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

[michaelm]

double

[Ruma85]

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.

Yes that would surely be better for his legacy then losing an extra six times, I'm not saying it's not admirable that he made 10 finals, I'm saying if your so in the goat conversation that's certainly a big sting on his record.

[michaelm]

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 don't like Lebron ball/the way his teams play myself, but I don't think many seriously doubt his place very high in the basketball pantheon.

Perspective is a thing, and perhaps you don't understand my point because those on the Jordan side of the debate consider that those on the other side of the debate are using random statistics some of which weren't around in Jordan's time and many of which are of questionable validity imo to bolster LeBron's case ahead of actual achievements. And by and large you are the ones who need to make a case/are trying to make a case given Jordan's legacy was set in stone decades ago. This doesn't mean LeBron can't be better of course, but some of the arguments involve tearing down Jordan rather than promoting LeBron, in particular the Jordan had more help thing imo. Jordan did exactly what he should have done in having a team built around him and accepting coaching and a game plan which took the ball out of his hands to a degree. Some of Jordan's choices weren't open to LeBron but he bears significant responsibility imo for the rosters of his post 2010 teams and very definitely for which coaches he has had and how much he has been guided by them.

[AmIWrongDude]

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.

Yes that would surely be better for his legacy then losing an extra six times, I'm not saying it's not admirable that he made 10 finals, I'm saying if your so in the goat conversation that's certainly a big sting on his record.

I feel like that’s just illogical though. I don’t give him extra credit for making the Finals but I certainly don’t see how it can possibly be used against him.

It’s basically saying losing any time before the Finals is better for your legacy than making the finals which is just insane

[michaelm]

The premise that "rings are completely meaningless to an NBA legend’s legacy” is objectively false. Championships do matter—winning is the ultimate goal of basketball. But rings aren’t the only thing that defines a player’s greatness. Individual accomplishments—MVPs, stats, and dominance—are just as important. And let’s not ignore another major factor: circumstances. Team management, roster construction, coaching, and even luck all play a role in whether a great player ends up with rings or not.

MJ: The Perfect Balance of Individual Greatness and Team Success

Spoiler:

Jordan’s six championships solidify him as the greatest in many people’s eyes. But it’s not just the rings—his six Finals MVPs, five regular-season MVPs, and ten scoring titles prove he was dominant whether he won a title or not. However, let’s be real: Jordan’s situation mattered. Would he have won six rings without Scottie Pippen, Phil Jackson, and the Bulls’ front office surrounding him with elite role players like Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, and Steve Kerr? Maybe, maybe not. The Bulls were built perfectly around Jordan, and that structure helped him maximize his potential. Without that, we might be talking about him the same way we talk about Charles Barkley—an all-time great who just didn’t have the right situation to win.

LeBron James: A Testament to Individual Greatness and Team-Building Challenges

Spoiler:

LeBron’s career proves that championships alone don’t define a legacy—but they definitely boost it. He’s arguably the most well-rounded player ever, with four MVPs and more points than anyone in NBA history. But winning took work.

Unlike Jordan, LeBron had to switch teams to find the right structure for success. Cleveland’s front office failed him in his first stint, surrounding him with weak supporting casts. When he went to Miami, he finally had the teammates (Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh) and coaching (Erik Spoelstra) needed to win. Even then, he had to go through brutal losses in the 2011 Finals before learning how to win at the highest level. And let’s not forget 2016—beating the 73-9 Warriors took an all-time performance, but it also required Draymond Green’s suspension and key injuries to Golden State. Sometimes, luck matters, too.

Charles Barkley: The Reality of Greatness Without Rings

Spoiler:

Barkley was dominant—an MVP, a scoring and rebounding machine, and one of the best forwards ever. But he never won a championship, and that impacts how he’s remembered. The main reason? Circumstances outside of his control.

Barkley’s prime happened at the wrong time—his peak years overlapped with Jordan’s Bulls, Hakeem’s Rockets, and the loaded Western Conference of the ‘90s. Even when he played at an MVP level, he never had the right team structure to get over the hump. The 1993 Suns got close, but they ran into MJ at his best. Had Barkley been drafted into a better situation, or if a few key moments had gone differently, he might have a ring—and a very different legacy.

