Should Lebron, Steph, and KD's rings be asterisk'd?

[WhatTheBuck]

In ranking a player you have to factor in several things, e.g. number of accomplishments, level of dominance, level of skills or aptitude, level of competition, level of longevity, level of difficulty surmounted etc.

The composition of a championship team will factor into the level of difficulty surmounted, and so if you stack the deck or skew things to make it easy to accomplish a championship, it will adversely affect a player's legacy. It doesn't mean that it will totally detract from the player's legacy, as their are other factors to consider, but it has to be one of the factors to consider.

How much it should detract is a philosophical question.

[picko]

There have always been superteams. The difference is now they are player-created rather than executive-created. Functionally there is little difference between Red and West running rings around their hapless peers and LeBron and KD leaving for a more favourable position.

What the player empowerment era has done is removed a lot of the 'luck' associated with success and failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

In an earlier era, with limited player movement, LeBron would have been stuck on the Cavs until they decided to move him. LeBron's good enough that they would have struggled to obtain the assets necessary to create a great team around him. Doesn't help that Cleveland is one of the least appealing markets in the NBA.

Other players have been a lot luckier. Magic and Kobe lucked into enviable positions from day one. Even Bird and Jordan landed on teams with outstanding executives, in appealing markets, that could create lasting success. Players don't enter the league on an even playing field.

We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.

It seems insane to me that people want to put asterisks on teams that are player-created but have no issue with superior teams winning because they were created by executives. LeBron's never played on a team with more talent than the 1995-96 Bulls or 1985-86 Celtics. Do you really think Magic would prefer LeBron's rosters against the ones he had from day one during his career? I doubt it.

I didn't personally enjoy the Durant-era Warriors - I prefer there to be at least some competitive balance - but I'm certainly not putting asterisks next to most of the championships that have occurred over the past decade. It seems pointless and infantile and driven by agenda rather than reflecting some consistent and coherent ideology.

[Rodwilliams]

I've always been the type not to split hairs over titles and to, generally, give players credit for their rings and team success. Yes, sometimes guys have more help than others, sometimes guys receive more credit than they should, sometimes they get downright lucky. However I try not to haggle over stuff like that. If you, and your team, got the job done then you get the credit and spoils that come with it. That's the prize.

With that said as I look back over the past decade and the whole "superteam" era, as I look at the Lakers and Nets rosters this year Im becoming increasingly disgusted by players building their own teams to avoid competition. They are literally picking their own teams like they're on the playground.

As I look back at the 3 ATGs from the past decade in Lebron, Steph, and KD and the 9 titles between them...8 of them came from shameless, hand picked superteams and bubble leagues. The only legit title they got between them is Golden States 2015 title. The rest were manufactured and manipulated in some way. Imagine how much greater Lebron's legacy would be if he won 4 rings for Cleveland or if Steph ran it back in 2017 and won without KD? Imagine if KD came back with OKC in 2017, beat the Warriors, and then beat Lebron in the finals? Their legacies are so much stronger.

So my question is as time goes by and we see guys like Giannis and Kawhi do it the right way should Lebron, Steph, and KD's rings be asterisk'd and downgraded in some way? Should we hold their lack of competitiveness, lack of pride against them? Or should their legacies be rewarded for doing everything possible to avoid competition and win easy rings? Do we even care about competition anymore?

All 3 did the same exact thing in different ways but some people on here would argue that it was somehow different because of what place the superteam was in before the super team was even formed. A super team is a super team. Lebron jumps from super team to super team. Curry recruits a super team and Durant joined them. All 3 are guilty of the same thing. If you put an asterisk next to one of their rings then you have to do it for all 3 of them.

[Ballerhogger]

What’s the right way ? Drafting all your players and wining a ring? I mean if we want be strict about it .

[Jossten]

How does one go about putting an asterisk on their rings? I understand how engraving works, but in this case what's the specific plan to get the asterisk on them? Purchase them in auctions and engrave them with asterisks, or other means? Saying their rings aren't legitimate on a forum doesn't delegitimize them so there needs to be another way to do this.

[The_Hater]

I've always been the type not to split hairs over titles and to, generally, give players credit for their rings and team success. Yes, sometimes guys have more help than others, sometimes guys receive more credit than they should, sometimes they get downright lucky. However I try not to haggle over stuff like that. If you, and your team, got the job done then you get the credit and spoils that come with it. That's the prize.

