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

[zimpy27]

Big shot Rob is meaningless, because he is a role player. Nobody would put him above any ATG because he was a great role player in many championship teams.

Lebron is the player who has more to gain not counting rings, because people would count his cumulative stats, which are very good.

If the king was interested only in top 10 , he would want to count rings, but to be better he has not enough of them

Well LeBron has 4 championships. Yes it's not near Russell at 11. But 4 is still plenty to make any case for top 10 or 5 or GOAT for most. Those who care about rings above all typically choose Russell but I don't think that's even more than 5% of NBA fans.

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

[Tony15]

Rings are absolutely meaningful when evaluating an NBA legends' legacy....it simply shouldn't just overshadow every other factor. Between health, teammates, coaching there's a lot outside the players' control that impacts how many titles you win, if you win any.

[MavsDirk41]

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.

Yea i agree but it was a pretty impressive run, Kobe/Gasol, Durant/Westbrook/Harden/, James/Wade/Bosh. Mavs took out some legends that playoffs. It also cemented Dirk as an all time great.

[Ruma85]

Well LeBron has 4 championships. Yes it's not near Russell at 11. But 4 is still plenty to make any case for top 10 or 5 or GOAT for most. Those who care about rings above all typically choose Russell but I don't think that's even more than 5% of NBA fans.

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Hard to make a case for the goat when he has a 4-6 record in the finals, I will give him longevity, but if you go to the NBA finals 10 times, and win 4, there's no case for Goat.

[MavsDirk41]

Well LeBron has 4 championships. Yes it's not near Russell at 11. But 4 is still plenty to make any case for top 10 or 5 or GOAT for most. Those who care about rings above all typically choose Russell but I don't think that's even more than 5% of NBA fans.

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Yea valid point although Wilt could make a case too with 2 championships. I think Wilt is possibly the most dominant player in nba history, although i don’t personally have him in my top 5. I have seen arguments on here for him tho.

[dhsilv2]

Do you agree that rings are completely meaningsless to evaluate an NBA Legend's legacy?

I rank players on their greatness and rings are at best a proxy there. Anyone ranking on rings is just wrong imo.

But legacy? I mean...Steve Kerr's legacy is way better because he was on winning teams. That's just what legacy means.

[og15]

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Hard to make a case for the goat when he has a 4-6 record in the finals, I will give him longevity, but if you go to the NBA finals 10 times, and win 4, there's no case for Goat.

Is it really? Why?

Like I said, any blanket claims or any one thing can be made as a general claim if we don't want to do analysis, but that's not a good thing.

As is obviously always mentioned in regard to this, what's the reason that we make losing before the finals better than losing in the finals?

Until we have a clear, consistent and satisfactory answer to that, the blanket statement can't hold.

--------

The 2007 Cavs had no business in the finals, Lebron leading that team to the finals should actually be a BONUS on his All Time ranking, not a detriment because they then lost in the finals, that's the funny thing.

The 14-15 Cavs went to 6 games against the Warriors with their 2nd and 4th highest paid and 2nd and 3rd best players combining for 1 game and 44 minutes. We as fans can't possibly say, "I'm a rational thinker" and then also say, "yea, losing that finals really puts down LeBron's legacy".

What? I'm not some Lebron is the GOAT person or some Lebron fan, but I just don't like when we hold on to clearly bad arguments and conclusions and don't really analyze. It means we're just saying, "these are the results, the actual analysis (which is the real work) doesn't matter".

So you have 10 finals, and the outcome of two if we're actually objective, rational and reasonable have no ability to negatively impact LeBron's legacy....if there's actually any ounce of analysis added.

So you're down to 4-4. We have the poor Dallas performance. There was no shame in losing to the 13-14 Spurs. There's no shame in losing to the 16-17 Warriors, outmatched, outgunned.

2018 was not even a supporting cast that should be in the NBA finals. Talent wise the Celtics should have beat them, but their lead offensive guys were 19 and 21, they lost on experience and of course Lebron 34/9/8 in the series, even though his next best scorer was 12.5 ppg and next best assist guy (same guy) at 2.3 apg.

What people don't realize is that their REAL argument despite not realizing it, or if they do, not wanting to accept it is that Lebron should have allowed his teams to play TO their ability, not overachieve. This would have meant losing to Detroit in 07, losing to Boston in 2018, and now he's 4-4, which is now better even though it actually means losing more lol

[AmIWrongDude]

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Hard to make a case for the goat when he has a 4-6 record in the finals, I will give him longevity, but if you go to the NBA finals 10 times, and win 4, there's no case for Goat.

