Why do people base how good/GOAT a player is by the amount of rings?

[Marv_Albert]

I mean serious Karl Malone/Charles Barkley were far better than any bigs in the league right now and they have 0 rings would you rank them over the PF/C we have in the league today? No of course you wouldn't

And then people go on about oh Lebron is shit because he has only won 2 chips, when most of the league will never win one. :biggums:

I don't get the world today...

[sammichoffate]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8CM8tEIVu-Q/U3U3pm6YNhI/AAAAAAAAv8U/Yk1Wn4WsMCo/w800-h800/Steve+Kerr+Rings+Shot+Science.gif

[Done_And_Done]

People/Fans/Media will always use championships as a key barometer to gauge ones career. It's the ultimate achievement in their respective sport (especially in basketball where a singular player can make such a consequential difference)

Right or wrong, it will always be that way. Is it a overblown factor? I tend to agree with you in that regard.

[FrobeShaw]

Because people are stupid and the media plays on this and continues the superhero angle of one man going through adversity to reach the summit.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Titles are overrated.

[Psileas]

Because not only do people need to believe in definitive GOAT's (=successors of their favorite childhood superheroes) and GOAT lists, they also want to believe that such lists can easily be formed by using the most simplistic criteria available (=rings, ppg and flashy plays).

[ClipperRevival]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.

[sportjames23]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.


Co-sign. :cheers:

[FrobeShaw]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.
It's a stupid criteria really. Look at Steve Nash. If Cheap Shot Bob doesn't do what he did, Suns likely win it all. Is Steve Nash now suddenly a greater player? By all accounts in terms of how people view him, yes. He won a championship. Now he'd be seen as a clear cut best PG of his generation since no other great PG accomplished that from his era. This is all because his teammates didn't get suspended. Not really his own play that changed.

[ClipperRevival]

As Herman Edwards once said, "You play to win the game."

A lot of guys can put up empty stats on bad teams. They can play the game the wrong way, dominate the ball, not play optimal team ball and when it's all said and done, they might have stats that might compare with some of the best ever. How much weight does that really carry? Not much in my book. Superstars only win titles as "the man" by playing the game the right way, for the most part.

Clutch matters. The game isn't played by robots. Guys can shrink in the moment (2011 Lebron) or elevate his game (Hakeem 1994). For people going strictly by the numbers and saying there is no such thing as clutch or choking, I really question whether they played the game.

It's about winning and impacting the game. Not just put up empty stats.

[ClipperRevival]

It's a stupid criteria really. Look at Steve Nash. If Cheap Shot Bob doesn't do what he did, Suns likely win it all. Is Steve Nash now suddenly a greater player? By all accounts in terms of how people view him, yes. He won a championship. Now he'd be seen as a clear cut best PG of his generation since no other great PG accomplished that from his era. This is all because his teammates didn't get suspended. Not really his own play that changed.

What season are you talking about?

But Nash's game wasn't optimal for championship winning teams. It was bordering on gimmicky. He dominated the ball too much. The Suns played no defense. You don't win championships with a run and shoot offense with no D. They were a great regular season team but would've never won a title like that.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

What season are you talking about?

But Nash's game wasn't optimal for championship winning teams. It was bordering on gimmicky. He dominated the ball too much. The Suns played no defense. You don't win championships with a run and shoot offense with no D. They were a great regular season team but would've never won a title like that.
2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

[Wade's Rings]

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

This.

[ClipperRevival]

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

Enlighten me about the situation.

[riseagainst]

Enlighten me about the situation.

cheap shot Rob with the flagrant

[Wade's Rings]

Enlighten me about the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3LjDlMd12g

[sdot_thadon]

Stupidity.

Any criteria that can change it's standing several spots due to a single moment of fortune/misfortune isn't very reliable or smart to weigh heavily upon. Things out of the players control can directly impact their legacy if you see things that way.

Don't get me wrong rings definitely do matter in the grand scheme of things but they aren't my end all be all, I see them as a validation of everything else a player has done. Icing on the cake I guess. I think simple minds believe that if a player wins he somehow got better by holding the trophy.

[ClipperRevival]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3LjDlMd12g

Yeah, I'm a Laker fan and it wasn't a good time for my Lakers that season so I wasn't paying as close attention to the playoffs that year after we lost to Phoenix. Plus, the Spurs were not a fun team to watch. LOL.

But regarding that play, what game was it and how did that specific play prevent the Suns from beating the Spurs? Because the Spurs beat the Suns 4-2 and game 6 was not razor close.

[ClipperRevival]

Stupidity.

Any criteria that can change it's standing several spots due to a single moment of fortune/misfortune isn't very reliable or smart to weigh heavily upon. Things out of the players control can directly impact their legacy if you see things that way.

Don't get me wrong rings definitely do matter in the grand scheme of things but they aren't my end all be all, I see them as a validation of everything else a player has done. Icing on the cake I guess. I think simple minds believe that if a player wins he somehow got better by holding the trophy.

Kind of contracting yourself. You say "stupidity" but go on to say rings do matter. No one is saying rings are the be all, end all.

[theballerFKA Ace]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3LjDlMd12g

Like most soccer players who play in the NBA, Nash was a flopper. So I'm sure Nash made that impact seem greatly exaggerated

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah, I'm a Laker fan and it wasn't a good time for my Lakers that season so I wasn't paying as close attention to the playoffs that year after we lost to Phoenix. Plus, the Spurs were not a fun team to watch. LOL.

But regarding that play, what game was it and how did that specific play prevent the Suns from beating the Spurs? Because the Spurs beat the Suns 4-2 and game 6 was not razor close.

Amare, while on the bench, stepped onto the court after seeing Horry's cheapshot. League reviewed the play, saw Amare, and suspended him for it. The play happened during the game Phoenix tied it 2-2, and ended up losing game 5 at home because of the Amare suspension, hence them being "robbed".

EDIT: titles are important when you talk about teams and players expected to contend. The greatest players in history either performed up to par in the playoffs and finals, or a notch above.

What make titles overrated is the ring counting by way of giving role players and situational circumstances unwarranted boosts.

[ArbitraryWater]

Yeah, I'm a Laker fan and it wasn't a good time for my Lakers that season so I wasn't paying as close attention to the playoffs that year after we lost to Phoenix. Plus, the Spurs were not a fun team to watch. LOL.

But regarding that play, what game was it and how did that specific play prevent the Suns from beating the Spurs? Because the Spurs beat the Suns 4-2 and game 6 was not razor close.

How do you not know that..

[sdot_thadon]

Kind of contracting yourself. You say "stupidity" but go on to say rings do matter. No one is saying rings are the be all, end all.
Not at all man, it's stupidity to use it as the only or even most important basis of an argument. I also clarified how I see it in my post. Nice try. Plus there's a ton of dummies on this site that rings is the 1st order of business. You post here, you know.

[Sarcastic]

In basketball, more so than any sport, the star player has the biggest impact on wins n losses. It's not the end all be all, but it matters more than any other sport.

Ted Williams can be considered a top GOAT hitter without a ring, but Malone needs one to be in the top 10.

[tmacattack33]

I mean serious Karl Malone/Charles Barkley were far better than any bigs in the league right now and they have 0 rings would you rank them over the PF/C we have in the league today? No of course you wouldn't

And then people go on about oh Lebron is shit because he has only won 2 chips, when most of the league will never win one. :biggums:

I don't get the world today...

It is hilarious indeed

[SexSymbol]

Because the sole reason of playing the game of basketball is winning.
Anything else, factually, is irrelevant.

[Segatti]

Jordan stans basically. It's ironic how they don't like the 11 rings argument for Russell though.

[bizil]

When it comes to GOAT status, I think it should include:

Solo accolades
Team accolades
Numbers
Peak Value
Longevity being great
Impact on the league (things such as redefining your position, causing rules change, being the face of the L, etc.)

So GOAT status is basically your TOTAL RESUME! I think winning rings plays a SIGNIFICANT part in GOAT criteria. If a GOAT comparison is close in other areas, the rings could be used as a tiebreaker. But I don't think its the be all end all either.

