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

[PistolPeteJR]

And were the lakers the only team to miss players due to injuries? There are couple of teams who made the playoffs with players missing 20+games that season.

Lonzo injured his ankle and was going to have surgery but the lakers didnt allow it he was supossed to miss 4-6 weeks but was shut down for the season in march.

I'd love to hear what teams out West made the playoffs that season having suffered significant injuries to multiple starters of similar worth and impact to their teams throughout the season.

You know where bbref and nba.com is. I dont have to prove anything to you.

That’s exactly why you should take your own advice LOL. Prove the facts to yourself first hahahahaha

[PistolPeteJR]

Bosh was top 15 and AD was arguably a top 5 player although not a lock. And lmao at brushing off Kevin Love and comparing him to Kevin Martin. Lol. You guys are too much sometimes.

Considering I just listed 16 players that were clearly better than Bosh back then and your rebuttal is simply, "Bosh was top-15", let alone your other "arguments", I'm done here. Bye!

Bosh was the cornerstone for the raptors, with that crappy team they made the playoffs twice, and barely missed 2 other times all before bosh was the age of 26- yes pre prime bosh. He was dropping 24points/10 rebounds his last two raptors years. He definitely was a top 10-15 player in 09-10 season. Pretty much 24/11 on 53% shooting and 36.4% from 3. Thats insanely good for a big man in that era.
How are you putting parker and rondo who werent even the 1st options, and on loaded teams ahead of bosh?

As a Raptors fan, I can definitely attest to Bosh being great on offense that year. Defensively, he was quite lacking. In the NBA, Rondo was most definitely better than Bosh back then. Offensively, he could score (not shoot), was arguably the best passer in the game that year, and elite defensively. Parker’s more debatable, sure, but I haven’t even begun naming guys like Paul Pierce, for example.

The fact remains.

[twyzted]

I'd love to hear what teams out West made the playoffs that season having suffered significant injuries to multiple starters of similar worth and impact to their teams throughout the season.

You know where bbref and nba.com is. I dont have to prove anything to you.

That’s exactly why you should take your own advice LOL. Prove the facts to yourself first hahahahaha

Wow what comeback
Im gonna take it as you have nothing to rebut my claims.

[giannis and 1]

If everyone’s ring has an asterisk, then no one’s ring has an asterisk…

[Stalwart]

If everyone’s ring has an asterisk, then no one’s ring has an asterisk…

Why do you guys keep doing this? Im not talking every ring getting an asterisk, just the superteam rings.

[Edrees]

If you are asterisking everything, why not just put a general clause that applies to everything and put no asterisk?

Because Im not asteriking everything?

No but you are proposing quite a lot and I still think it would be a better use of your ink and time to make a sub section with a different heading and group those players/titles under it instead of making a list with multiple asterisks. It looks terrible that way. Have you ever tried to follow a list that had a bunch of different asterisks? its all over the place.

An asterisk is good if there's one exception. Or two. If we're talking like 15 titles here combined between these types of players, a sub section/header makes way more sense.

[Stalwart]

If you are asterisking everything, why not just put a general clause that applies to everything and put no asterisk?

Because Im not asteriking everything?

No but you are proposing quite a lot and I still think it would be a better use of your ink and time to make a sub section with a different heading and group those players/titles under it instead of making a list with multiple asterisks. It looks terrible that way. Have you ever tried to follow a list that had a bunch of different asterisks? its all over the place.

An asterisk is good if there's one exception. Or two. If we're talking like 15 titles here combined between these types of players, a sub section/header makes way more sense.

Theres been like 70 NBA champions. Im talking about asterisking 6 of them...

[Edrees]

Because Im not asteriking everything?

No but you are proposing quite a lot and I still think it would be a better use of your ink and time to make a sub section with a different heading and group those players/titles under it instead of making a list with multiple asterisks. It looks terrible that way. Have you ever tried to follow a list that had a bunch of different asterisks? its all over the place.

An asterisk is good if there's one exception. Or two. If we're talking like 15 titles here combined between these types of players, a sub section/header makes way more sense.

Theres been like 70 NBA champions. Im talking about asterisking 6 of them...

You would group the 10 titles where the league had 8 teams with the rest of the titles with no asterisk at all and yet put one on these?

Also, I'm implying there's more than 6 titles that meet the criteria you set for what deserves an asterisks.

