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

Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285

Iwasawitness
Head Coach
Posts: 6,360
And1: 7,635
Joined: Sep 05, 2023
     

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

Post#101 » by Iwasawitness » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:10 pm

OdomFan wrote:
Special_Puppy wrote:
OdomFan wrote: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.


That’s why no one will ever read your book
LakerLegend wrote:LeBron was literally more athletic at 35 than he was at 20
MrPainfulTruth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,331
And1: 1,267
Joined: Jun 25, 2024
 

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

Post#102 » by MrPainfulTruth » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:11 pm

michaelm wrote:
Optms wrote:Few things;

Lebron already has a strong argument over Jordan for GOAT so his 4 rings isn't what's holding him back. Nice try though.

Dubs were always Currys team. KD taking the most shots had no relevance in bearing on ranking. He is in the same boat as Karl Malone for me. Actually behind him if I'm being honest.

If this is a Jokic thread, just give it a rest already lol

Please tell me what that strong case is because I have never seen or heard it.

I hope you dont expect too much here :lol:
phanman
General Manager
Posts: 8,530
And1: 9,190
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
 

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

Post#103 » by phanman » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:14 pm

Special_Puppy wrote:
phanman wrote:
Special_Puppy wrote:
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

I would disagree that he was the basically the same player as he was able to take a leap defensively with the ability to shift his focus. His scoring took a dip for sure but he was still talented enough to ratchet it up the playoffs when needed. It wasn't just that his supporting cast got better, your missing the biggest point, they actually won it all.

As you progress in the playoffs your opponents theoretically become harder and that's why your play becomes both magnified and recognized as you make your way to winning a chip. It's why Dame's series enders in first round don't hold as much weight as say Kawhi's series ender in the ECF.
MrPainfulTruth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,331
And1: 1,267
Joined: Jun 25, 2024
 

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

Post#104 » by MrPainfulTruth » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:15 pm

reddyplayerone wrote:
Baz wrote: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.

Thank you for sharing your unsubstanciated personal opinion which holds zero validity for anyone else but you. Everyone is entitled to their opinon of course. I may create a thread just to have a poll about this, so we can see wether you are representative here or not.
reddyplayerone
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 902
Joined: Jan 06, 2024

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

Post#105 » by reddyplayerone » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:23 pm

MrPainfulTruth wrote:
reddyplayerone wrote:
Baz wrote: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.

Thank you for sharing your unsubstanciated personal opinion which holds zero validity for anyone else but you. Everyone is entitled to their opinon of course. I may create a thread just to have a poll about this, so we can see wether you are representative here or not.


Two being more than one isn't an opinion actually.

It's just how math works

You're welcome though!
MrPainfulTruth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,331
And1: 1,267
Joined: Jun 25, 2024
 

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

Post#106 » by MrPainfulTruth » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:27 pm

reddyplayerone wrote:
MrPainfulTruth wrote:
reddyplayerone wrote:
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.

Thank you for sharing your unsubstanciated personal opinion which holds zero validity for anyone else but you. Everyone is entitled to their opinon of course. I may create a thread just to have a poll about this, so we can see wether you are representative here or not.


Two being more than one isn't an opinion actually.

It's just how math works

You're welcome though!

elementary school math, maybe :lol:

here, we are dealing with weights - make yourself familiar with the concept - pleased to help.

If you want to participate in the vote on this very topic, i just created one: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2435446
User avatar
OdomFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,567
And1: 6,960
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
Location: Maryland
   

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

Post#107 » by OdomFan » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:32 pm

Iwasawitness wrote:
OdomFan wrote:
Special_Puppy wrote:
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.


That’s why no one will ever read your book

You just did.
Image
reddyplayerone
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 902
Joined: Jan 06, 2024

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

Post#108 » by reddyplayerone » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:32 pm

MrPainfulTruth wrote:
reddyplayerone wrote:
MrPainfulTruth wrote:Thank you for sharing your unsubstanciated personal opinion which holds zero validity for anyone else but you. Everyone is entitled to their opinon of course. I may create a thread just to have a poll about this, so we can see wether you are representative here or not.


Two being more than one isn't an opinion actually.