Bill Russell: The Ultimate Winner, But in the Right Circumstances

Spoiler:

On the flip side, you have Bill Russell, the greatest winner in NBA history with 11 championships. But here’s the thing: he played in a league with eight to 14 teams, meaning fewer competitors. And he was surrounded by multiple Hall of Famers, including Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, and Sam Jones. That doesn’t take away from his greatness—he was the defensive anchor, leader, and ultimate clutch player. But if Russell had been drafted by a bad organization instead of the Celtics dynasty? We might be talking about him very differently. His rings define his legacy, but he also benefited from elite team structure, management, and coaching (Red Auerbach). Greatness alone isn’t always enough—you need the right situation.

At the end of the day, winning championships is the goal. Rings separate the good from the great, and the great from the all-time legends. But saying they’re the only thing that matters is just wrong.

A player’s legacy is a mix of individual greatness and circumstances—the team around them, the front office decisions, coaching, and even luck. Some all-time greats never won because they ran into dynasties, had bad rosters, or just didn’t get the right breaks. Others won multiple rings because they had the perfect team structure.

The real measure of a legend isn’t just how many rings they have—but how much they contributed to winning and how dominant they were regardless of the circumstances. That’s why both rings and individual greatness matter in the GOAT conversation.

Totally agree with the main text, and mostly with the spoilers.

LeBron never had the choice of being a hyper successful player for one team as Jordan was, he got drafted by a terrible organisation. The Bulls have not necessarily been an elite organisation in Jordan's absence either though. Lebron is also responsible for his own choices post 2010 and over that time has had significant influence on rosters, coaching and the game plan of his teams, and is a much better player than he is a GM imo.

In regard to Russell I don't have him as GOAT and agree with your main point that his era was very different, but I always ask what more Bill could have done in his own era. Whether he was lucky to play with all stars or they were lucky to play with him and become all stars is the other question, a little of both I suspect.

[shi-woo]

Yes, and no, but the title is a joke. The definition of Legacy is "the long-lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past, or of a person’s life." Things can't be long lasting if they aren't remembered, and you can only be remembered for 2 things in sports, winning and losing.

We can appreciate players that never won it all, Barkley is one of the most famous players ever, highly ranked in ATG lists, and respected by all. I think having guys Elton Brand or Kemba who only had 1 real year on a solid team, and outside of their college years, they will most likely get forgotten or remembered for negative things. But ultimately there are other things that hinder that player, and I'm questioning why OP didn't mention any players they were thinking of.

I ultimately think OP is missing the little things. Winning does matter a lot because to win you need to sacrifice, and not every player is willing to do that.

Joe Johnson left the Nash Sun's after one of the greatest Shooting seasons ever for Money with the Hawks.

Allen Iverson and Melo refused to come off the bench till it was too late, could have been remarkable 6th men, but their ego got in the way.

But then on the other hand you have guys like:

Ray Allen thriving in a reduced Klay role, and sniper off the bench, went to 1 finals and won in MIA in that role. Has one of the great plays in NBA history under his belt in that role.

Iggy was an AS in 2012, led DEN to a solid record and in 13, and then came off the bench for GS 14, and was man enough to accept that role. His number was just retired, and he won a FMVP...

Guys create legacy by their own choices. Posey decided to sign with BOS after his win in MIA, now he's always talked about as an elite role player.

Rondo came off the bench and won one with the Lakers, cementing him as a winner.

Tatum and Brown sacrifice for each other, and stayed together. Finally broke through and won a ring, they are now legends. McGrady and Vince split up, and both won nothing, and their AT rank suffers.

Guys also have to perform when they finally get that opportunity on the big stage. Every player in the history of the sport has the chance to create legacy, they just have to take advantage of their opportunities, and execute when it matters.

Paul Pierce is a great example. Led Boston to ECF in 2003, going toe to toe with LBJ that famous duel in game 6, his clutch moments all thoughout his career, and even in his late career wish WAS and LA. I called game is now iconic, and Pierce is considered one of the most clutch players ever, and Top 30 AT when he retired, and currently top 45 AT.

[Ruma85]

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.

Yes that would surely be better for his legacy then losing an extra six times, I'm not saying it's not admirable that he made 10 finals, I'm saying if your so in the goat conversation that's certainly a big sting on his record.

I feel like that’s just illogical though. I don’t give him extra credit for making the Finals but I certainly don’t see how it can possibly be used against him.

It’s basically saying losing any time before the Finals is better for your legacy than making the finals which is just insane

We agree to disagree...

[Iwasawitness]

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?

