Rings are completely meaningsless to evaluate an NBA Legend's legacy

[og15]

No way! Completely meaningless doesn't make sense, a players path and performance to the ring factors into how good there are, not just the ring itself.

What we can say is that they aren't the be all end all, not even close and not the primary factor for evaluation.

What is needed in everything is analysis, evaluation and taking into account different context and factors.

Anytime people want to make any specific thing a be all end all, it is because they don't want to do the hard work of analysis.

[Big J]

The reason why this is idiotic is because playoffs are a completely different beast than the regular season. Generally the GOAT list is based off of what guys do in the postseason. If you put up big stats but never make the playoffs then we can’t rank you very high on the GOAT list because there are no signs of being able to win.

[CobraCommander]

As much as the new generation of fans would love stats, skill, talent or anything important to matter, nothing matters more than rings. Specifically being the core key catalyst and driver to winning championships.

If it’s stats and stats alone Wilts stats pretty much means he is the goat- litterally a unicorn that is wearing a damn GOAT mask.:.EXCEPT Mike has outrageous stats and more rings. And no one has Wilt as goat… except wilt and I would say 10000+ female fans- if this isn’t a goat year then what is -

Wilts best statistical season was the 1961-62 NBA where he put up the most GOAT like numbers in basketball history. His stats for that season were:
• Points per game (PPG): 50.4 (NBA record)
• Rebounds per game (RPG): 25.7
• Assists per game (APG): 2.4
• Field goal percentage: 50.6%
• Minutes per game: 48.5 (due to playing every minute, including overtime games).

Yo Zion and Embiid - Wilt played ever got dang minute

This was also the season in which Wilt dunked on the universe and scored 100 points in a single game against the New York Knicks-

Then years later he said Screw scoring and led the league in assist 1967-68, becoming the only center to ever do so (again goat like behavior)

His stats for that season were:
• Assists per game (APG): 8.6 (League leader)
• Points per game (PPG): 24.3
• Rebounds per game (RPG): 23.8
• Field goal percentage: 59.5%

Fun fact tho - wilt only has 2 rings - if rings didn’t matter wilt would be the Goat - cause he has the highest peak - imagine if wemby was 24 - 24 and 8… he would indeed be the mvp this year -

Another fun fact Russell’s stats are not worthy of being in the same room as wilt or most of the top guys - in 62
Points per game (PPG): 18.9 (Career-high)
• Rebounds per game (RPG): 23.6
• Assists per game (APG): 4.5
• Field goal percentage: 45.1%

Yet 11 rings has him in the top 4 or 5 or at worst top 10… which is fine but winning is what Russell did and while I didn’t watch him play… people value winning because it’s why they play.

So while I love Jokic and Giannis (the only guys with a real chance in the nba not named LBJ and Curry that have played 5 years trending to be top 10 to 20)- they have to end with more than 1 or 2 rings to guarantee a top 10 to 15 spot cause we already got a wilt with 2 rings not the goat and we already got a guy with 11 rings not the goat.

You gotta be near MJ or LBJ or Timmy peak with At least 2 rings to get in the pantheon with the absolute best.

Its why Harden and Westbrook and CP3 and Tmac and Nique and AI others are not in the convoy

[reddyplayerone]

Not all rings hold the same weight. There's Kevin Durant's multiple rings. There's Dirk Nowitzki's ring. Which is the bigger number. 1 or 2?

Two. Two is always the bigger number. That's how numbers work.

And yeah all rings count the same even if you don't like the people who won them.

So Two.

[bledredwine]

Translation:

I like Lebron.

[Big J]

Tf??? Giannis, dirk and jokic rings def weigh more than any of the heat’s rings with LeBron, wade, bosh, and any of the warrior rings with KD, klay, Steph, draymond

Stop it

I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.

If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.

Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.

Jamal Murray played at a superstar level during that postseason. He might be inconsistent now, but he was great that year.

[NZB2323]

We should take everything into account. Rings, Finals MVPs, MVPs, all-NBAs, stats, longevity, defense, teammates, ect.

I have Elgin Baylor, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, CP3, and Harden in the top 30 even though they don’t have rings.

[kwajo]

Tell you what, would much rather my star players win rings than MVPs.

I think Joker is a wonderful player who is a top 15 player easily, however he cannot possibly be considered ahead of Duncan who won 5 rings with not star studded Spurs teams either.

Granted I think the quality and standard of players and teams is considerably stronger now than what it was in Duncan's era

If anything, rings these days should be more celebrated and revered cause they are so damn difficult to win.

Only enjoyed 2 in my 32 years of being a Celtics fan.

I'm a huge Duncan fan, and have him as a Top 10 - if not top 5 - player of all-time due to his peak, longevity and defensive excellence, but let's not pretend that the Spurs didn't have a several other Hall of Famers on those championship squads.