That's why for me personally, I consider MJ and Kareem as the top two GOAT. When u look at all the aspects, they have the most WELL ROUNDED resumes. U have MANY great players who DIDN'T win a ring. BUT their numbers, solo accolades, peak value, etc. were EPIC!! Guys like Karl Malone, Nique, Stockton, Barkley, and Ewing fall into that category. At their best, those guys were in the top two-three players at their respective positions in the L. And even AT TIMES among the top ten players in the world.

But some of the great players didn't have the teams YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT to win a ring. Other greats ran into dynastic or juggernaut kind of teams (Russ' Celtics, MJ Bulls, Bird's Celtics, Magic' Lakers, Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Spurs, etc).

[ClipperRevival]

Amare, while on the bench, stepped onto the court after seeing Horry's cheapshot. League reviewed the play, saw Amare, and suspended him for it. The play happened during the game Phoenix tied it 2-2, and ended up losing game 5 at home because of the Amare suspension, hence them being "robbed".

EDIT: titles are important when you talk about teams and players expected to contend. The greatest players in history either performed up to par in the playoffs and finals, or a notch above.

What make titles overrated is the ring counting by way of giving role players and situational circumstances unwarranted boosts.

Yeah, I didn't watch that series but anyone else want to chime in on that play and whether the Suns were "robbed" or is it more like an excuse?

[ClipperRevival]

How do you not know that..

Well, I am going strictly by the box score. The score was Spurs 81, Suns 67 heading into the 4th and the Spurs won by 8. But I know box scores can be misleading. Was it a razor close game?

[Hey Yo]

As Herman Edwards once said, "You play to win the game."

A lot of guys can put up empty stats on bad teams. They can play the game the wrong way, dominate the ball, not play optimal team ball and when it's all said and done, they might have stats that might compare with some of the best ever. How much weight does that really carry? Not much in my book. Superstars only win titles as "the man" by playing the game the right way, for the most part.

Clutch matters. The game isn't played by robots. Guys can shrink in the moment (2011 Lebron) or elevate his game (Hakeem 1994). For people going strictly by the numbers and saying there is no such thing as clutch or choking, I really question whether they played the game.

It's about winning and impacting the game. Not just put up empty stats.
So you looked at MJ as a ball hogging loser who just put up empty stats until the 4th quarter buzzer sounded in game 5 of the 1991 Finals?

Then all of a sudden when the buzzer quit, he was as an all-time great player who was 5x better than the MJ before the buzzer sounded?

[sdot_thadon]

So you looked at MJ as a ball hogging loser who just put up empty stats until the 4th quarter buzzer sounded in game 5 of the 1991 Finals?

Then all of a sudden when the buzzer quit, he was as an all-time great player who was 5x better than the MJ before the buzzer sounded?
Nailed it. :applause:

[Sarcastic]

So you looked at MJ as a ball hogging loser who just put up empty stats until the 4th quarter buzzer sounded in game 5 of the 1991 Finals?

Then all of a sudden when the buzzer quit, he was as an all-time great player who was 5x better than the MJ before the buzzer sounded?


You mock it, but in actuality he was considered a ball hogging loser that couldn't win up till that exact point. Winning his first ring drastically changed the perception of him.

[nba_55]

You mock it, but in actuality he was considered a ball hogging loser that couldn't win up till that exact point. Winning his first ring drastically changed the perception of him.
Damn. If the same mj was stuck on bad teams his whole career, he would be this generation s kevin love?

[nba_55]

So you looked at MJ as a ball hogging loser who just put up empty stats until the 4th quarter buzzer sounded in game 5 of the 1991 Finals?

Then all of a sudden when the buzzer quit, he was as an all-time great player who was 5x better than the MJ before the buzzer sounded?
Ether

[Sarcastic]

The theme in the 91 Finals was Magic was the winner, and Jordan was not a team player. After game 1, it was very much thought that the Lakers would win because of Magic, and Jordan still being too much of a ball hog.

[sdot_thadon]

You mock it, but in actuality he was considered a ball hogging loser that couldn't win up till that exact point. Winning his first ring drastically changed the perception of him.
Yep, but that's the point. He didn't become some other player soon as the buzzer sounded. He was already that good. Perception changing shouldn't count so much, as opposed to the real substance of it.

[Sarcastic]

Damn. If the same mj was stuck on bad teams his whole career, he would be this generation s kevin love?

He was stuck on bad teams for his first few years. The Bulls were one of the worst organizations in the NBA. Why do you think Magic threatened to go back to college if the Bulls picked him? Jordan turned an awful franchise into the second best dynasty of all time, with mediocre pieces.

[Sarcastic]

Yep, but that's the point. He didn't become some other player soon as the buzzer sounded. He was already that good. Perception changing shouldn't count so much, as opposed to the real substance of it.

It wasn't an instantaneous thing, but he was definitely a different player in 1991 than he had ever been. It took him averaging 10+ assists in the Finals to win. Pre 1991 Jordan wouldn't do that. He could've, but wouldn't.

[Dr Hawk]

If Russell had 3 rings instead of 11, playing exactly at the level he played, he would be nowhere near the Top 10 as it is now for the most of people.

[sdot_thadon]

It wasn't an instantaneous thing, but he was definitely a different player in 1991 than he had ever been. It took him averaging 10+ assists in the Finals to win. Pre 1991 Jordan wouldn't do that. He could've, but wouldn't.
I don't really think he was all that different aside from the triangle forcing the ball out of his hands some, and even then he still did his thing. The biggest difference between pre 91 and 91 on is his cast was ready for the big time.

[stalkerforlife]

Aww...the OP's favorite player doesn't have legitimate rings.

[Hey Yo]

You mock it, but in actuality he was considered a ball hogging loser that couldn't win up till that exact point. Winning his first ring drastically changed the perception of him.
Then why did Nike sign MJ by enticing him with big money and great incentives early in his career before he won a title? Why would they want to sponsor a loser like Jordan?

Why would the Bulls offer him an ungodly contract (for the times) in 1988 of 8yrs...25mil?

Shouldn't they have been convinced he was a loser who couldn't get out of the first round and shipped him out?

[BigMacAttack]

It is certainly not the only consideration but it IS a factor that should be considered when ranking the greats, sport is about winning at this level, if you never won its hard to call them a truly great or dominant player...and my favourite player was Tmac...

[bizil]

If Russell had 3 rings instead of 11, playing exactly at the level he played, he would be nowhere near the Top 10 as it is now for the most of people.



Awesome point!! He has SO MANY RINGS that it really vaulted him up the charts. Russ was a great rebounding, passing, and defensive big man. BUT his scoring ability left a lot to be desired. In the grand scheme, He WASN'T close to alpha dog scoring ability at all. Russ wasn't ANYWHERE near the two way threat centers like Wilt, Kareem, Dream, Robinson, Ewing, Walton, etc. I would take ALL of these centers over Russ peak wise:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Dream
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

Rings did more for Russ than ANY OTHER PLAYER in American team sports. In general, he's barely a top 10 player of all time peak wise among centers. And he's NOWHERE near a top 10 player of all time peak wise AMONG ALL POSITIONS!! BUT BECAUSE of rings, he's MUCH HIGHER UP on the GOAT charts.

[Young X]

It is certainly not the only consideration but it IS a factor that should be considered when ranking the greats, sport is about winning at this level, if you never won its hard to call them a truly great or dominant player...and my favourite player was Tmac...No it's not hard. If you play at that level for a long period of time you are great. Simple as that. Rings shouldn't matter that much.

If the discussion is about the greatest winners or greatest teams/franchises then rings should matter to that degree.

But the greatest players? The majority of the discusison should be about how much a player helps a team. Rings and other accolades should matter a little bit but they should be taken into account AFTER that. They're like icing on a cake as someone already said.