With that said as I look back over the past decade and the whole "superteam" era, as I look at the Lakers and Nets rosters this year Im becoming increasingly disgusted by players building their own teams to avoid competition. They are literally picking their own teams like they're on the playground.

As I look back at the 3 ATGs from the past decade in Lebron, Steph, and KD and the 9 titles between them...8 of them came from shameless, hand picked superteams and bubble leagues. The only legit title they got between them is Golden States 2015 title. The rest were manufactured and manipulated in some way. Imagine how much greater Lebron's legacy would be if he won 4 rings for Cleveland or if Steph ran it back in 2017 and won without KD? Imagine if KD came back with OKC in 2017, beat the Warriors, and then beat Lebron in the finals? Their legacies are so much stronger.

So my question is as time goes by and we see guys like Giannis and Kawhi do it the right way should Lebron, Steph, and KD's rings be asterisk'd and downgraded in some way? Should we hold their lack of competitiveness, lack of pride against them? Or should their legacies be rewarded for doing everything possible to avoid competition and win easy rings? Do we even care about competition anymore?

LOL. Why don’t we just put an asterisk beside every ring won in NBA history?

It’s incredible the lengths today’s fans go through in order to discredit the elite players. But hey, the worst poster on this site gave you an AND1 so you have that going for you.

[svart]

Yes unless the nets win.

good one, sir, well played

[DroseReturnChi]

yes all their rings should be vacated. they all manufactured rings to boost legacy.

[DroseReturnChi]

We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.

ok bashing barkley for loser doesnt grant you to break the game. i think barkley would rather get that criticism rather than seeing the nba become an inferior product to euroleague. and barkley still has immense respect works as major jorunalist.

[ReddoverKobe]

We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.

ok bashing barkley for loser doesnt grant you to break the game. i think barkley would rather get that criticism rather than seeing the nba become an inferior product to euroleague. and barkley still has immense respect works as major jorunalist.

And he still gets called out for not winning. That poster you quoted was 100% correct. Literally the best post in here.

[ReddoverKobe]

There have always been superteams. The difference is now they are player-created rather than executive-created. Functionally there is little difference between Red and West running rings around their hapless peers and LeBron and KD leaving for a more favourable position.

What the player empowerment era has done is removed a lot of the 'luck' associated with success and failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

In an earlier era, with limited player movement, LeBron would have been stuck on the Cavs until they decided to move him. LeBron's good enough that they would have struggled to obtain the assets necessary to create a great team around him. Doesn't help that Cleveland is one of the least appealing markets in the NBA.

Other players have been a lot luckier. Magic and Kobe lucked into enviable positions from day one. Even Bird and Jordan landed on teams with outstanding executives, in appealing markets, that could create lasting success. Players don't enter the league on an even playing field.

We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.

It seems insane to me that people want to put asterisks on teams that are player-created but have no issue with superior teams winning because they were created by executives. LeBron's never played on a team with more talent than the 1995-96 Bulls or 1985-86 Celtics. Do you really think Magic would prefer LeBron's rosters against the ones he had from day one during his career? I doubt it.

I didn't personally enjoy the Durant-era Warriors - I prefer there to be at least some competitive balance - but I'm certainly not putting asterisks next to most of the championships that have occurred over the past decade. It seems pointless and infantile and driven by agenda rather than reflecting some consistent and coherent ideology.

this deserves more then one +1.

[Stalwart]

There have always been superteams. The difference is now they are player-created rather than executive-created. Functionally there is little difference between Red and West running rings around their hapless peers and LeBron and KD leaving for a more favourable position.

What the player empowerment era has done is removed a lot of the 'luck' associated with success and failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

It didnt take away the luck. It took away the uncertainty and it took away the competition. It also took away the fire from so many players as they know they can just hook up with their friends and get that ring. Guys like Dame Lillard actually get pressured into joining superteams.

We spent a generation lambasting star players who never won a title. Barkley is a 'loser'. So too is the Mailman and Ewing. Of course, that coloured the attitudes of players who came through and when the opportunity presented itself to take control of their careers they took it.

I never agreed with the way the 90s stars got bashed and discredited for not winning rings. However the answer is not for star players to try to game the system and win cheap rings in order to avoid the criticism and avoid the pressure. That's ridiculous.

Again, I don't think great players should be discredited and bashed for not winning rings. But I do think great players who do win rings, the right way, should be rewarded with an elevated legacy that puts them in another tier. That keeps the stakes high. That keeps winning, the right way, as the ultimate goal and ultimate prize.