It's just how math works

You're welcome though!

elementary school math, maybe :lol:

here, we are dealing with weights - make yourself familiar with the concept - pleased to help.


Well yes I would hope that most people learn basic addition/subtraction in elementary school

And no we're not actually dealing with weights. People are passing opinions off as gospel and in the process saying some very silly things.

Like I'm sure Horse Boy's championship is more meaningful to you because you're a fan of his and/or the Nuggets, but that doesn't make it truly and unequivocally more meaningful lol

So go ahead and start your poll as if that would mean anything to anyone, particularly to me. If people want to delude themselves into believe one championship can somehow equal or surpass 2 or more championships that's really on them to come up with anything that sounds remotely compelling to support such a viewpoint.
User avatar
MaxZaslofskyJr
Rookie
Posts: 1,102
And1: 724
Joined: Jan 06, 2013
Location: The Old MSG, Teaneck, Long Island, Piscataway, Meadowlands, Newark, Brooklyn

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

Post#109 » by MaxZaslofskyJr » Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:35 pm

When a 20 dollar bill in a wallet with 4 ones is worth less than a 10 dollar bill in a wallet with 4 fives, then I'll admit that counting rings matter. But that will never happen because it's faulty logic. No matter how many D|psh|t narratives are promoted by sports pundits, nothing will ever, ever change that.
Les Selvage pioneered today's "modern basketball" in 1967.
(ABA 79 - NBA 76) ABA Forever
Bobbymcgee
Veteran
Posts: 2,720
And1: 2,785
Joined: Jul 03, 2015
 

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

Post#110 » by Bobbymcgee » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:11 pm

Rings are the first thing that matters. If Jordan had never one a title he would be compared more with Dominique Wilkins than considered the GOAT.
Homer38
RealGM
Posts: 12,170
And1: 13,700
Joined: Dec 04, 2013

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

Post#111 » by Homer38 » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:13 pm

Bobbymcgee wrote:Rings are the first thing that matters. If Jordan had never one a title he would be compared more with Dominique Wilkins than considered the GOAT.


Jordan was always a much better player that Wilkins,so no
Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 15,143
And1: 11,577
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

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

Post#112 » by Cavsfansince84 » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:14 pm

bstein14 wrote:Wilt's the only top 10 player of all-time without at least 3 and I'm not sure anyone else breaks into the top 10 without at least two. You can't win zero championships and be a top 10 player of all-time... probably not even just one championship.


Hakeem very much deserves top 10 inclusion as much as any player not thought of as a contender for goat status.
User avatar
OdomFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,567
And1: 6,960
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
Location: Maryland
   

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

Post#113 » by OdomFan » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:15 pm

I don't consider Wilt top 10 at all.
Image
JFiasco
Ballboy
Posts: 11
And1: 3
Joined: Oct 04, 2024

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

Post#114 » by JFiasco » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:22 pm

The point of playing basketball is to win and if you are not impacting winning as a player then you cannot be that good.

Basketball is a "strong link" Sport, meaning the best player has a larger impact on the result of the game.
If you look at soccer its a "Weak link" sport. The best player is 1 of 11 (less than 10%) for their respective team on the field and the field is massive. There is no guarantee the best player will touch the ball for extended periods of time.

Meanwhile basketball 1 of 5 (20 %), smaller field, easier to put the ball in the best players hands.

If you are a player putting up big stats but not impacting winning then you aren't as good as the player that puts up big numbers AND impact winning. If you are the Strong Link and you do not help winning then you are not a very strong link.

As the NBA gets deeper and more skilled (which has happened) This allows a smaller margin of error for the strong link player but they still have the ability to dominate and win the game.

The ultimate form of winning, is a championship ring. The stakes are higher, the pressure is higher, the expectation on performance is higher. Not only do you as a player need to be statistically good, but also you need to impact winning, probably against another player who also is statistically good and also impacts winning.
You aren't playing against the 16th seed team, you are playing against a team that is performing at a high level.
michaelm
RealGM
Posts: 12,172
And1: 5,221
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

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

Post#115 » by michaelm » Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:53 pm

Homer38 wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:
zimpy27 wrote:
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.


This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.

James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too

Ir is probably a reasonable indication of the majority opinion on the forum you are posting on however.

