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

[michaelm]

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.

To be fair he didn’t ever have the opportunity be a one team guy like Jordan because the Cavs the first time were such a horrible organisation, and being such a precocious talent may have worked against him as well. Hard to be a leader of men as a teenager.

I don’t really have a problem with LeBron’s moves, just with the diminishment of other players by his partisans for choosing their own best options, but said moves certainly occurred at times when he could join up with other elite players and/or teams which had draft capital or young players he could trade to his advantage. I have used the phrase in another context, but imo it is a bit rich to complain about the advantages Jordan had from teams which were built around him.

Apparently LeBron only joined up with top 5 players twice rather than 3 times so Durant still shouldn’t have joined up with top 5 Curry. Kyrie and Kevin Love were hardly chopped liver though and were certainly not considered so at the time of formation of the LeBron Cavs MK II, including by LeBron himself I would hazard a guess. If fit was a problem as it was with the Heat that is significantly down to LeBron imo.

[michaelm]

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.

He doubtless would bow to your greater expertise in regard to ending discussions when losing the argument.

[michaelm]

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.

Call it what you will, snd he could choose whichever options were best for him as far as I am concerned given he was a Free Agent, but he did join up with top 5 players on two occasions and the other time with a highly rated young player who had been a number 1 pick and was already considered likely to be a franchise player, at a time when the Cavs had another number 1 pick he could get them to trade for a different franchise player.

If a significant number of your fellow LeBron partisans refrained from complaining about the advantage Jordan had from playing with Scottie Pippen people might be less inclined to contend that LeBron stacked the deck.

[MrPainfulTruth]

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.

To be fair he didn’t ever have the opportunity be a one team guy like Jordan because the Cavs the first time were such a horrible organisation, and being such a precocious talent may have worked against him as well. Hard to be a leader of men as a teenager.

I don’t really have a problem with LeBron’s moves, just with the diminishment of other players by his partisans for choosing their own best options, but said moves certainly occurred at times when he thought he could join other elite players and/or teams which had draft capital or young players he could trade to his advantage. I have used the phrase in another context, but imo it is a bit rich to complain about the advantages Jordan had from teams which were built around him.

Apparently LeBron only joined up with top 5 players twice rather than 3 times so Durant still shouldn’t have joined up with top 5 Curry. Kyrie and Kevin Love were hardly chopped liver though and were certainly not considered so at the time of formation of the LeBron Cavs MK II, including by LeBron himself I would hazard a guess. ff fit was a problem as it was with the Heat that is significantly down to LeBron imo.

As i wrote before, i was a close follower of LeBron in his first year (which is why i laugh about the narrative of him carrying trash). I can totally understand why he chose to leave - i can even more understand why KD had to go. To both applies the same though. They could have gone somewhere, to some more professional environment, join a talented but not star studded team. Build your own dynasty. Show that you are really standing out even above your all star peers. One of them claims to be the GOAT after all. The discussion is often willfully derailed as if there were only two available options - suffer it out like Sisyphus year after year or join the superteam. The third option i described above would have been the perfect synthesis of seeking success and withholding a small bit of dignity and competitive spirit. I think that Miami superteam move did LBJ's GOAT case in, even if he had won more rings. Nobody outside his bubble respects the cheap rings (see the poll in the other thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2435446).

[michaelm]

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

To be fair he didn’t ever have the opportunity be a one team guy like Jordan because the Cavs the first time were such a horrible organisation, and being such a precocious talent may have worked against him as well. Hard to be a leader of men as a teenager.

I don’t really have a problem with LeBron’s moves, just with the diminishment of other players by his partisans for choosing their own best options, but said moves certainly occurred at times when he thought he could join other elite players and/or teams which had draft capital or young players he could trade to his advantage. I have used the phrase in another context, but imo it is a bit rich to complain about the advantages Jordan had from teams which were built around him.

Apparently LeBron only joined up with top 5 players twice rather than 3 times so Durant still shouldn’t have joined up with top 5 Curry. Kyrie and Kevin Love were hardly chopped liver though and were certainly not considered so at the time of formation of the LeBron Cavs MK II, including by LeBron himself I would hazard a guess. ff fit was a problem as it was with the Heat that is significantly down to LeBron imo.