I think what he’s trying to say is that we should at least make an attempt to look beyond the binoculars and apply context to what we’re saying here. Using a blanket statement and just going blindly on record and nothing more isn’t a conductive way to explain why one player is better than the other or why one person should be considered the GOAT. There’s much more nuance to it than that.

[michaelm]

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.

I give him similar status, and he was my favourite player before I joined the GSW bandwagon with Andrew Bogut and became a Steph Curry fan. I see Steph as similarly being a team orientated player, although Duncan is close to peerless as far as being a team orientated player goes imo. Those Spurs team were bult around him, and I give him some credit for the culture and those players developing within that culture.

[Ruma85]

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?

I think what he’s trying to say is that we should at least make an attempt to look beyond the binoculars and apply context to what we’re saying here. Using a blanket statement and just going blindly on record and nothing more isn’t a conductive way to explain why one player is better than the other or why one person should be considered the GOAT. There’s much more nuance to it than that.

I think my attempt is simple & straight forward.

[michaelm]

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?

I think what he’s trying to say is that we should at least make an attempt to look beyond the binoculars and apply context to what we’re saying here. Using a blanket statement and just going blindly on record and nothing more isn’t a conductive way to explain why one player is better than the other or why one person should be considered the GOAT. There’s much more nuance to it than that.

As I have said previously it is not only other people who are biased though. On a fan sports forum such as this bias in pretty much everyone obviously including me is close to inevitable.

[michaelm]

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.

The KD GSW team in 2017 are well in the discussion for the greatest team ever, were much better than the "73 win team" and obviously KD very significantly contributed to that team being so good. He was the most valuable he has ever been playing a team game next to Curry imo, FMVP valuable or at worst co-FMVP valuable for a start. Hard to know how about how much the Achilles' thing affected him, but I agree with what is basically your point and was made by a Suns fan on a recent KD thread that he went back to self isoing which is not optimal for team outcomes, having apparently been convinced this was a better path by a few teenage Lebron fans on the internet.

[Baz]

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 agree with teh premise that certain rings hold a much higher value than others, and i usually pull out the Dirk example as well. Others would be Giannis, Kawhi in Toronto and Jokic. I just dont understand your fixation on KD. He was just following LeBrons example of taking the easy superteam route to a ring. We should as a community refuse to give any respect to superteam ring chasers, and by superteam i mean multiple all stars/superstars/all NBA players colluding to get together as opposed to investing several years of time and risk to build something somewhere (which is why i dont consider the 2015, 2016 Warriors a superteam, nor the Westbrook / KD / Harden Thunder or the Kobe / Shaq Lakers).

I also have no love for LeBron's superteam but that doesn't get KD out of the woods for the reason that at the very least LeBron created that superteam - KD joined one that did not need him. They were already the greatest regular season team of all time and back to back Finalists BEFORE he joined. Miami were in limbo land.

[Baz]

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.

The question was not about a literal numerical advantage it requires you to critically think about what went into the 1 and what went into the 2 so you can weigh the lasting significance of both, one of which is clearly greater.

[MrPainfulTruth]

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 agree with teh premise that certain rings hold a much higher value than others, and i usually pull out the Dirk example as well. Others would be Giannis, Kawhi in Toronto and Jokic. I just dont understand your fixation on KD. He was just following LeBrons example of taking the easy superteam route to a ring. We should as a community refuse to give any respect to superteam ring chasers, and by superteam i mean multiple all stars/superstars/all NBA players colluding to get together as opposed to investing several years of time and risk to build something somewhere (which is why i dont consider the 2015, 2016 Warriors a superteam, nor the Westbrook / KD / Harden Thunder or the Kobe / Shaq Lakers).

I also have no love for LeBron's superteam but that doesn't get KD out of the woods for the reason that at the very least LeBron created that superteam - KD joined one that did not need him. They were already the greatest regular season team of all time and back to back Finalists BEFORE he joined. Miami were in limbo land.

I guess it depends on what part of it you consider the cardinal sin; the superteam result or the way it got together. For me, its the fact that a guy who is absolute elite at the given time takes the easiest and most uncompetetive route possible. I dont care how he got there as long as he made a move.

For me, i also take into consideration that KD never claimed to be the "GOAT". If you pretend you are the greatest not only of the active players, but of all time, there is no excuse for a move like this. So to me, LeBrons move was fundamental and disastrous for the entire league, him being the face and role model. KD was just a copy cat; that doesnt get him out of the woods, it gets LBJ into the woods

Like, i always think of the Boston big 3. I dont consider them a superteam because noone there had a status so far above his peers like LeBron and KD did. It has to matter how good you are, and what your goals are.