[PistolPeteJR]

You know where bbref and nba.com is. I dont have to prove anything to you.

That’s exactly why you should take your own advice LOL. Prove the facts to yourself first hahahahaha

Wow what comeback
Im gonna take it as you have nothing to rebut my claims.

Considering I was the one who challenged you in the first place, and no rebuttal came from your end, your logic is non-existent

[Stalwart]

No but you are proposing quite a lot and I still think it would be a better use of your ink and time to make a sub section with a different heading and group those players/titles under it instead of making a list with multiple asterisks. It looks terrible that way. Have you ever tried to follow a list that had a bunch of different asterisks? its all over the place.

An asterisk is good if there's one exception. Or two. If we're talking like 15 titles here combined between these types of players, a sub section/header makes way more sense.

Theres been like 70 NBA champions. Im talking about asterisking 6 of them...

You would group the 10 titles where the league had 8 teams with the rest of the titles with no asterisk at all and yet put one on these?

Also, I'm implying there's more than 6 titles that meet the criteria you set for what deserves an asterisks.

Did you actually read the OP? The criteria is simple. Great players who collude with the other great players in the league to win easy totles should be asterisked. The reason is because it violates the spirit of competition which is the basis of sports. If we continue kill the competitive spirit of the game then titles become meaningless. Winning because trivial.

So this doesn't include shoertned seasons, or injuries, or guys being fortunate and landing in a good team with great teammates. Its all about the competitive spirit.

The only way to protect the integrity of the league and the game is to asterisk these manufactured titles.

[loserX]

Theres been like 70 NBA champions. Im talking about asterisking 6 of them...

You would group the 10 titles where the league had 8 teams with the rest of the titles with no asterisk at all and yet put one on these?

Also, I'm implying there's more than 6 titles that meet the criteria you set for what deserves an asterisks.

Did you actually read the OP? The criteria is simple. Great players who collude with the other great players in the league to win easy totles should be asterisked. The reason is because it violates the spirit of competition which is the basis of sports. If we continue kill the competitive spirit of the game then titles become meaningless. Winning because trivial.

So this doesn't include shoertned seasons, or injuries, or guys being fortunate and landing in a good team with great teammates. Its all about the competitive spirit.

The only way to protect the integrity of the league and the game is to asterisk these manufactured titles.

General managers also accumulate talent in order to win championships as easily as possible. Why does that not "violate the spirit of competition"? Should we asterisk any championship won by an organization that traded for multiple good players? Should they instead "work with what they got"?

I still don't understand why accumulating talent is praiseworthy if a GM does it and somehow disgraceful and "anti-competitive" if players do it. Seems like just a big double standard.

[twyzted]

That’s exactly why you should take your own advice LOL. Prove the facts to yourself first hahahahaha

Wow what comeback
Im gonna take it as you have nothing to rebut my claims.

Considering I was the one who challenged you in the first place, and no rebuttal came from your end, your logic is non-existent

And i stated very clearly that i dont have anything to prove to you. This isnt a court. You dont get the benefit of doubt.

If think my claim is false then prove it.
Dont expect people to actually do research for you.

[noreaster23]

Threads like these should be asterisked. What a waste of time.

[MambaVenom24]

So I like totally agree with op's opinion, only real ringz in nba are kobe's end of debate. Also MJ and the old school basketball get 2 asterisks because I didn't follow NBA back then and who knows what shenanigans took place in those times ... did you see that wilt chamberlain footage !!!??? . I am on the phone with Silver as we speak and he shares the same opinion, also this year's trophy will have an asterisk engraved from the get go.

[camby23]

Theres been like 70 NBA champions. Im talking about asterisking 6 of them...

You would group the 10 titles where the league had 8 teams with the rest of the titles with no asterisk at all and yet put one on these?

Also, I'm implying there's more than 6 titles that meet the criteria you set for what deserves an asterisks.

Did you actually read the OP? The criteria is simple. Great players who collude with the other great players in the league to win easy totles should be asterisked. The reason is because it violates the spirit of competition which is the basis of sports. If we continue kill the competitive spirit of the game then titles become meaningless. Winning because trivial.

So this doesn't include shoertned seasons, or injuries, or guys being fortunate and landing in a good team with great teammates. Its all about the competitive spirit.