Jordan had to go through the fire. He had to deal with the constant criticism of not winning. Nobody made excuses for him. No one cared that he didn't have a great team. He had to face the possibility he may never win. That drove him. Shaq had to go through it. Kobe had to go through it after Shaq left. Dirk and Giannis had to deal with it. These guys all dealt with it, persevered, and came out on top. Lebron and KD never actually did that. When faced with the criticism and the possibility of not winning they took the easy way out. Now championships barely even matter to this generation. Totally cheapened them.

It seems insane to me that people want to put asterisks on teams that are player-created but have no issue with superior teams winning because they were created by executives. LeBron's never played on a team with more talent than the 1995-96 Bulls or 1985-86 Celtics. Do you really think Magic would prefer LeBron's rosters against the ones he had from day one during his career? I doubt it.

The 95-96 Bulls were a team of cast offs. Yes they turned into the best team in league history but not because they had overwhelming talent. The 2011 and 2012 Heat were more talented as were the 2016 Cavs. No one wanted Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, and Luc Longley at the time.

I didn't personally enjoy the Durant-era Warriors - I prefer there to be at least some competitive balance - but I'm certainly not putting asterisks next to most of the championships that have occurred over the past decade. It seems pointless and infantile and driven by agenda rather than reflecting some consistent and coherent ideology.

As explained above rings have been totally cheapened in this era to the point many fans don't even include them when making all time lists. This board is notorious for that. By putting asterisks on these cheap, manufactured, bought and paid for rings we can raise the value of real championships. Guys like Giannis, Dirk, Kobe, Kawhi, Shaq, Tim and others can actually get their credit for not taking the easy way out. Championships can become the ultimate prize again. Competition can return. We can actually see what the great players are made of when they actually face each other.

But as long as we keep praising these weak championships and anti-competitive spirit thats dominated the past decade its only going to get worse. Seriously look at the Lakers and the Nets roster. How is this good for anyone who loves basketball? Its weak and its cheap.

[Stalwart]

I've always been the type not to split hairs over titles and to, generally, give players credit for their rings and team success. Yes, sometimes guys have more help than others, sometimes guys receive more credit than they should, sometimes they get downright lucky. However I try not to haggle over stuff like that. If you, and your team, got the job done then you get the credit and spoils that come with it. That's the prize.

With that said as I look back over the past decade and the whole "superteam" era, as I look at the Lakers and Nets rosters this year Im becoming increasingly disgusted by players building their own teams to avoid competition. They are literally picking their own teams like they're on the playground.

As I look back at the 3 ATGs from the past decade in Lebron, Steph, and KD and the 9 titles between them...8 of them came from shameless, hand picked superteams and bubble leagues. The only legit title they got between them is Golden States 2015 title. The rest were manufactured and manipulated in some way. Imagine how much greater Lebron's legacy would be if he won 4 rings for Cleveland or if Steph ran it back in 2017 and won without KD? Imagine if KD came back with OKC in 2017, beat the Warriors, and then beat Lebron in the finals? Their legacies are so much stronger.

So my question is as time goes by and we see guys like Giannis and Kawhi do it the right way should Lebron, Steph, and KD's rings be asterisk'd and downgraded in some way? Should we hold their lack of competitiveness, lack of pride against them? Or should their legacies be rewarded for doing everything possible to avoid competition and win easy rings? Do we even care about competition anymore?

"players building their own teams to avoid competition"

That's not what they're doing. They're building their own teams in order to compete.

Everyone is doing it. The Bucks are also doing it. They realized they needed a big 3 as well and picked up Holiday.

There are no shortcuts to a championship - the league is full of examples of "superteams" that went nowhere - and even the most stacked teams have to work hard in order to win and all of them still need some luck along the way.

The only reason everyone is doing it is because Lebron, Steph, and KD did it. Before "the Decision" superstars didn't hook up with each other unless they were past their primes.

[MrPerfect1]

Have there been any legit titles?

The current NBA Champion Milwaukee Bucks

[Jables]

Wtf did Curry have to with any superteam lmao, KD wanted to join him for an easy ride.

That said people are in denial about the state of the league. We are in an era where a ring is not an accomplishment, it is a certainty as long as you have the star pull. Certain teams do it the hard way, but it's always when superteams are transitioning besides the Mavs ring.