As i wrote before, i was a close follower of LeBron in his first year (which is why i laugh about the narrative of him carrying trash). I can totally understand why he chose to leave - i can even more understand why KD had to go. To both applies the same though. They could have gone somewhere, to some more professional environment, join a talented but not star studded team. Build your own dynasty. Show that you are really standing out even above your all star peers. One of them claims to be the GOAT after all. The discussion is often willfully derailed as if there were only two available options - suffer it out like Sisyphus year after year or join the superteam. The third option i described above would have been the perfect synthesis of seeking success and withholding a small bit of dignity and competitive spirit. I think that Miami superteam move did LBJ's GOAT case in, even if he had won more rings. Nobody outside his bubble respects the cheap rings (see the poll in the other thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2435446).

Don't entirely agree, Durant had recently (just) got through a career threatening foot injury, and Lebron had certainly given the Cavs more than a good college try and was joining up with players who wanted to join up with him, but as I said in another post it hardly behoves LeBron partisans imo to complain about Pippen when LeBron has gone to fairly extreme lengths in the attempt to be next to his own version of Scottie. Perhaps having the player develop next to you is the better way to go.

Actually Lebron and AD were a great fit, I tend to wonder if accidentally, but the Lakers move may have limited the number of rings AD wins himself.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

Buddy, you literally made an anti-LeBron thread and tried to disguise it as one about AD. You're pretending to be some objective poster but the reality is you're just on the opposite end of the extreme you're claiming we're on. And even then, at least what I'm saying is actually based on reality. How many people here now have called you out for your username being the exact opposite of what your name is? I'm willing to bet the number is higher than the amount of rings Bill Russell has won.

[og15]

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.

Okay, but 4/20, that's VERY different, you can't really compare a wildly different example like that lol

Of course a player making the finals what would basically be EVERY single season of their career would just be absolutely ridiculous, so that would be a very different discussion in itself.

What I proposed is that, yes, we acknowledge the record, but record is just a number, the analysis of what it means is what matters. So we acknowledge it and then look at the context, circumstances and what it means. Simply looking at record and saying losing record = disqualified is not analysis.

When we look at the context, there's absolutely no reason that you can't make a GOAT case for Lebron simply because of his finals record.

[Ruma85]

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.

Okay, but 4/20, that's VERY different, you can't really compare a wildly different example like that lol

Of course a player making the finals what would basically be EVERY single season of their career would just be absolutely ridiculous, so that would be a very different discussion in itself.

What I proposed is that, yes, we acknowledge the record, but record is just a number, the analysis of what it means is what matters. So we acknowledge it and then look at the context, circumstances and what it means. Simply looking at record and saying losing record = disqualified is not analysis.

When we look at the context, there's absolutely no reason that you can't make a GOAT case for Lebron simply because of his finals record.

Maybe for you yes, not for me.

[og15]

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.

Okay, but 4/20, that's VERY different, you can't really compare a wildly different example like that lol

Of course a player making the finals what would basically be EVERY single season of their career would just be absolutely ridiculous, so that would be a very different discussion in itself.

What I proposed is that, yes, we acknowledge the record, but record is just a number, the analysis of what it means is what matters. So we acknowledge it and then look at the context, circumstances and what it means. Simply looking at record and saying losing record = disqualified is not analysis.

When we look at the context, there's absolutely no reason that you can't make a GOAT case for Lebron simply because of his finals record.

Maybe for you yes, not for me.

That's totally fine. We can settle that you don't believe that, and I have no desire to convince you otherwise VS a stating as a fact that it isn't something that can be done.

I have no issue with that

[G35]

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?

This is one of those clickbaity titles that try to be controversial about a long discussed and resolved topic. This is one of those middle of a boring season topics to drive discussion.

Basketball is not an individual sport. Surprise. It is a team sport and you are judged by how well your team does.

Complaining that players who didn't get to play on certain teams or with certain players is the same tired old privilege argument.

It is like saying Europe is more privileged than Africa. North America is more privileged than South America. Well do something about it. Do better. What is it that the kids say nowadays...get gud.

[Doctor MJ]

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 as you say, winning matters, and sufficient winning leads to chips, so rings cannot be completely devoid of meaning.

But this is not the same thing as saying we should count rings explicitly when evaluating a player. We should be evaluating process more than result.

[antonac]

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.