[Asukal]

Rings are overrated only to the people who stan players like Wilt and Lebron. :whatever:

All these great players play to win. Winning rings as the leader of your team is a very big factor in the GOAT lists. These players know it, I know it, you know it, stop denying reality. Heck these guys(the ATGs) brag to each other about number of rings all the time. :hammerhead:

[Hey Yo]

Rings are overrated only to the people who stan players like Wilt and Lebron. :whatever:

All these great players play to win. Winning rings as the leader of your team is a very big factor in the GOAT lists. These players know it, I know it, you know it, stop denying reality. Heck these guys(the ATGs) brag to each other about number of rings all the time. :hammerhead:
But they're not considered great until they win a title, right?

They don't become, looked at or labeled as "great players" until they win a ring, right?

[Asukal]

But they're not considered great until they win a title, right?

They don't become, looked at or labeled as "great players" until they win a ring, right?

They are all great players, the thing is those who won more will be looked at as greater plain and simple. Tell me how you can justify Lebron as a GOAT candidate? Biases aside, it's impossible to put him in that conversation when he didn't accomplish enough to be there. The truth is him playing in a weak conference is more of a curse than a blessing. :cletus:

[Hey Yo]

They are all great players, the thing is those who won more will be looked at as greater plain and simple.
Then Bill Russell is the GOAT in your eyes?


Tell me how you can justify Lebron as a GOAT candidate?
I never have or said he is


Biases aside, it's impossible to put him in that conversation when he didn't accomplish enough to be there.
But.....but......why would Nike and the Bulls justify all the $$$$ they threw at MJ and seeing that as good investment?? He couldn't even get out of the first round and did nothing but put up empty stats?


The truth is him playing in a weak conference is more of a curse than a blessing.
Yet it's not a curse for Russell to have played in a league with 9 teams and yet considered by some the GOAT?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Rings are overrated only to the people who stan players like Wilt and Lebron. :whatever:

All these great players play to win. Winning rings as the leader of your team is a very big factor in the GOAT lists. These players know it, I know it, you know it, stop denying reality. Heck these guys(the ATGs) brag to each other about number of rings all the time. :hammerhead:
I don't stan either player, I think that rings are overrated.

No matter how you spin it, a championship is a team accomplishment. It's true that a star basketball player has much more control over the outcome of a game/series than the majority of players in other sports but no one wins alone. There still has to be more to an argument than ring count. Context is everything.

[houston]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.


sums it up

[Marv_Albert]

So Bill Russell is far more superior and the GOAT over MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Magic RIGHT???

[Marv_Albert]

Bill Russell is the Greatest of all time if rings matter. He was wayyyyy better than Jordan.....

[BigMacAttack]

No it's not hard. If you play at that level for a long period of time you are great. Simple as that. Rings shouldn't matter that much.

If the discussion is about the greatest winners or greatest teams/franchises then rings should matter to that degree.

But the greatest players? The majority of the discusison should be about how much a player helps a team. Rings and other accolades should matter a little bit but they should be taken into account AFTER that. They're like icing on a cake as someone already said.

Im not exactly saying you cant be a great player without winning a ring(you can be unlucky) but if we are talking about the absolute elite players, like the top 5-10 ever than rings come into it, there is no way around that. These guys all make it their goal to win a championship, if they fail to do so then of course it is going to count against them when discussing guys who have played and dominated at the highest level and won a championship.

[BigMacAttack]

Bill Russell is the Greatest of all time if rings matter. He was wayyyyy better than Jordan.....


Saying rings matter isn't saying they are the only consideration. It is this moronic attitude that is really the problem.

[livinglegend]

Saying rings matter isn't saying they are the only consideration. It is this moronic attitude that is really the problem.

People in here use a lot rings, MVPs, FMVPs to rank the players.
Russell: 5 more rings than Jordan, as many MVPs as Jordan, FMVPs didn't exist, but the award is named after Russell.

Russell >>> Jordan

And if DPOY existed, Russell would probably have 6-7 times more DPOY than Jordan.

[livinglegend]

He was stuck on bad teams for his first few years. The Bulls were one of the worst organizations in the NBA. Why do you think Magic threatened to go back to college if the Bulls picked him? Jordan turned an awful franchise into the second best dynasty of all time, with mediocre pieces.

Put the 1991 to 1998 Jordan on a bad team like the sixers. He won't win a single championship.
Will that change your opinion of him?

[PsychoBe]

Put the 1991 to 1998 Jordan on a bad team like the sixers. He won't win a single championship.
Will that change your opinion of him?

he'd definitely win in this era :oldlol:

[Straight_Ballin]

Jordan stans basically. It's ironic how they don't like the 11 rings argument for Russell though.

Stop failing with shit logic. Almost every Jordan fan has Russell in their top 3 list. Why? They know how to actually rank players across eras as opposed to some gen Y kid who's only seen Lebron go 2/6. :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

Stop failing with shit logic. Almost every Jordan fan has Russell in their top 3 list. Why? They know how to actually rank players across eras as opposed to some gen Y kid who's only seen Lebron go 2/6. :lol


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Straight_Ballin]

:pimp:

[LAZERUSS]

Rings are overrated only to the people who stan players like Wilt and Lebron. :whatever:

All these great players play to win. Winning rings as the leader of your team is a very big factor in the GOAT lists. These players know it, I know it, you know it, stop denying reality. Heck these guys(the ATGs) brag to each other about number of rings all the time. :hammerhead:

Yep.

That's why MJ went 1-9 in his first 10 playoff games, and didn't reach the Finals until his seventh season. He played on FIVE LOSING teams in his career, as well. Or that his "6-6" was in reality, "6-15", RIGHT???!!! Or that Jordan's numbers dropped across the board from his regular season numbers against the Bad Boys in the post-season from '88-90, and were beaten in each series.

And you tell us all here why MJ was SWEPT in '86 and '87. I don't want ANY EXCUSES, since you give ZERO to Wilt and Lebron.

Hell, he couldn't win a ring until he was playing with rosters that could win 55+ games withOUT him, and in fact, were one play away from beating a team that would lose a game seven in the Finals by four points. AND, he couldn't carry that same EXACT roster (save, Jordan replaced Horace Grant) to a title the very next season. The Bulls had to go out an ADD a HOF PF to a 55+ win roster withOUT Jordan, in order to win again.


Or that a PRIME Kareem went to TWO Finals in his first TEN years, winning ONE, and completely missing the playoffs TWO times in that same span.

Or that Shaq was SWEPT SIX times, and nearly twice more in his post-season career.

Or that Russell, who was generally murdered by Chamberlain H2H in the post-season, couldn't beat him when they had EQUAL, and healthy rosters. In fact, when Wilt had that equal roster, his team was four points away from a SWEEP in game four, and then proceeded to ANNIHILATE a helpless Russell and his Dynasty in game five.

Or Wilt losing FOUR game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, in series in which he either outplayed Russell, or downright obliterated him. Included was an EDF's in which Chamberlain dragged his 40-40 team, that had gone 34-46 the year before, and traded three players to get him, to a game seven, one point loss...against Russell's seven-time defending, and HOF-laden 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, Wilt scored Philly's last eight points, in a game in which he scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, and with 32 rebounds...in a series in which he averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555 from the field (in a post-season that shot .429.)

Or that, none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and it would have been WILT holding all those RINGS!

Or why Jerry West went "1-8" and couldn't win with post-season runs of 40 and 34 ppg, and a seven game Finals of 38 ppg. And when he finally did win a ring, he was pure trash in that post-season.

Or why Hakeem won one ring in a post-season in which MJ took the year off, and in another when a young Shaq brutalized him, but he was saved by his teammates just crushing Shaq's. Oh, and then he was ROUTED in the FIRST ROUND, ... EIGHT TIMES. Or not even making the Finals with Barkley and Drexler as teammates.

Or why Bird, playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career, could only win three rings, and in one of those he scored 15 ppg on a .419 FG% in the Finals. Or that he blew chunks in several more post-seasons.

And that brings up the FLIP side, as well. Bird winning a ring with as poor an offensive showing as possible, and against a 40-42 team, to boot. Or Kobe winning rings with awful Finals on several occasions, and personally carrying his teams down the toilet in two Finals. Or KAJ winning a ring with a putrid post-season, an awful Finals, and a horrific game seven. Or Jordan winning a ring with a clinching game performance of 5-19 from the field, and in a series in which he shot .415 from the floor.