[LesGrossman]

There have always been superteams. The difference is now they are player-created rather than executive-created. Functionally there is little difference between Red and West running rings around their hapless peers and LeBron and KD leaving for a more favourable position.

What the player empowerment era has done is removed a lot of the 'luck' associated with success and failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

In an earlier era, with limited player movement, LeBron would have been stuck on the Cavs until they decided to move him. LeBron's good enough that they would have struggled to obtain the assets necessary to create a great team around him. Doesn't help that Cleveland is one of the least appealing markets in the NBA.

Interesting thought but i think you are not looking at the big picture here, meaning the way the balance in the whole league is set up and designed to at least attempt to guarantee that over time and draft, every team gets a fair chance to win at some point. The formal trading between franchises is "priced in", but players breaking valid contracts and forcing their way into big market teams is not. The result would be a league with five or six competetive clubs and a lot of losers.

We have a different system in europe where the worst teams are demoted to the lower leagues, while the best of the lower league fight for promotion. That also removes the whole tanking issue.

[camby23]

For me Jordan championships are asterisk. The best supporting cast in the league and sh... competition.

[twyzted]

You have a major problem

Just look at how he performed in his career and tell me afterwards he doesn't deserve his rings or his success .... I mean, LBJ could have at least 7 with the way he performed in 2009,2017 and 2018 in the playoffs.And what about 2015 when he won 4 games(and 2 games in the finals) with a G-league caliber team.2016 was also all effort and heart.

You're not dealing with the fact that he picked his own teams, depleted his own conference, created a players agency, and jumped from team to team to win those titles. If Lebron is so good why did he have to do all that? Dirk didn't have to. Kawhi & Giannis didnt have to, Kobe didn't have to, Tim Duncan didn't have to. Why did Lebron have to?

No one can win a title alone....I mean Jordan has 0 winning season in 5 seasons without the great Scottie Pippen and never above 50 wins without Phil Jackson.LBJ won 66 and 61 games with Mo Williams and Mike Brown as HC and make the finals with this roster at 22 years old

Read on Twitter

And BTW,the lakers and the cavs were lottery team before LBJ join them....

87/88 bulls 50-32 head coach Doug Collins...

And btw Lakers still were a lottery team after Lebron joined them until they got the great Anthony Davis.

[twyzted]

Those Cavs teams outside of Lebron weren’t good at all.

Vs Orlando in the 2009 ECF

Against the #1 defence in the league, LeBron averaged 39-8-8, .59.1 TS%.

The Cavs had a 112.9 O rating when he was on the court.

That is a +11.0 offense relative to Orlando’s regular-season D rating.

That would be a historic offensive playoff performance.

In 2 of Cleveland’s losses, LeBron’s on-court plus/minus was positive.

That means the Cavs outscored the Magic in those games, but the Cavs bench gave up the lead when LeBron was sitting.

In the Orlando series, LeBron had 3 teammates who averaged 10+ PPG.

But they combined for a .50.5 TS%.

In the playoffs, LeBron had a 37.4 PER and the 2nd best PER on his team had a 14.5 PER.

That’s a 22.9 PER gap which is the highest in NBA history between the #1 and #2 guy.

Game 2 Lebron was -7 which the cavs won.

Might want to check out +/- for game 6 in 12/13 finals since you are so fond using on-court plus/minus.

Lebron has basically single-handedly carried Lottery level teams to the finals in 2007 and 2018 and to the playoffs in 2009 and 2010.

The Cavs record with Lebron in 2018 was 50 wins and 32 losses.

The Cavs record without Lebron in 2019, once he left for LA, was 19 wins and 63 losses

That is a 31 win difference in the space of one year all because Lebron left.

The Cavs record was 61 wins and 21 losses in 2010.

However, the Cavs record without Lebron in 2011 once he left to Miami was 19 wins and 63 losses

That is a 42 win difference in the space of one year all because Lebron left for Miami.

17/18 lakers 35-47
Lebron Joins
18/19 Lakers 37-45
Ad joins
19/20 lakers 52-19

So are we gonna argue that Ad carried a lottery team to a title?

[Marrrcuss]

The data does not support Cleveland being a super team. Its reach. Yall even go as far as to call LA one too. Just say you hate bro and get it off ya chest.

Second, Golden State added like 5 players the summer of 2014. Livingston among others used to come in and be unstoppable. They were all free agents and in their primes. I thought they were a very good team but they only won because Love AND Kyrie got hurt for the finals. Still went 6 games with Deli and Mosgov.