You are defeating your own argument actually. Lebron did need to win titles to get into the discussion as you said, and certainly knew that himself, hence all the team hopping.

I don't foresee the NBA changing to deciding the outcomes of games or series by adding up the advanced stats of the members of a team or comparing the stats of the leading player on each team rather than basing it on which team scored the most points or won the most games anytime soon either.
Ruma85
Analyst
Posts: 3,484
And1: 1,935
Joined: Sep 09, 2021
   

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

Post#116 » by Ruma85 » Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:11 pm

og15 wrote:
Ruma85 wrote:
zimpy27 wrote:
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


Not sure, why you,re responding for him, but okej. From what I understand we should just disclaim he's 2 finals?
Life is beautiful...
Homer38
RealGM
Posts: 12,170
And1: 13,700
Joined: Dec 04, 2013

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

Post#117 » by Homer38 » Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:12 pm

michaelm wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:

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.


This vote at that thread is like the all-star voting.A popularity contest.This poll doesn't mean much.

James,Russell and Kareem also have a case over Jordan like winning for Russell and a much longer prime for LBJ and Kareem and they both did win a lot too

Ir is probably a reasonable indication of the majority opinion on the forum you are posting on however.

You are defeating your own argument actually. Lebron did need to win titles to get into the discussion as you said, and certainly knew that himself, hence all the team hopping.

I don't foresee the NBA changing to deciding the outcomes of games or series by adding up the advanced stats of the members of a team or comparing the stats of the leading player on each team rather than basing it on which team scored the most points or won the most games anytime soon either.


I don't understand your point, but I'll say one thing

I understand the arguments for Jordan but the problem is that some Jordan fans or bulls fans think that it's unanimous and it's not close....He may be the best of all-time but players like Kareem, LBJ and Russell all have a case...The funny thing is those who think that LBJ has no case are obsessed with him to find random stats, like some clutch stats even if he is one of the best clutch performers of all-time.Not perfect but no one is perfect in this clutch

No problem if LeBron is 4th behind Russell, MJ and Kareem but it takes crazy and random criteria for those who think LBJ is not in the top 4

I've never been a fan of advanced stats since I never understood how it works, so I'm the last person who can be accused of focusing too much on advanced stats, but one thing is for sure LeBron has 4 rings, 10 finals, all-time leading scorer, 4 MVP, 4 FMVP, so his resume speaks for itself....it takes incredible random criteria to not put him in the top 4...
Ruma85
Analyst
Posts: 3,484
And1: 1,935
Joined: Sep 09, 2021
   

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

Post#118 » by Ruma85 » Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:14 pm

AmIWrongDude wrote:
Ruma85 wrote:
zimpy27 wrote:
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


Not what I'm saying, if you went to 10 finals & won 4, you won 40%, not sure how that's accounted for the GOAT argument, other then it being a negative on this resume.
Life is beautiful...
Haldi
Senior
Posts: 539
And1: 581
Joined: Jan 07, 2020
 

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

Post#119 » by Haldi » Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:35 pm

antonac wrote:If this is the case then people shouldn't bother evaluating players legacy.

Winning in sport is an objective measure of who is best, if a player wants to claim he's better than another player he better prove it on court not in the minds of armchair analysts and pundits.

Winning championships is the only thing that matters when evaluating a players legacy. Jokic would trade his 3 MVPs for another ring in a heartbeat.


Winning in a team sport is an objective measure of who is the best team. Basketball is not tennis. No matter how much people want to believe that a single player determines a NBA championship, it will never be true.
AmIWrongDude
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,809
And1: 2,110
Joined: Feb 05, 2021

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

Post#120 » by AmIWrongDude » Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:48 pm

Ruma85 wrote:
AmIWrongDude wrote:
Ruma85 wrote:
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


Not what I'm saying, if you went to 10 finals & won 4, you won 40%, not sure how that's accounted for the GOAT argument, other then it being a negative on this resume.


Then that is what you’re saying. If LeBron didn’t make the Finals the years he lost then he would be 4 for 4 and have a 100% finals win rate. That would somehow be better?

4/10 is AT WORST even with going 4/4 otherwise it’s literally saying that losing in earlier rounds is better than losing in the Finals.

Return to The General Board