Ah yes the classic “losing in earlier rounds or not making playoffs is better than losing in the finals” argument lol

[NZB2323]

Goat for most? Did you see the recent poll? Pretty sure Jordan is leading the poll on here again. Dont care that James is your goat but he is not goat for “most” as you say.

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Yea valid point although Wilt could make a case too with 2 championships. I think Wilt is possibly the most dominant player in nba history, although i don’t personally have him in my top 5. I have seen arguments on here for him tho.

I’ve seen the arguments also, but I think 1969 really hurts his case. Elgin Baylor finished 5th in MVP voting, Jerry West won Finals MVP, and Wilt lost to the Celtics again with both of them, when Russell was 34 and the Celtics didn’t have Cousy.

Wilt also feuded with teammates, coaches, and owners, and refused to practice before noon one season, and often cared more about stats that winning. The season he led the league in assists he didn’t take a shot in the 2nd half of a game 7 that he lost. Afterwards he pulled an Embiid and blamed his teammates for not passing him the ball more, when he had spent all year focusing on the assist title. I also take this into account in my GOAT rankings.

Losing in the Finals while your teammate wins Finals MVP and losing a game 7 without taking a shot in the 2nd half is not what the GOAT does.

By the same token, I don’t fault LeBron for losing in the Finals to the KD Warriors, but 2011 does hurt his GOAT case. He was the 3rd best player in that finals.

[reddyplayerone]

That sentence wasn't saying LeBron was GOAT for most. It was saying that 4 rings is enough for most people to make a case for GOAT of any player.

Hard to make a case for the goat when he has a 4-6 record in the finals, I will give him longevity, but if you go to the NBA finals 10 times, and win 4, there's no case for Goat.

Is it really? Why?

Like I said, any blanket claims or any one thing can be made as a general claim if we don't want to do analysis, but that's not a good thing.

As is obviously always mentioned in regard to this, what's the reason that we make losing before the finals better than losing in the finals?

Until we have a clear, consistent and satisfactory answer to that, the blanket statement can't hold.

And this is another reason why I don't like GOAT talk and I don't like this game of "which rings ACTUALLY matter"

Jordan lost plenty until he didn't, but because he didn't lose in the Finals it's 6-0 instead of 6-6 or whatever it would be if we were counting his losing in earlier rounds?

But then a group of fans will turn it around and want to laud LeBron for simply making it to the Finals so many times.

So getting to the Finals matters, and winning or losing in the Finals matters, but losing BEFORE the Finals doesn't matter?

At least until it does? Cause why else would it matter that LeBron just made it that far when losing in the earlier rounds wouldn't have affected his legacy as much?

Lol none of this makes ANY sense

[KillMonger]

Should it matter? yes but should it be the end all? no.....i feel the same way about counting stats....it should matter but it shouldn't be the most important factor of evaluating a legend's career

[phanman]

Hard to make a case for the goat when he has a 4-6 record in the finals, I will give him longevity, but if you go to the NBA finals 10 times, and win 4, there's no case for Goat.

Is it really? Why?

Like I said, any blanket claims or any one thing can be made as a general claim if we don't want to do analysis, but that's not a good thing.

As is obviously always mentioned in regard to this, what's the reason that we make losing before the finals better than losing in the finals?

Until we have a clear, consistent and satisfactory answer to that, the blanket statement can't hold.

And this is another reason why I don't like GOAT talk and I don't like this game of "which rings ACTUALLY matter"

Jordan lost plenty until he didn't, but because he didn't lose in the Finals it's 6-0 instead of 6-6 or whatever it would be if we were counting his losing in earlier rounds?

But then a group of fans will turn it around and want to laud LeBron for simply making it to the Finals so many times.

So getting to the Finals matters, and winning or losing in the Finals matters, but losing BEFORE the Finals doesn't matter?

At least until it does? Cause why else would it matter that LeBron just made it that far when losing in the earlier rounds wouldn't have affected his legacy as much?

Lol none of this makes ANY sense

It's all subjective at the end of the day. Nobody is saying that losing before the Finals doesn't matter, but losing to the eventual Champs/runner-ups definitely helps soften the blow. MJ was losing to Bird's Celtics and Isiah's Piston's before he eventually broke through. Personally, I give credit for Bron for willing his team and dominating the Eastern Conference for as long as he did but he rightfully gets dinged for that 2011 Finals because that was all time stinker. Trying to knock LeBron down because his finals record is just lazy analysis.