And? Winning a championship as part of a team is still the single most important goal in a players career, this is unarguable, we even scorn players that put individual accolades ahead of team success (Embiid has been accused of this). If you do not end on the championship winning side at the end of a season, you have had a disappointing season. Championships are the only meaningful measure of success.

[michaelm]

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?

This is one of those clickbaity titles that try to be controversial about a long discussed and resolved topic. This is one of those middle of a boring season topics to drive discussion.

Basketball is not an individual sport. Surprise. It is a team sport and you are judged by how well your team does.

Complaining that players who didn't get to play on certain teams or with certain players is the same tired old privilege argument.

It is like saying Europe is more privileged than Africa. North America is more privileged than South America. Well do something about it. Do better. What is it that the kids say nowadays...get gud.

Which when discussing Jordan vs LeBron seems to mainly involve contentions about how much help each player had, as if this was independent of them.

[EmpireFalls]

It is like saying Europe is more privileged than Africa. North America is more privileged than South America.

Um…

You have several thousand years of human history to catch up on, or maybe even just a couple hundred.

[michaelm]

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.

Buddy, you literally made an anti-LeBron thread and tried to disguise it as one about AD. You're pretending to be some objective poster but the reality is you're just on the opposite end of the extreme you're claiming we're on. And even then, at least what I'm saying is actually based on reality. How many people here now have called you out for your username being the exact opposite of what your name is? I'm willing to bet the number is higher than the amount of rings Bill Russell has won.

A little like your comrade in arms Scranton Bulls perhaps ?. And did you actually witness Jordan play in his time yourself ?.

[MrPainfulTruth]

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.

Buddy, you literally made an anti-LeBron thread and tried to disguise it as one about AD. You're pretending to be some objective poster but the reality is you're just on the opposite end of the extreme you're claiming we're on. And even then, at least what I'm saying is actually based on reality. How many people here now have called you out for your username being the exact opposite of what your name is? I'm willing to bet the number is higher than the amount of rings Bill Russell has won.

A little like your comrade in arms Scranton Bulls perhaps ?. And did you actually witness Jordan play in his time yourself ?.

I have this guy blocked for these useless posts. He never answers the questions, only attacks people personally...not worth my time.

look what popped up in my timeline today...how appropriate.

Watch on YouTube

[FJS]

You can not win a ring and being great as Malone or Stockton, but they won a lot of rs games (when that was important and not like nowadays) and has 5 wcf trips and 2 finals.
As you said to win a ring is Matter of luck, not only being good. Still, you have to play in winning teams and be able to win some series to be more valued.
I think in McGrady for example.

Sent from my 23030RAC7Y using RealGM mobile app

[Ssj16]

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...

The whole 6/6 is vastly better than 4/10 is such poor logic. Even tho the east was somewhat weak. The fact that LeBron made the finals that many times is still impressive and shows his greatness.

I personally think Jordan is better than Lebron but I would never use the 6/6 vs 4/10 finals to argue this. Because you can easily counter and say Lebron was good enough to make 4 more finals than Jordan.

[Ruma85]

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...

The whole 6/6 is vastly better than 4/10 is such poor logic. Even tho the east was somewhat weak. The fact that LeBron made the finals that many times is still impressive and shows his greatness.

I personally think Jordan is better than Lebron but I would never use the 6/6 vs 4/10 finals to argue this. Because you can easily counter and say Lebron was good enough to make 4 more finals than Jordan.

Good for you.

[MrPainfulTruth]

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?

This is one of those clickbaity titles that try to be controversial about a long discussed and resolved topic. This is one of those middle of a boring season topics to drive discussion.

Basketball is not an individual sport. Surprise. It is a team sport and you are judged by how well your team does.

Complaining that players who didn't get to play on certain teams or with certain players is the same tired old privilege argument.

Spoiler:

It is like saying Europe is more privileged than Africa. North America is more privileged than South America. Well do something about it. Do better. What is it that the kids say nowadays...get gud.

I'm sorry my man but i honestly dont understand such posts. Is there some hidden mechanism that forces you to read or comment on threads you feel redundant? There are different enough angles to this topic that it attracted enough other people, why this attitude? Just scroll past it and feel better.

I find it kinda hilarious who feels this is an "angle shot" to help/hurt/excuse certain players, and seeing their worshippers come here and try to discredit the premise. Please dont try to get this thread closed and spoil all the fun.