[nikster]

Not all rings hold the same weight. There's Kevin Durant's multiple rings. There's Dirk Nowitzki's ring. Which is the bigger number. 1 or 2?

Two. Two is always the bigger number. That's how numbers work.

And yeah all rings count the same even if you don't like the people who won them.

So Two.

If your gonna count all rings the same then Horry has more than either of them put together. If your not gonna talk about the circumstances of each one, then they truly are meaningless for real discussions on legacy

[og15]

Tf??? Giannis, dirk and jokic rings def weigh more than any of the heat’s rings with LeBron, wade, bosh, and any of the warrior rings with KD, klay, Steph, draymond

Stop it

I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.

If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.

Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.

Nuggets aren't subpar, they are pretty good, but of course the big thing is that Murray WASN'T inconsistent when they won and actually played like an All-NBA level guy through the playoff run.

Teams play who is in front of them, while yes, I get that we can analyze the strength of competition, Denver was not overly more talented than their opponents, but with Murray's play and their solid two way role players, it was a very good roster outside of their best player in Jokic compared to their opponents.

I don't think Dirk's title would be viewed THAT differently for example, like people might not talk about it as much, sure.

[reddyplayerone]

Not all rings hold the same weight. There's Kevin Durant's multiple rings. There's Dirk Nowitzki's ring. Which is the bigger number. 1 or 2?

Two. Two is always the bigger number. That's how numbers work.

And yeah all rings count the same even if you don't like the people who won them.

So Two.

If your gonna count all rings the same then Horry has more than either of them put together. If your not gonna talk about the circumstances of each one, then they truly are meaningless for real discussions on legacy

Yes I know how many rings Robert Horry has because I can count.

And I can differentiate between Horry's talent and contributions to winning from, say, a Tim Duncan, because I possess a functioning brain and relatively moderate critical thinking skills.

Which is why I'm not going to sit here and pretend Horse Boy or Dirk's rings "mean more" than Durant's, because that's very silly actually.

[nikster]

Two. Two is always the bigger number. That's how numbers work.

And yeah all rings count the same even if you don't like the people who won them.

So Two.

If your gonna count all rings the same then Horry has more than either of them put together. If your not gonna talk about the circumstances of each one, then they truly are meaningless for real discussions on legacy

Yes I know how many rings Robert Horry has because I can count.

And I can differentiate between Horry's talent and contributions to winning from, say, a Tim Duncan, because I possess a functioning brain and relatively moderate critical thinking skills.

Which is why I'm not going to sit here and pretend Horse Boy or Dirk's rings "mean more" than Durant's, because that's very silly actually.

But apparently not enough critical thinking skills to differentiate the contributions to winning and how much their times relied on them for Jokic/Dirk vs Durant?

[reddyplayerone]

But apparently not enough critical thinking skills to differentiate the contributions to winning and how much their times relied on them for Jokic/Dirk vs Durant?

Enough critical thinking skills to recognize that trying to differentiate between Durant's contributions to his championships and someone like Horse Boy's is entirely a vain attempt to argue over which guys someone likes on a purely personal level more and therefore utterly pointless.

I do not care who you like more. It doesn't magically make their rings more valuable.

[Tottery]

Rings matter. If you're a great player on a team that doesn't put players around you to win, you leave. Staying with a bad organization lets everyone know winning isn't your priority, which is a ding on your legacy.

[nikster]

But apparently not enough critical thinking skills to differentiate the contributions to winning and how much their times relied on them for Jokic/Dirk vs Durant?

Enough critical thinking skills to recognize that trying to differentiate between Durant's contributions to his championships and someone like Horse Boy's is entirely a vain attempt to argue over which guys someone likes on a purely personal level more and therefore utterly pointless.

I do not care who you like more. It doesn't magically make their rings more valuable.

The Horry point is clearly an exaggeration to point out the very real point that some circumstances are different than others. Its harder being the focal point of an opposing defense then it is being the secondary concern. Some competition will be harder than others. Some teams will have better supporting casts than others. Some stars will play at varying levels of greatness and still lead their team to a title.

Are you willing to ignore all that to weigh all rings equally? Or is it just a semantic concern, where you think some playoff runs are more impressive than others but wont attach it to the ring?

[Big J]

Rings matter. If you're a great player on a team that doesn't put players around you to win, you leave. Staying with a bad organization lets everyone know winning isn't your priority, which is a ding on your legacy.

Nothing wrong with leaving, but you don’t even have to leave. You can also pressure them to make trades and free agent signings by threatening to leave.

[phanman]

Not all rings hold the same weight. There's Kevin Durant's multiple rings. There's Dirk Nowitzki's ring. Which is the bigger number. 1 or 2?

Depends how you rate making a team into probably the best ever team while winning a ring with them.

Since LeBron’s legacy substantially rests on beating a team which had won the most regular season games ever making a team the best play-offs team ever ranks higher imo.