With all that said, one of the biggest reasons why Bron is even in the conversation with MJ as the basketball's GOAT is because of his incredible longevity in addition to his individual dominance. To put it in perspective, MJ was retired after Bron's first season in LA
and when returned was stuck on a lottery bound Wizards team at 38/39yo while Bron was still on a playoff contender.

[Special_Puppy]

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.

That doesn't make the ring more impressive though. That supporting cast was more than enough to win in 23, which is the whole point here. It was just a weak path, similar to Giannis in 2021. Neither title belongs in the discussion with Dirks.

Good discussion about how much to weigh who you played with, who you played against, and how you actually played when considering the impressiveness of the run

[OdomFan]

What else is there to go by? Stats are more meaningless when it comes to legacy because everybody isn't out there doing the same primary roles, or atleast they weren't in eras outside of this modern positionless league.

I always go by who the best leader was. Who did their part individually to help the team win consistently, and also stepped up and communicated with their teammates effectively to get them to bring ii 100% as well.

[Special_Puppy]

You're completely right. Winning isn't the point of sport. Cancel the medal count at the Olympics, it's all about accumulating advanced stats

It's amazing how many people on realGM want to discount winning when basketball is one of the team sports where an individual has the biggest influence on winning. Brady is celebrated as the GOAT for his rings, and look at what winning the world cup did for Messis perception. Yet we got supposed basketball fans downplaying NBA championships. Absolute madness, OP must be a salty Harden fan

Brady's case for being the GOAT QB is because he has more high level years than any other QB besides maybe Peyton Manning. The Seven Rings was just a by-product of that and is not the case itself. Similarly if a player's ring count diverges from what you'd expect it might suggest something deeper about a player's value that you missed the first time around. Maybe they get better or worse in the post-season. Maybe they have durability concerns that hurt their teams chances of winning a championship. And maybe your initial assessment of the player was correct and they just had bad supporting casts or had bad luck.

[Special_Puppy]

What else is there to go by? Stats are more meaningless when it comes to legacy because everybody isn't out there doing the same primary roles, or atleast they weren't in eras outside of this modern positionless league.

I always go by who the best leader was. Who did their part individually to help the team win consistently, and also stepped up and communicated with their teammates effectively to get them to bring ii 100% as well.

We have a lot of ways to evaluate player value that doesn't involve ring counting. Box Score Stats, Tracking Data, Impact Stats, Play by Play data, etc.

[OdomFan]

What else is there to go by? Stats are more meaningless when it comes to legacy because everybody isn't out there doing the same primary roles, or atleast they weren't in eras outside of this modern positionless league.

I always go by who the best leader was. Who did their part individually to help the team win consistently, and also stepped up and communicated with their teammates effectively to get them to bring ii 100% as well.

We have a lot of ways to evaluate player value that doesn't involve ring counting. Box Score Stats, Tracking Data, Impact Stats, Play by Play data, etc.

none of those things mean much at all in my book if it didn't help lead the team to a championship.

[Special_Puppy]

What else is there to go by? Stats are more meaningless when it comes to legacy because everybody isn't out there doing the same primary roles, or atleast they weren't in eras outside of this modern positionless league.

I always go by who the best leader was. Who did their part individually to help the team win consistently, and also stepped up and communicated with their teammates effectively to get them to bring ii 100% as well.

We have a lot of ways to evaluate player value that doesn't involve ring counting. Box Score Stats, Tracking Data, Impact Stats, Play by Play data, etc.

none of those things mean much at all in my book if it didn't help lead the team to a championship.

A Player can have an incredibly valuable season and be eliminated in the first round. Happened to Kevin Garnett a lot in Minnesota.

[phanman]

We have a lot of ways to evaluate player value that doesn't involve ring counting. Box Score Stats, Tracking Data, Impact Stats, Play by Play data, etc.

none of those things mean much at all in my book if it didn't help lead the team to a championship.

A Player can have an incredibly valuable season and be eliminated in the first round. Happened to Kevin Garnett a lot in Minnesota.

That is true, but KG wasn't truly appreciated by the masses until he went to Boston and won a championship there. That single ring did so much to elevate his game and move him up a tier in the all time rankings.

[Special_Puppy]

none of those things mean much at all in my book if it didn't help lead the team to a championship.

A Player can have an incredibly valuable season and be eliminated in the first round. Happened to Kevin Garnett a lot in Minnesota.

That is true, but KG wasn't truly appreciated by the masses until he went to Boston and won a championship there. That single ring did so much to elevate his game and move him up a tier in the all time rankings.

Right and that's dumb. KG was basically the same player and people were just radically altering their views based on a player's supporting cast getting better