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

[xchange55]

Are Championships important? Yes.

But, there are 30 teams and one trophy. Not every player is going to have the stars align to win a title.

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

For team sports, NBA basketball rings are by far the most importan for a player's legacy. Football, you don't play half the game. Hockey, the best offensive players play about 1/3 of the game - best defensive players a little less than 1/2. For baseball, the most important player comes out every 5th game.

In basketball, the best player goes about 70-75% of the game when the game is competitive, and there's only 4 other players on ther team on the court, so one player's impact and influence can be huge.

There are plenty of NBA players over the years that make All Star, All NBA, win MVP, averger over 30 ppg etc. When you have all that, and the rings, you get separated from the pack - it means something special. When you are in your prime, and you beat all the HOF'ers of you era, it's something special.

[Ruma85]

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...

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

[Mephariel]

Are Championships important? Yes.

But, there are 30 teams and one trophy. Not every player is going to have the stars align to win a title.

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

For team sports, NBA basketball rings are by far the most importan for a player's legacy. Football, you don't play half the game. Hockey, the best offensive players play about 1/3 of the game - best defensive players a little less than 1/2. For baseball, the most important player comes out every 5th game.

In basketball, the best player goes about 70-75% of the game when the game is competitive, and there's only 4 other players on ther team on the court, so one player's impact and influence can be huge.

There are plenty of NBA players over the years that make All Star, All NBA, win MVP, averger over 30 ppg etc. When you have all that, and the rings, you get separated from the pack - it means something special. When you are in your prime, and you beat all the HOF'ers of you era, it's something special.

Yes this. Rings means a lot. It means you are able to perform at the highest level and succeed. I am sorry, but professionally, people are judged by their accomplishments. Rings are the highest accomplishments you can get in sports.

[Baz]

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.

While that fact is true, narrative is a massive part of legacy and that's what we're talking about here. The narrative that you mentioned is exactly what people discuss when we are talking about the legacy of these two players.

[Iwasawitness]

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...

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

[knicksNOTslick]

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

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

When you make statements, like "not one, not two, not three", you are making a statement saying that you're teaming up with other superstars to take the easy route. While it wasn't as easy as he thought it would be, the intent was there. He took the less competitive route to form what he thought would be a dynasty. Two rings was a disappointment for the potential of that team. I get it you're a Lebron fan but he took the non competitive route and found out the hard way it was still a difficult path. It also didn't help that he made himself into the villain, something his PR team did not expect.

Also, winning with 3 different teams and depleting each team's stack of assets to win now is easier than winning with 1 team. Can't convince me otherwise.

[Iwasawitness]

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

When you make statements, like "not one, not two, not three", you are making a statement saying that you're teaming up with other superstars to take the easy route. While it wasn't as easy as he thought it would be, the intent was there. He took the less competitive route to form what he thought would be a dynasty. Two rings was a disappointment for the potential of that team. I get it you're a Lebron fan but he took the non competitive route and found out the hard way it was still a difficult path. It also didn't help that he made himself into the villain, something his PR team did not expect.

Also, winning with 3 different teams and depleting each team's stack of assets to win now is easier than winning with 1 team. Can't convince me otherwise.

No, the intent was to put himself in a better position to win. Pointing out something he said at what is ultimately the equivalent of a high school pep rally doesn't hold much weight, despite how much you want it to. Did LeBron himself expect things to be easier now that he had actual all star level teammates? Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Again, that doesn't make it an uncompetitive move. The simple fact of the matter is, no one was really sure how it would pan out. And it's funny because in 2012 during the playoffs, there was already talk of potentially blowing it up the following season until LeBron carried Miami past Boston.

Also, what the hell are you talking about? Depleting each teams stack of assets? He didn't do it in Cleveland and he sure as hell didn't do it in Miami.

[HighFlyer23]

Leading your team to a ring as the best player is the most important item in the list of criteria to determine player ranking and legacy

[Ruma85]

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

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

I never implied he took the most non competitive route, you did that all on your own, All I said he switched teams, & he stacked the deck, which he did, if we are going to be real about this, the truth is he was never going to win 4 rings in Cleveland.

[Iwasawitness]

So he didn't jump teams to win? Are we actually saying that, LeBron is a smart man, he ain't a idiot.

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

I never implied he took the most non competitive route, you did that all on your own, All I said he switched teams, & he stacked the deck, which he did, if we are going to be real about this, the truth is he was never going to win 4 rings in Cleveland.

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

[Ruma85]

There you go again doing the exact same thing you did before, make a blanket and very broad statement and apply no further context into it. You aren't going to get very far doing this.