That was Steph's team. I've argued this a million times and I'll say it again, KD's time on the Warriors has ultimately diminished his legacy. Nobody respects what he did and there is no nostalgia for that team and the years that have passed have not changed that. If anything, it aged worse since Steph won a title without KD a couple of years later.

I have to disagree with you here. It's not KD's time in Golden State that diminishes his legacy, its him leaving to create that disaster in Brooklyn and then underperforming in Phoenix. Even those who discount his two rings/FMVPs will admit that winning an easy chip is better than not winning at all. Personally, I think if he had stuck it out in Golden State even with his injury, he would've been viewed in a differently than he is now.

On topic, to say rings are meaningless is just incredibly stupid. You play to win and you reward guys who ultimately lead their team to a championship. They aren't the end all be all, but they what separate good players from the All Time Greats of our league. There is a reason why every one of the guys routinely in the top 10 all have multiple chips in addition to their individual accolades.

[reddyplayerone]

The Horry point is clearly an exaggeration to point out the very real point that some circumstances are different than others. Its harder being the focal point of an opposing defense then it is being the secondary concern. Some competition will be harder than others. Some teams will have better supporting casts than others. Some stars will play at varying levels of greatness and still lead their team to a title.

Are you willing to ignore all that to weigh all rings equally? Or is it just a semantic concern, where you think some playoff runs are more impressive than others but wont attach it to the ring?

I simply see the transparency and disingenuousness of it all.

Nobody has ever made the Horry Argument in anything resembling good faith, and it's such an extreme attempt at a rhetorical "gotcha" that it really gives the game away.

And like there's a reason why this whole "Some rings are more special and valuable than others" thing only ever applies to the same 3-4 guys.

Kobe isn't liked, so his rings with Shaq don't count. LeBron isn't liked, so only that one Cleveland championship counts. Kevin Durant isn't liked, so neither of his rings count.

But Steph Curry? Steph is liked, so you never EVER hear anyone say the rings he won with Durant don't count.

Funny how that works.

[MavsDirk41]

I disagree with the Giannis and Jokic part. Look who they beat. Why is beating injured brooklyn/Atl/Phoenix for Giannis, and a bad Minnesota/Phoenix/Lakers/Heat more impressive than beating the Big 3 Celtics/OKC thunder in 2012, or beating the 2013 Spurs? Giannis and Jokic didn't beat any quality teams during those runs, and haven't any other years either. It's true, look it up.

If Dirks title didnt include beating OKC and Miami, and instead they played the 7 seed New Orleans in the WCF and 8 seed from the east, Indiana, in the finals, it'd be viewed differently, right? It's great because of who they beat.

Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.

Nuggets aren't subpar, they are pretty good, but of course the big thing is that Murray WASN'T inconsistent when they won and actually played like an All-NBA level guy through the playoff run.

Teams play who is in front of them, while yes, I get that we can analyze the strength of competition, Denver was not overly more talented than their opponents, but with Murray's play and their solid two way role players, it was a very good roster outside of their best player in Jokic compared to their opponents.

I don't think Dirk's title would be viewed THAT differently for example, like people might not talk about it as much, sure.

Fair points Murray did play out of his mind those playoffs and had a strong regular season. And Porter Jr., Gordon, KCP, and Brown was a good supporting cast. But Joker put the league on notice that playoff run. He was incredible. Dirk’s title is special because he did it without another superstar teammate, redeemed himself for the flameout againt GS in 07, and beat the superteam Heat in the finals. Plus Dirk spent 20 years in Big D and that is the only championship in our history.

[og15]

Jokic had a pretty subpar team….i mean Jamal Murray is inconsistent, KCP is a role player, Gordon and Porter Jr. are decent players but no other player on that Denver team is anything special and certainly not at an all star level.

Nuggets aren't subpar, they are pretty good, but of course the big thing is that Murray WASN'T inconsistent when they won and actually played like an All-NBA level guy through the playoff run.

Teams play who is in front of them, while yes, I get that we can analyze the strength of competition, Denver was not overly more talented than their opponents, but with Murray's play and their solid two way role players, it was a very good roster outside of their best player in Jokic compared to their opponents.

I don't think Dirk's title would be viewed THAT differently for example, like people might not talk about it as much, sure.

Fair points Murray did play out of his mind those playoffs and had a strong regular season. And Porter Jr., Gordon, KCP, and Brown was a good supporting cast. But Joker put the league on notice that playoff run. He was incredible. Dirk’s title is special because he did it without another superstar teammate, redeemed himself for the flameout againt GS in 07, and beat the superteam Heat in the finals. Plus Dirk spent 20 years in Big D and that is the only championship in our history.

I don't disagree with his championship being special, but I don't think for example if the Mavs played some weaker opponents along their way it would all of a sudden be considered much different, or somehow not impressive.