Or Duncan taking his 61-21 team down in flames in the first round, against a 46-36 team, and in a series in which he averaged 12.7 ppg on a .478 FG%. Or costing his team in a game seven of the Finals by blowing a wide-open, point-blank layup. Or blowing chunks repeatedly in his 4th quarter H2H's against Shaq in the early 00's, and losing to him 3-1 in that same span.

Or KG languishing on losing teams in his prime, then going to a good Celtics roster, and taking that team to a 66-16 record, and a dominant title.

Or Baylor putting up critical Finals games of 4-18, 2-14, and 8-22 from the field, in a seven game series (and a game seven loss of two points) and with a .397 FG%.

Or Lebron going "2-6" in his Finals (in 12 seasons), and being considered WORSE than Hakeem's "2-3" (in his 18 seasons.)

Glad we have this clarified.

[Straight_Ballin]

^
This guy has no concept of knowing that you can't fault a guy for not making the finals if he didn't have enough help. Basketball is a team game.

If he had enough help, he makes the finals!

Hakeem only had enough help to make it to the finals 3 times and he lost against a stacked Celtics team.

What did Lebron do? Go 2/4 after colluding? 2/6 overall? That's great that he was on 6 teams with enough help to get him to the finals, (that's what colluding does for you) but what the fvck did he do once he got there? Fail 4 times is what he did. Choked. Didn't do enough. Jordan did MORE than what lebron did, and that's why he went 6/6.

[LAZERUSS]

^
This guy has no concept of knowing that you can't fault a guy for not making the finals if he didn't have enough help. Basketball is a team game.

If he had enough help, he makes the finals!

Hakeem only had enough help to make it to the finals 3 times and he lost against a stacked Celtics team.

What did Lebron do? Go 2/4 after colluding? 2/6 overall? That's great that he was on 6 teams with enough help to get him to the finals, (that's what colluding does for you) but what the fvck did he do once he got there? Fail 4 times is what he did. Choked. Didn't do enough. Jordan did MORE than what lebron did, and that's why he went 6/6.

NO EXCUSES. RINGS ARE ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT??!!

[Straight_Ballin]

NO EXCUSES. RINGS ARE ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT??!!

Rings are all that matters when you have a team good enough to get you to the finals. Get to the finals and lose, and it's worse than getting to the finals and winning! See how easy that logic is to follow!

Who would have thought that WINNG > LOSING

Holy shit this is some new revelation type stuff here!!!

You need to have a baseline comparison.

If a guy like T-Mac never had enough help to get him to the finals, you can't fault him for it. It's an unknown.

Jordan showed that when he had a team good enough to get to the finals, he won every fvcking time as the best player and at 6 times, that says it all.

[LAZERUSS]

Rings are all that matters when you have a team good enough to get you to the finals. Get to the finals and lose, and it's worse than getting to the finals and winning! See how easy that logic is to follow!

Who would have thought that WINNG > LOSING

Holy shit this is some new revelation type stuff here!!!

You need to have a baseline comparison.

If a guy like T-Mac never had enough help to get him to the finals, you can't fault him for it. It's an unknown.

EXACTLY my point, my friend.

AND, if we also add in competition, and the play (or injuries) of teammates...then Wilt shouldn't get the blame in ANY of his "losses." His teams were outgunned in HOFers in 12 of his 13 post-seasons, and he was either outplaying, or downright crushing his opposing centers in all of them.

And before someone brings up Wilt's ONLY poor post-season series, the '69 Finals...keep in mind that it was Wilt's COACH who had WEST and BAYLOR taking all the shots. Or that, in game seven, Wilt badly outplayed Russell, in a two point loss (and in which Wilt's COACH left him on the bench in the last five minutes.) In fact, take away Wilt's 7-8 and Russell's 2-7 FG/FGA's, and Russell's teammates collectively outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .360 margin in that game seven...again...in a two point loss.

The fact was, Chamberlain's teams faced all-time great teams in 12 of his 13 post-seasons. He faced the GOAT Dynasty (and GOAT defensive center, who also had swarming help against Wilt), in EIGHT playoff series; the '70 and '73 Knicks (with FOUR to SIX HOFers); and the '71 and '72 Bucks. In some he had ZERO help, and in some other's, his help just played horribly. And in some, either he was playing hurt, or his teammates were injured (and missing games and series), or both. And in one, he came back from major knee surgery WAY AHEAD of schedule, and STILL hung a seven game series (against a 60-22 favored Knick team) of 23-24 .625 FG%.

And one more time...John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's rosters (and coaches), that it would have been WILT holding all those rings.

So, are you in agreement that his "2-6" was a COMPLETE JOKE? And the same with Russell's "11-2" (actually "9-1")...when we know that he either outplayed, or downright castrated Russell in EVERY post-season H2H series?

[Straight_Ballin]

Wilt had a team good enough to get him to the finals 6 times and he was successful 2/6 times. Clearly he had enough help to get him there.

What's impressive about Russell and MJ is that that they had enough help to get there, and once they got there, they did enough to ensure victory.

You sure Wilt did enough to ensure victory when he was the man on those teams?

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt had a team good enough to get him to the finals, and he was successful 2/6 times. Clearly he had enough help to get him there.

What's impressive about Russell and MJ is that that they had enough help to get there, and once they got there, they did enough to ensure victory.

You sure Wilt did enough to ensure victory when he was the man on those teams?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Let's take his '64 Warriors as a great example. He had two "HOF teammates"...Guy Rodgers, who was the most inefficient shooter of his era (and yet he STILL shot the ball...he was the RUBIO of his era, except having seasons of 20 FGA per game)...and rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, and out position.

That was IT. In fact, that SAME roster, (except without Thurmond) had gone 31-49 the year before.

His team faced a Celtic team with EIGHT HOFers. One of them, Lovellette, came to Boston the year before, and after a season in which he averaged 20 ppg...and he was their SEVENTH best player.

Wilt's Warriors were beaten, 4-1, BUT, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. His two "HOF" teammates collectively shot .326 and .256 from the field.

Meanwhile, all Chamberlain could do was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 28-25; and outshoot him from the field, .517 to .386 (in a post-season NBA that shot .420.)

Now, you tell me if that was "clearly enough help."

BTW, just to get to that Finals, Chamberlain carried that cast of clowns past a Hawks team that was better, players 2-6, to a seven game series win, in which he AVERAGED a 39-23 .559 FG% (including a game seven of 39-26 with 10 blocks, on 19-29 shooting.)

[sportjames23]

He was stuck on bad teams for his first few years. The Bulls were one of the worst organizations in the NBA. Why do you think Magic threatened to go back to college if the Bulls picked him? Jordan turned an awful franchise into the second best dynasty of all time, with mediocre pieces.


Basically, though I don't think you're referring to guys like Pip, Grant, Harper, Rodman and Kukoc mediocre, but yeah, a good portion of MJ's Bulls teams were mediocre.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Basically, though I don't think you're referring to guys like Pip, Grant, Harper, Rodman and Kukoc mediocre, but yeah, a good portion of MJ's Bulls teams were mediocre.
The 1980s Bulls, for the most part, were mediocre imo. But those 1990s squads were composed well. Even if they weren't the most talented bunch, they complemented Jordan and each other very well. Fair?

[sportjames23]

Saying rings matter isn't saying they are the only consideration. It is this moronic attitude that is really the problem.


Thank you.

Rings are only part of the equation. MJ's considered the GOAT not only because of his rings, but because everything he accomplished in his career--NBA championships, MVPs, FMVPs, NCAA championship, 2 Olympic Gold Medals, 10 scoring titles, hell, just check out the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan#Awards_and_honors

[Straight_Ballin]

Thank you.

Rings are only part of the equation. MJ's considered the GOAT not only because of his rings, but because everything he accomplished in his career--NBA championships, MVPs, FMVPs, NCAA championship, 2 Olympic Gold Medals, 10 scoring titles, hell, just check out the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan#Awards_and_honors

This is true, but if it came down to it and MJ ONLY was 6/6 with 6 FMVP and the numbers he put up in those finals games, that would be enough to still be GOAT.