[og15]

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?

I always assumed that the whole idea of public forums like this is that we are all discussing together.

Actually the opposite, I'm saying that you actually should not be looking at those as a negative, it doesn't make sense. What you're suggesting is that we should automatically look at it as a negative on legacy if a player loses in the finals, regardless of anything else, we just look at wins and losses and that's it.

[Iwasawitness]

Not sure, why you,re responding for him, but okej. From what I understand we should just disclaim he's 2 finals?

I think what he’s trying to say is that we should at least make an attempt to look beyond the binoculars and apply context to what we’re saying here. Using a blanket statement and just going blindly on record and nothing more isn’t a conductive way to explain why one player is better than the other or why one person should be considered the GOAT. There’s much more nuance to it than that.

I think my attempt is simple & straight forward.

Okay, cool. That’s helpful with solving a math problem. In the case of discussing who is the greatest player of all time, you’re going to need a lot more than a simple and straight forward approach.

[Iwasawitness]

I agree with teh premise that certain rings hold a much higher value than others, and i usually pull out the Dirk example as well. Others would be Giannis, Kawhi in Toronto and Jokic. I just dont understand your fixation on KD. He was just following LeBrons example of taking the easy superteam route to a ring. We should as a community refuse to give any respect to superteam ring chasers, and by superteam i mean multiple all stars/superstars/all NBA players colluding to get together as opposed to investing several years of time and risk to build something somewhere (which is why i dont consider the 2015, 2016 Warriors a superteam, nor the Westbrook / KD / Harden Thunder or the Kobe / Shaq Lakers).

I also have no love for LeBron's superteam but that doesn't get KD out of the woods for the reason that at the very least LeBron created that superteam - KD joined one that did not need him. They were already the greatest regular season team of all time and back to back Finalists BEFORE he joined. Miami were in limbo land.

I guess it depends on what part of it you consider the cardinal sin; the superteam result or the way it got together. For me, its the fact that a guy who is absolute elite at the given time takes the easiest and most uncompetetive route possible. I dont care how he got there as long as he made a move.

For me, i also take into consideration that KD never claimed to be the "GOAT". If you pretend you are the greatest not only of the active players, but of all time, there is no excuse for a move like this. So to me, LeBrons move was fundamental and disastrous for the entire league, him being the face and role model. KD was just a copy cat; that doesnt get him out of the woods, it gets LBJ into the woods

Like, i always think of the Boston big 3. I dont consider them a superteam because noone there had a status so far above his peers like LeBron and KD did. It has to matter how good you are, and what your goals are.

Then why do you hate LeBron? Because he didn't do that...

[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.

The question was not about a literal numerical advantage it requires you to critically think about what went into the 1 and what went into the 2 so you can weigh the lasting significance of both, one of which is clearly greater.

But it isn't. Not really.

Like this is all about narrative.

People LOVE the narrative of a guy like Dirk sticking it out with one team and eventually winning that one championship, because it speaks to themes about perseverance or even loyalty or whatever else people love to project onto these things.

Then they look at someone like Durant who went to a team that was already very very good and won and they think it's some kind of shortcut.

No.

Just because it rubbed you the wrong way or you don't like it or whatever, doesn't mean that Durant didn't work hard, didn't sacrifice, didn't "pay his dues" or what have you.

All it really means is you don't like the fact that Durant wasn't willing to follow a set narrative and just hope for the best or something. He saw an opportunity to win and he took it.

And now he has more rings than Dirk.

So put Dirk over him on your little lists or whatever, but it's not going to change the fact that Kevin Durant has 2 championships and Dirk only has 1.

[Ruma85]

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?

I always assumed that the whole idea of public forums like this is that we are all discussing together.

Actually the opposite, I'm saying that you actually should not be looking at those as a negative, it doesn't make sense. What you're suggesting is that we should automatically look at it as a negative on legacy if a player loses in the finals, regardless of anything else, we just look at wins and losses and that's it.

No I'm not saying that, I don't know how espe you can look at it other then it being a negative, it's like saying for example I player made 20 finals but won 4 and it's okej & it should be looked as I positive instead of a negative, that's just wrong, wins & losses is not the only thing we should look at it, but it's part weather you like it or not.