

It's why Jokic can get called the GOAT with 1 championship. We living in weird times. You have to adapt to the new environment. If Jokic is the GOAT then we must accept he's the MF'n GOAT!

This thread is a welfare thread for Jokic.

He's not the GOAT if he retires with 1 ring and gaudy stats in an era with weak bigs and weak defense. Sorry.