[plowking]

What season are you talking about?

But Nash's game wasn't optimal for championship winning teams. It was bordering on gimmicky. He dominated the ball too much. The Suns played no defense. You don't win championships with a run and shoot offense with no D. They were a great regular season team but would've never won a title like that.

:facepalm

Oh please tell us more of what it takes to win an NBA championship.

These are the posters everyone should put on ignore or not reply to. Acting as if he in particular knows what brand of basketball is the most successful to winning. :facepalm
We've seen enough stupid threads on here from people saying "Player A won't ever win a title"... Guess what happens...

You fall in the same bunch.

[plowking]

^
This guy has no concept of knowing that you can't fault a guy for not making the finals if he didn't have enough help. Basketball is a team game.

If he had enough help, he makes the finals!



So by that logic, if he had enough help, he wins the finals!

Your logic once again shoots you in the foot. :oldlol:

[3ball]

.
Why Jordan would've won in 2014 Finals:



Dallas and OKC hold Kawhi to 12 ppg on ~45%


Result: competitive series


Portland and Heat let Kawhi score 18 ppg on ~57%


Result: Massacre


If Lebron could've held Kawhi to 12 ppg on sub-40% like DAL and OKC did, the Heat would've still lost, but it would've been much closer - now if he adds more offensive aggression AS WELL by doubling his shot attempts like he did in 2015 Finals (which won 2 games with worse supporting cast against better team), the Heat WIN.

So Lebron needed to accomplish 2 things that MJ would've done: don't let a role player be FMVP (hold Kawhi to the same 12 ppg that DAL and OKC did) and be more aggressive offensively like Jordan always was, and like Lebron was in 2015 Finals.. Also, don't get carried off the floor in Game 1 - it's kind of hard to instill confidence or hold teammates accountable on both sides of the ball after that.

Clearly, the Spurs were a much better team when Kawhi was a bigger part of the offense.. In the Heat's case, Lebron's poor defense enabled Kawhi to be the best Spur for the first time in the playoffs, which unlocked the Spurs' optimal chemistry (120 ORtg) that we didn't see against other Spurs opponents, even Portland (113 ORtg).
.

[3ball]

.
Why Jordan would've won in 2007 Finals:


Game 1 was an eight point game in 4th quarter, despite only 10 points on 5-15 from Lebron.. Games 3 and 4 were nail-biters, despite Lebron's 25 points on 39% and 24 points on 33%, respectively.

Now if Jordan shoots 15-25 percentage points better from the field, like all these guys did against the same Spurs team, the Cavs win all three of those games:


Melo vs. Spurs in 2007 1st Rd: 27 ppg on 48%

Dirk vs. Spurs in 2007.. WCF: 27 ppg on 53%

Bonzi vs. Spurs in 2006 1st Rd: 23/12 on 61%

Kobe vs. Spurs in 2008.. WCF: 29 ppg on 53%

Lebron vs. Spurs in 2007 Finals: 22 ppg on 35%



Lebron shot 65.4% at the rim (40% of offense), so his lower overall efficiency compared to his peers was due SPECIFICALLY to his jumpshooting efficiency:


.................................Jumpshot Efficiency vs. Spurs in 2006-2008 Playoffs


....................... midrange jumpshot FG%..... 3-point jumpshot FG%..... Jumpshot proportion of FGA

Bonzi 2006 1st Rd (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/1719/stats/shooting/?Season=2005-06&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=1) ..............50.0........................... 62.5............................... 32.2
Dirk 2006 WCF (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/1717/stats/shooting/?Season=2005-06&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=3) ..................41.3........................... 50.0 .............................. 61.2
Melo 2007 1st Rd (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2546/stats/shooting/?Season=2006-07&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=1) ...............37.5........................... 50.0 .............................. 59.1
Kobe 2008 WCF (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/shooting/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=3) .................50.0........................... 33.3............................... 63.3
Lebron 2007 Finals (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/shooting/?Season=2006-07&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4) .............14.8........................... 20.0............................... 52.2



Since jumpshooting efficiency was the key to good efficiency against the Spurs, MJ would've had great efficiency, since he was a better midrange shooter than all these guys and frequently relied on his jumpshot to have big games.

Everyone shot well on jumpers against the Spurs, EXCEPT Lebron - so the Spurs jumpshooting defense clearly wasn't prohibitive - Lebron just can't shoot.
.

[Asukal]

NO EXCUSES. RINGS ARE ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT??!!

Boohoo Wilt only has two. :cry: :lebroncry:

[3ball]

.
Why Jordan would've won in 2015 Finals


Once again, two simple things would've gotten the job done



1) don't let role player be FMVP

2) don't shoot 39% against no double-teams and constant clearouts


2015 is the easiest argument to make

[iamgine]

Titles should really have no bearing on how good a player is. Titles, just like stats or awards, are just an indicator of one's impact and greatness. In the end, someone's impact is immeasurable and change from night to night. Not to mention people and system dependent.

Give Phil or Pop a young and mediocre team, they might not do better than Vinnie Del Negro. Ty Lawson used to be somewhat good, put him next to Harden in Rockets system, he becomes absolute sh!t.

[Dr Hawk]

Awesome point!! He has SO MANY RINGS that it really vaulted him up the charts. Russ was a great rebounding, passing, and defensive big man. BUT his scoring ability left a lot to be desired. In the grand scheme, He WASN'T close to alpha dog scoring ability at all. Russ wasn't ANYWHERE near the two way threat centers like Wilt, Kareem, Dream, Robinson, Ewing, Walton, etc. I would take ALL of these centers over Russ peak wise:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Dream
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

Rings did more for Russ than ANY OTHER PLAYER in American team sports. In general, he's barely a top 10 player of all time peak wise among centers. And he's NOWHERE near a top 10 player of all time peak wise AMONG ALL POSITIONS!! BUT BECAUSE of rings, he's MUCH HIGHER UP on the GOAT charts.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Segatti]

Stop failing with shit logic. Almost every Jordan fan has Russell in their top 3 list. Why? They know how to actually rank players across eras as opposed to some gen Y kid who's only seen Lebron go 2/6. :lol

"I know how to rank players!!"
Immediately brings up up 2/6.


Keep being delusional grandpa.

[Dr Hawk]

Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russell

[kennethgriffin]

Rings arent end all be alls


each one has a different prestige



for instance


kobes 1st ring isnt as valuable as his last 4

duncans last ring isnt as valuable as his first 4

shaqs last ring isnt as valuable as his first 3


its about rings as a top tier player... those rings are full prestige

other asterisks can be applied for things like ring chasing, bail outs, lockouts, weaker eras etc...


aside from this there are other factors... how long a players career was at the top. his records. his achievements


everything is calculated




then people take these calculations and make their own opinion. and those opinions are added up and rankings take place



i.e. ranker.com

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-top-nba-players-of-all-time

[BuffaloBill]

Championships are what really matters


You can have stats, points, assists, rebounds, whatever, but in the end the ultimate goal is helping your team do whatever it takes to win. Those points don't mean anything if it's taking you 100 shots a game to get them. Those assists don't mean anything when you're also turning the ball over. Those stats don't mean anything if you aren't hustling on both sides of the court.


I know championships aren't won by one person but one good person who can be a leader and motivate his teammates to want to win will go a long way. And you can do that without playing hero ball. And I feel like the league is turning away from hero ball. And hero ball players will suffer because of this.

[knicksman]

Because you can manipulate every stat except 2/6:confusedshrug:

[sdot_thadon]

I like how he says you can manipulate stats. Stats are the only thing you actually can't. For the most part they aren't subjective, they do need context. But none of the silliness that's comes with trying to judge shit like killer instinct, leadership, makes blank better and other non-quantifiable attributes.

Everyone in here saying they aren't the only thing that matters but are against op are missing something. He said base how good/goat they are, meaning the basis of their argument. It should never be the base because too many factors go into a ring that a player can't control. (Teammates, coaches, matchup, injuries, and to be honest luck)

There are many other factors to weigh in these debates:

Career numbers
Mvps
FMVP
Dopy
Longevity
Peak play
Prime play
Intangibles
Competition
Impact
Era
Skills

And the list can go on, but you get the point. I don't think rings should stand alone above so many factors.