The only way to protect the integrity of the league and the game is to asterisk these manufactured titles.

In 90's, 80's or 70's it was almost impossible to create a superteam through FA because the rules were completely different. So comparing the loyalty of players from different eras is not a very smart idea, because you don't know what they would do if they had the possibility to create a super team.

I suggest you read this topic. Maybe you'll learn a few new things.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2062251

[Marrrcuss]

In 90's, 80's or 70's it was almost impossible to create a superteam through FA because the rules were completely different. So comparing the loyalty of players from different eras is not a very smart idea, because you don't know what they would do if they had the possibility to create a super team.

I suggest you read this topic. Maybe you'll learn a few new things.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2062251

Being local to a franchise (a business) just sounds silly to me.

As you said, comparing it to other eras makes no sense anyway. From the change in rules to the rise in branding, of course things werent going to remain stagnant. The media's critique of players that havent won a title is also at a fever pitch.

[Joao Saraiva]

We should asterisk the ring of Giannis and the Bucks because of so many injuries.

We should asterisk the ring of the Lakers because it was in the bubble (literally gave up HCA but somehow it was an advantage for them).

We should asterisk the ring of Kawih in Toronto because of injuries in GSW.

We should asterisk every ring from GSW with KD because they were a super team.

We should asterisk the ring from the Cavs in 16 because Green didn't play G5.

We should asterisk the ring of GSW in 15 because of injuries on Love and Kyrie.

We should asterisk the Spurs ring in 14 because the Heat were old and Ibaka was injured for OKC.

We should asterisk the rings of LeBron with the Heat because it was a super team.

We should asterisk 11 because LeBron collapsed, so Dallas shouldn't earn that due to others collapsing. Also Kobe had some sort of injury and that's why the Lakers didn't beat em.

We should asterisk Lakers 10 because Perkins got injured in the finals.

We should asterisk 09 - I mean, KG was injured, otherwise the Lakers wouldn't have won.

We should asterisk 08 - super team.

We should asterisk 07 because of the Spurs - Phoenix series. I mean, they did Phoenix dirty with Stoudemire missing that game.

We should asterisk 06, the Heat had too many FTs.

We should definitely asterisk 05, Spurs got lucky with that Horry shot.

We should asterisk 04, Karl Malone got injured and the locker room of the Lakers was collapsing.

I can keep on going if you want. All the way till 1980.

There is gonna be an excuse for everything. While some luck is involved, while injuries happen... it's all part of the game. Don't be salty about it.

Of course some rings come easier than others, but big 3s have been a part of the NBA for a lot of years. Yes the 90s didn't have much of that, it comes with the expansion. Teams were competing with duos instead of trios for the most part.

[PistolPeteJR]

Wow what comeback
Im gonna take it as you have nothing to rebut my claims.

Considering I was the one who challenged you in the first place, and no rebuttal came from your end, your logic is non-existent

And i stated very clearly that i dont have anything to prove to you. This isnt a court. You dont get the benefit of doubt.

If think my claim is false then prove it.
Dont expect people to actually do research for you.

You're on a basketball forum where people are discussing and debating lmao. This is 100% a waste of time now for me. I won't be responding anymore here. Bye!

[Rodwilliams]

This thread is funny lol.

[BBallFreak]

What a silly question.

Should Magic's, Michael's, or Larry's? No! Just because you have more talent than the next team doesn't mean you get an asterisk.

Had Thompson, Curry and Green gotten injured and KD still won, would he deserve an asterisk?

If Bosh had blood clots immediately after signing in Miami, Wade's knees completely gave out the first season, and LeBron still won would he deserve an asterisk?

You still have to win the rings and that takes a minimum of 98 games. I don't care how much talent you have a lot goes into winning and it requires blood, sweat, and tears.

I don't care if you trot out a lineup of Magic, Jordan, Kareem, Duncan, and Bird, they still need to develop chemistry, they still need to stay healthy, they still need to develop roles within that team, and they still have to face very strong competition over the course of a long, grueling season.

That's how the NBA works.

Otherwise, Ray Allen, Glen Robinson, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim would have brought one to the Bucks decades ago. Or Kobe, Nash, and Dwight would have been better for LA.

It is never easy to win a professional championship. Ever. Just because you don't like how a team formed doesn't mean you get to negate the ring...