Yes, LeBron switched teams. That doesn't imply that he took a non competitive route. That's such a baseless and nonsensical thing to claim. Going to Miami still presented a lot of challenges, it still involved a lot of growing pains. Nothing about it was easy. He may have thought it was going to be, but reality painted a different picture. And the simple fact of the matter is, we've actually seen people take the easiest and most non competitive routes imaginable (like KD, the very person he's defending because, surprise surprise, he just has a hate boner for LeBron).

Now, I can understand having this mindset towards LeBron at the time that it happened. I myself had a similar mindset when it first occurred (although I always felt that he would have had a better chance going to Chicago, not sure why I thought that). But the fact of the matter is, Miami didn't turn out to be as dominant as we all thought they would be. They did in fact turn out to be a flawed team and were in fact beatable. They were by no means a juggernaut apart from one season, and that was in large part due to LeBron having a historically dominant one on the reels of what should have been the first unanimous MVP season in NBA history. But this guy would tell you that was the most stacked team of all time (no, really, he's actually claimed this before), which... no, it wasn't.

We aren't babies here. We're adults (at least I think we are). I think we're at the very least smart enough to understand the difference between putting yourself in a better position to win and taking a non competitive route. This is not what LeBron did.

I never implied he took the most non competitive route, you did that all on your own, All I said he switched teams, & he stacked the deck, which he did, if we are going to be real about this, the truth is he was never going to win 4 rings in Cleveland.

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

[Iwasawitness]

I never implied he took the most non competitive route, you did that all on your own, All I said he switched teams, & he stacked the deck, which he did, if we are going to be real about this, the truth is he was never going to win 4 rings in Cleveland.

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

There isn't really anything to agree to disagree on. Again, I suggest not using terms like stacking the deck if you don't understand what it means. In fact at this point I'm convinced that none of the people who use that term understand what it means.

[Ruma85]

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

There isn't really anything to agree to disagree on. Again, I suggest not using terms like stacking the deck if you don't understand what it means. In fact at this point I'm convinced that none of the people who use that term understand what it means.

[Han Solo]

Lmfao

[ScrantonBulls]

I never implied he took the most non competitive route, you did that all on your own, All I said he switched teams, & he stacked the deck, which he did, if we are going to be real about this, the truth is he was never going to win 4 rings in Cleveland.

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

This is certainly one way to end a discussion that you lost. Not the route I would have gone personally.

[Edrees]

Are Championships important? Yes.

But, there are 30 teams and one trophy. Not every player is going to have the stars align to win a title. Some are doomed by being drafted or traded to teams out of title contention. And some players are fortunate to be drafted into incredible situations or even goes to an all-time great team as a free agent.

Winning is one of the greatest indicators of success. But I have an issue with using the success of a team as the sole gauge of the success of an individual. We often over emphasize individuals on a successful team, while discrediting individuals on a less successful team.

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

Well I assume you care about MVPs, because not sure what's left in your criteria.

And what about MVPs that Stephen a Smith, Kendrick Perkins, and Chris Broussard votes on? You're going to ignore rings, but put weight into something voted on by Stephen A Smith? That is just wild to me.

You are essentially saying winning matters less than a vote by Stephen A Smith, Kendrick Perkins and Chris Broussard.

[Ruma85]

First off, I did no such thing. The person I was replying too at first said it. If you didn't agree, then what was the point of your reply? Maybe next time do some actual reading.

Second, LeBron did no such thing either. Yeah, he switched teams, but he didn't stack the deck. You guys need to stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of.

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

This is certainly one way to end a discussion that you lost. Not the route I would have gone personally.

Believe what you like, have a good day.

[parapooper]

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 a basketball player has 20% impact and say LeBron and MJ are 100%/99% of each other - then the difference between LeBron/MJ has 0.2% impact

So since GOAT debates compare players at a very similar levels (all close to 100) it's actually even more idiotic to use rings in GOAT debates than for comparing players with a huge gap between them (which is already insanely idiotic)

[MrPainfulTruth]

Leading your team to a ring as the best player is the most important item in the list of criteria to determine player ranking and legacy

Well thats exactly what KD did, twice.

[MrPainfulTruth]

Alright buddy, go take a walk, it ain't that big of a deal, enjoy the weekend. We can agree to disagree.

This is certainly one way to end a discussion that you lost. Not the route I would have gone personally.

Believe what you like, have a good day.

These guys are so obsessive i have serious doubts they are normal participants. Its a well known fact that Klutch does guerilla marketing on social media, i wonder, do we have some of them here and how many? Either way it would explain they literally defend everything LBJ ever did to their virtual deaths, insulting and badmouthing everyone who dares to express critical opionion. There is no rational discussing with them obviously - but rest assured they are a noisy, but small minority .Watch the other thread to see how the majority thinks about this ring topic, its a landslide.