[ClipperRevival]

:facepalm

Oh please tell us more of what it takes to win an NBA championship.

These are the posters everyone should put on ignore or not reply to. Acting as if he in particular knows what brand of basketball is the most successful to winning. :facepalm
We've seen enough stupid threads on here from people saying "Player A won't ever win a title"... Guess what happens...

You fall in the same bunch.

History proves it. Winning at the highest level requires a team to play an optimal brand of ball. There has really never been a BALL DOMINANT PG that won a title as the clear man outside of Magic. Isiah also but he blended in better. And even Magic wasn't as ball dominant as Nash. But Magic is a unique situation because he was 6'9" and could post up and do big man things. Asking a 6'2" guard to dominate the ball isn't a recipe for a championship. History PROVES you win with either a great big or great wing as "the man". Also, teams that run that up tempo style and don't play much D don't win championships.

[Stout]

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[ClipperRevival]

So you looked at MJ as a ball hogging loser who just put up empty stats until the 4th quarter buzzer sounded in game 5 of the 1991 Finals?

Then all of a sudden when the buzzer quit, he was as an all-time great player who was 5x better than the MJ before the buzzer sounded?

The world viewed MJ as the best individual talent in the league but put Magic/Bird on a different tier because they won. Believe it or not, there were a lot of people who were discrediting MJ because of that. He was viewed as somewhat selfish and a great talent that couldn't elevate his teammates. And some of that was fair because he didn't play optimal ball earlier in his career. It took PJ and a stronger supporting cast for him to realize that he had to get his teammates involved. So he matured and eventually rose to championship level play. But he needed to change his game somewhat.

[ClipperRevival]

Yep, but that's the point. He didn't become some other player soon as the buzzer sounded. He was already that good. Perception changing shouldn't count so much, as opposed to the real substance of it.

But he did change. Earlier in his career, he was a brilliant individual talent who didn't know how to maximize the talents on his team. As PJ came on board and Pip/Grant started to mature and get better, MJ started to play better team ball. He knew when to take over and when to get others involved. PJ really convinced him of that. So he did change. And had he played that iso ball his entire career, he probably has zero rings. So it's not just about talent, it's about playing the right way. Some guys never truly grasp that or are able to get others involved.

[ClipperRevival]

Then why did Nike sign MJ by enticing him with big money and great incentives early in his career before he won a title? Why would they want to sponsor a loser like Jordan?

Why would the Bulls offer him an ungodly contract (for the times) in 1988 of 8yrs...25mil?

Shouldn't they have been convinced he was a loser who couldn't get out of the first round and shipped him out?

Because the league had never seen a guy like him before. He took the league by storm from the moment he stepped on the court. He had a following unlike any other, despite not winning. And when he started winning, it took his popularity to a level never seen before in an American athlete. You really have no idea how popular he was in a worldwide sense. You could argue that around 1991-1993, he was the most known human being on the planet. And I'm not even joking.

[sportjames23]

Because the league had never seen a guy like him before. He took the league by storm from the moment he stepped on the court. He had a following unlike any other, despite not winning. And when he started winning, it took his popularity to a level never seen before in an American athlete. You really have no idea how popular he was in a worldwide sense. You could argue that around 1991-1993, he was the most known human being on the planet. And I'm not even joking.


Hell, from about 1988 to 1999, there was Michael Jordan and then everyone else. The only one who came close to him during that time was Tiger Woods, and that was from the late 90s on.

[Asukal]

I like how he says you can manipulate stats. Stats are the only thing you actually can't. For the most part they aren't subjective, they do need context. But none of the silliness that's comes with trying to judge shit like killer instinct, leadership, makes blank better and other non-quantifiable attributes.

You can manipulate stats by cherry-picking, just ask grandpa Laz. :rolleyes:

[ClipperRevival]

Yep.

That's why MJ went 1-9 in his first 10 playoff games, and didn't reach the Finals until his seventh season. He played on FIVE LOSING teams in his career, as well. Or that his "6-6" was in reality, "6-15", RIGHT???!!! Or that Jordan's numbers dropped across the board from his regular season numbers against the Bad Boys in the post-season from '88-90, and were beaten in each series.

And you tell us all here why MJ was SWEPT in '86 and '87. I don't want ANY EXCUSES, since you give ZERO to Wilt and Lebron.

Hell, he couldn't win a ring until he was playing with rosters that could win 55+ games withOUT him, and in fact, were one play away from beating a team that would lose a game seven in the Finals by four points. AND, he couldn't carry that same EXACT roster (save, Jordan replaced Horace Grant) to a title the very next season. The Bulls had to go out an ADD a HOF PF to a 55+ win roster withOUT Jordan, in order to win again.


Or that a PRIME Kareem went to TWO Finals in his first TEN years, winning ONE, and completely missing the playoffs TWO times in that same span.

Or that Shaq was SWEPT SIX times, and nearly twice more in his post-season career.

Or that Russell, who was generally murdered by Chamberlain H2H in the post-season, couldn't beat him when they had EQUAL, and healthy rosters. In fact, when Wilt had that equal roster, his team was four points away from a SWEEP in game four, and then proceeded to ANNIHILATE a helpless Russell and his Dynasty in game five.

Or Wilt losing FOUR game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, in series in which he either outplayed Russell, or downright obliterated him. Included was an EDF's in which Chamberlain dragged his 40-40 team, that had gone 34-46 the year before, and traded three players to get him, to a game seven, one point loss...against Russell's seven-time defending, and HOF-laden 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, Wilt scored Philly's last eight points, in a game in which he scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, and with 32 rebounds...in a series in which he averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555 from the field (in a post-season that shot .429.)

Or that, none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and it would have been WILT holding all those RINGS!

Or why Jerry West went "1-8" and couldn't win with post-season runs of 40 and 34 ppg, and a seven game Finals of 38 ppg. And when he finally did win a ring, he was pure trash in that post-season.

Or why Hakeem won one ring in a post-season in which MJ took the year off, and in another when a young Shaq brutalized him, but he was saved by his teammates just crushing Shaq's. Oh, and then he was ROUTED in the FIRST ROUND, ... EIGHT TIMES. Or not even making the Finals with Barkley and Drexler as teammates.

Or why Bird, playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career, could only win three rings, and in one of those he scored 15 ppg on a .419 FG% in the Finals. Or that he blew chunks in several more post-seasons.

And that brings up the FLIP side, as well. Bird winning a ring with as poor an offensive showing as possible, and against a 40-42 team, to boot. Or Kobe winning rings with awful Finals on several occasions, and personally carrying his teams down the toilet in two Finals. Or KAJ winning a ring with a putrid post-season, an awful Finals, and a horrific game seven. Or Jordan winning a ring with a clinching game performance of 5-19 from the field, and in a series in which he shot .415 from the floor.

Or Duncan taking his 61-21 team down in flames in the first round, against a 46-36 team, and in a series in which he averaged 12.7 ppg on a .478 FG%. Or costing his team in a game seven of the Finals by blowing a wide-open, point-blank layup. Or blowing chunks repeatedly in his 4th quarter H2H's against Shaq in the early 00's, and losing to him 3-1 in that same span.

Or KG languishing on losing teams in his prime, then going to a good Celtics roster, and taking that team to a 66-16 record, and a dominant title.

Or Baylor putting up critical Finals games of 4-18, 2-14, and 8-22 from the field, in a seven game series (and a game seven loss of two points) and with a .397 FG%.

Or Lebron going "2-6" in his Finals (in 12 seasons), and being considered WORSE than Hakeem's "2-3" (in his 18 seasons.)

Glad we have this clarified.

You're missing context my friend. Comparing MJ's 1st 3 seasons where he was on a terrible team and faced a dynastic Celtics team and great Bucks team and had no chance to Wilt, when he had HCA and the superior team against Russell and still lost in 1968 and 1969 are two different stories.

Of course, you will come back with the SAME EXCUSE of how Wilt had the superior offensive numbers over Russell. Now I await your paragraph after paragraph of Wilt's individual stats.

[LAZERUSS]

You're missing context my friend. Comparing MJ's 1st 3 seasons where he was on a terrible team and faced a dynastic Celtics team and great Bucks team and had no chance to Wilt, when he had HCA and the superior team against Russell and still lost in 1968 and 1969 are two different stories.

Of course, you will come back with the SAME EXCUSE of how Wilt had the superior offensive numbers over Russell. Now I await your paragraph after paragraph of Wilt's individual stats.

CONTEXT.

And you and I have covered both of those series before.

Wilt's '68 team was so decimated by injuries that they were an under-dog going into the first round. Chamberlain somehow led that team to a 4-2 win over the Reed-Bellamy-Frazier-Bradley combo, and did so by leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG% (BTW, he ousthot Bellamy, who had shot .541 against the NBA... .584 to .421.)

And Wilt himself was nursing an assortment of injuries in the '68 EDF's, including a tear that was the same that rendered Willis Reed a statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals. And all Wilt did was play every minute of the seven game series, including pummeling Russell in what should have been a closeout game in game five, BUT, he lost TWO MORE starters in that game...and they subsequently lost a game seven by four points.


And I have already covered the '69 Finals with you, as well. It was, by far, Wilt's worst Finals. BUT, he still outplayed Russell, and then badly outplayed him in game seven...in a two point loss.

BTW, his COACH had West and Baylor taking all the shots. Wilt's new coach in '70, had Chamberlain as the focal point of the offense, and Wilt was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, on a .579 FG%, when he shattered his knee in the ninth game (the same knee that he injured in game seven of the '69 Finals BTW.)

CONTEXT.

You should use it EQUALLY.


Oh, and why couldn't MJ take his '95 team to a title? It was the same EXACT roster that went 55-27 without him the year before, except he replaced Grant. In fact, Grant's '94 team did considerably better in their post-season, than MJ's '95 team did.

[ISHGoat]

CONTEXT.

And you and I have covered both of those series before.

Wilt's '68 team was so decimated by injuries that they were an under-dog going into the first round. Chamberlain somehow led that team to a 4-2 win over the Reed-Bellamy-Frazier-Bradley combo, and did so by leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG% (BTW, he ousthot Bellamy, who had shot .541 against the NBA... .584 to .421.)

And Wilt himself was nursing an assortment of injuries in the '68 EDF's, including a tear that was the same that rendered Willis Reed a statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals. And all Wilt did was play every minute of the seven game series, including pummeling Russell in what should have been a closeout game in game five, BUT, he lost TWO MORE starters in that game...and they subsequently lost a game seven by four points.


And I have already covered the '69 Finals with you, as well. It was, by far, Wilt's worst Finals. BUT, he still outplayed Russell, and then badly outplayed him in game seven...in a two point loss.

BTW, his COACH had West and Baylor taking all the shots. Wilt's new coach in '70, had Chamberlain as the focal point of the offense, and Wilt was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, on a .579 FG%, when he shattered his knee in the ninth game (the same knee that he injured in game seven of the '69 Finals BTW.)

CONTEXT.

You should use it EQUALLY.


Oh, and why couldn't MJ take his '95 team to a title? It was the same EXACT roster that went 55-27 without him the year before, except he replaced Grant. In fact, Grant's '94 team did considerably better in their post-season, than MJ's '95 team did.

jesus

[ClipperRevival]

CONTEXT.

And you and I have covered both of those series before.

Wilt's '68 team was so decimated by injuries that they were an under-dog going into the first round. Chamberlain somehow led that team to a 4-2 win over the Reed-Bellamy-Frazier-Bradley combo, and did so by leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG% (BTW, he ousthot Bellamy, who had shot .541 against the NBA... .584 to .421.)

And Wilt himself was nursing an assortment of injuries in the '68 EDF's, including a tear that was the same that rendered Willis Reed a statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals. And all Wilt did was play every minute of the seven game series, including pummeling Russell in what should have been a closeout game in game five, BUT, he lost TWO MORE starters in that game...and they subsequently lost a game seven by four points.


And I have already covered the '69 Finals with you, as well. It was, by far, Wilt's worst Finals. BUT, he still outplayed Russell, and then badly outplayed him in game seven...in a two point loss.

BTW, his COACH had West and Baylor taking all the shots. Wilt's new coach in '70, had Chamberlain as the focal point of the offense, and Wilt was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, on a .579 FG%, when he shattered his knee in the ninth game (the same knee that he injured in game seven of the '69 Finals BTW.)

CONTEXT.

You should use it EQUALLY.


Oh, and why couldn't MJ take his '95 team to a title? It was the same EXACT roster that went 55-27 without him the year before, except he replaced Grant. In fact, Grant's '94 team did considerably better in their post-season, than MJ's '95 team did.

Wilt was up 3-1 on Russell's Celtics in 1968. And then proceeded to lose 3 straight, 2 of them at home. In game 7, he scored 14 points and 6/15 from the FT line.

At least you are conceding that Wilt wasn't up to par in 1969.

This is exactly WHY Wilt deserves criticism. Because he had the proper supporting cast and situation to win and didn't. That matters.

And why did MJ not win in 1995? The same reason Wilt didn't in 1970. We covered this before. Both guys missed the majority of the regular season and had only a few games under their belt come playoff time. But you have to admit, Wilt had a golden opportunity to pummel a hobbled Reed in game 7 when he had 45 points in game 6. But again, I don't hold this against him.

[ClipperRevival]

Awesome point!! He has SO MANY RINGS that it really vaulted him up the charts. Russ was a great rebounding, passing, and defensive big man. BUT his scoring ability left a lot to be desired. In the grand scheme, He WASN'T close to alpha dog scoring ability at all. Russ wasn't ANYWHERE near the two way threat centers like Wilt, Kareem, Dream, Robinson, Ewing, Walton, etc. I would take ALL of these centers over Russ peak wise:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Dream
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

Rings did more for Russ than ANY OTHER PLAYER in American team sports. In general, he's barely a top 10 player of all time peak wise among centers. And he's NOWHERE near a top 10 player of all time peak wise AMONG ALL POSITIONS!! BUT BECAUSE of rings, he's MUCH HIGHER UP on the GOAT charts.

I used to have the same view as you did about Russell for many years. That his teams simply had a monopoly of talent on the rest of the league. But the closer I researched, the more I discovered that wasn't exactly the case. Russell was 10-0 in game 7s. Yes, 10-0. That means he could've lost 10 more series. And in those 10 games, he averaged 18.6 PPG and 29.3 RPG. Well above his normal averages. That means he elevated his level of play.

And watching and reading up on him, you soon find out this guy was a killer. He always tried to win the mental battle, always tried to get every edge and went after opponents. That is the type of mentality you need to have to win 11 rings in 13 seasons. I just think his overall IMPACT on his teammates and the game gets overlooked. He did whatever it took to win.

[Sarcastic]

Then why did Nike sign MJ by enticing him with big money and great incentives early in his career before he won a title? Why would they want to sponsor a loser like Jordan?

Why would the Bulls offer him an ungodly contract (for the times) in 1988 of 8yrs...25mil?

Shouldn't they have been convinced he was a loser who couldn't get out of the first round and shipped him out?

Nike was a shit hick company from Oregon when they signed him. Converse and Adiddas were much bigger at the time. He built that company with his popularity. I think the only athlete they had before him was John McEnroe. No one used their products.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt was up 3-1 on Russell's Celtics in 1968. And then proceeded to lose 3 straight, 2 of them at home. In game 7, he scored 14 points and 6/15 from the FT line.

At least you are conceding that Wilt wasn't up to par in 1969.

This is exactly WHY Wilt deserves criticism. Because he had the proper supporting cast and situation to win and didn't. That matters.

And why did MJ not win in 1995? The same reason Wilt didn't in 1970. We covered this before. Both guys missed the majority of the regular season and had only a few games under their belt come playoff time. But you have to admit, Wilt had a golden opportunity to pummel a hobbled Reed in game 7 when he had 45 points in game 6. But again, I don't hold this against him.

Do you think MJ wins rings in his Finals without Pippen, and then with either Grant/Rodman injured, and worthless...all while playing with a torn calf muscle?

I would argue that he likely would not have won one game...much less lose a game seven by four points. BTW, Wilt's decimated team had a 3-1 series lead...and in game five, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 28-8, outrebounded Russell, 30-24, and outshot from the field, 11-21 to 4-10. But, go ahead and blame Wilt for that loss.

The difference between Wilt in '70, and MJ in '95???? Chamberlain had shredded his knee only four months before, and had had major knee surgery. It was not only a miracle that he even came back so soon, but that he also hung the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23-24 .625.) All while taking his 46-36 team to a game seven against a 60-22 Knicks team.

CONTEXT...again...you should apply it EQUALLY.

[bizil]

I used to have the same view as you did about Russell for many years. That his teams simply had a monopoly of talent on the rest of the league. But the closer I researched, the more I discovered that wasn't exactly the case. Russell was 10-0 in game 7s. Yes, 10-0. That means he could've lost 10 more series. And in those 10 games, he averaged 18.6 PPG and 29.3 RPG. Well above his normal averages. That means he elevated his level of play.

And watching and reading up on him, you soon find out this guy was a killer. He always tried to win the mental battle, always tried to get every edge and went after opponents. That is the type of mentality you need to have to win 11 rings in 13 seasons. I just think his overall IMPACT on his teammates and the game gets overlooked. He did whatever it took to win.


Don't get me wrong, Russ would have been an HOFer WITHOUT RINGS!! But in terms of peak value, I would take nine other centers OVER Russ. And there are three to four more who AREN'T far off from Russ peak wise.

GOAT wise (which is the MOST IMPORTANT LIST), I consider Russ in the top five. Up there with MJ, Kareem, Wilt, and Magic. However, u can look at Russ's scoring averages and shooting percentages AND see why guys like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, Moses, Robinson, Ewing, and Walton are SUPERIOR PLAYERS peak wise. As athletic as Russ was, u would THINK he would have been MORE OF A FORCE scoring wise in the 60's. EVEN on those deep Boston teams.

[SouBeachTalents]

Rings just have to be given context. If you win a title as your teams best player, then I think it's totally fair to use ring count as an argument. It's when you count sidekick rings like '00 Kobe, '06 Shaq, all of Pippen's, and even worse, 3rd-4th option rings like Kareem's last 2, that's when counting rings becomes an idiotic argument

[24-Inch_Chrome]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Yes? 2007 Suns > 2007 Spurs >>>>> 2007 Jazz/Cavs.

Why aren't you posting this on your main?

[bdreason]

You have to reward winning, even if it's to a fault. If you give too much praise to individual players who post big numbers, but lack team success, then you set a bad precedent.


It's the same reason coaches tend to vote for players of winning teams to be in the All-Star game, although that trend has changed a bit in recent years. It's team game, so you need to recognize team success.

[3ball]

those 1990s Bulls were composed well. Even if they weren't the most talented bunch, they complemented Jordan and each other very well.

Fair?


No, not fair.. Pippen needed to handle the ball a decent amount to play his best - accordingly, Jordan's ability to play off-ball complimented PIPPEN, not the other way around.. Jordan's goat ability both off-ball and on-ball allowed Pippen to play to capacity.

Otoh, we know Lebron's ball-dominance clashed with Wade's ball-dominance - it's a well-known statistical fact that the Heat were a worse team when both were on the floor together, rather than just one of them.. Otoh, Jordan's off-ball ability would've allowed Wade to play to capacity just like it did with Pippen.

Furthermore, Lebron's supporting casts complimented him perfectly - all his teams had a bevy of 3-point shooters to compliment his ball-dominance and drive-and-kick.

But the issue is whether Lebron's style results in teams that play good enough BASKETBALL to win at the highest level and beat the best teams... Clearly, his ball-dominant style often DOESN'T result in the best basketball - this year will be yet another example (2/7), even though he has all the talent any #1 option could ever ask for.

[DrainMD]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.

I look at it a different way, most championships are lead by a superstar talent, or a player that plays at a superstar level even if its just for the playoff run. But most championship teams are well built teams that rely on solid role players.
I think Iverson is the most recent time a player went the farthest with little help. Maybe Lebron in 07, either way great players need good players to win.

A rings only criteria is definitely unfair.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Not worth wasting the time to read your crap.

Every player Jordan ever played with was shit and he was the only reason why they ever managed to win a game. He could have gone 1v5 and won against any NBA team. Basically every post you've ever made on Jordan and his teammates.

[3ball]

Not worth wasting the time to read your crap.

Every player Jordan ever played with was shit and he was the only reason why they ever managed to win a game. He could have gone 1v5 and won against any NBA team. Basically every post you've ever made on Jordan and his teammates.
Wow... apparently, i AM convincing after all.

Also, you're dumb for thinking Lebron had nothing to do with the Heat's blowout in 2014 Finals.

If he held Kawhi to the same 11 ppg that DAL and OKC did, the Heat would've still lost, but the series would've been competitive just like the DAL and OKC series were.

And if Lebron can play that defense AND be more aggressive offensively by doubling his shot attempts like he did in 2015 Finals (which won 2 games with worse supporting cast against better team), the Heat WIN.

[Hey Yo]

Wow... apparently, i AM convincing after all.

Also, you're dumb for thinking Lebron had nothing to do with the Heat's blowout in 2014 Finals.

If he held Kawhi to the same 11 ppg that DAL and OKC did, the Heat would've still lost, but the series would've been competitive just like the DAL and OKC series were.

And if Lebron can play that defense AND be more aggressive offensively by doubling his shot attempts like he did in 2015 Finals (which won 2 games with worse supporting cast against better team), the Heat WIN.
Nobody on OKC or Dallas was making their 4th straight Finals appearance or looking to lead the team in MP, pts, rebounds and assists for the 3rd consecutive Finals

Bullshit....like I said before, if James plays as aggressive on offense in 2014 and the Heat lose, you would say he ignored superstar Wade, 10x all-star Bosh and the rest of the team in order to pad his stats.

You're bullshit and if's just go around in circles for whatever criteria it needs to fit.

[3ball]

Nobody on OKC or Dallas was making their 4th straight Finals appearance or looking to lead the team in MP, pts, rebounds and assists for the 3rd consecutive Finals

Bullshit....like I said before, if James plays as aggressive on offense in 2014 and the Heat lose, you would say he ignored superstar Wade, 10x all-star Bosh and the rest of the team in order to pad his stats.

You're bullshit and if's just go around in circles for whatever criteria it needs to fit.
No "ifs" needed... Just play much better defense and be far more aggressive offensively.

Lebron could've played far better defensively and held Kawhi to 11 ppg like DAL and OKC did (and had a similarly competitive series, rather than a massacre), and he could've been far more aggressive offensively by doubling his shot attempts like he did in 2015 Finals (where he won 2 games with weaker supporting cast against a better team).

Similarly - in 2015, he showed the necessary offensive aggression (which won 2 games), but he failed defensively - if he plays better defense so Iggy is the role player he IS, then the Cavs could've won.

[Hey Yo]

If he held Kawhi to the same 11 ppg that DAL and OKC did, the Heat would've still lost, but the series would've been competitive just like the DAL and OKC series were..

Nobody on OKC or Dallas was making their 4th straight Finals appearance or looking to lead the team in MP, pts, rebounds and assists for the 3rd consecutive Finals


Similarly - in 2015, he showed the necessary offensive aggression (which won 2 games), but he failed defensively - if he plays better defense so Iggy is the role player he IS, then the Cavs could've won.

Bullshit....like I said before, if James plays as aggressive on offense in 2014 and the Heat lose, you would say he ignored superstar Wade, 10x all-star Bosh and the rest of the team in order to pad his stats.

You're bullshit and if's just go around in circles for whatever criteria it needs to fit.

[Sarcastic]

If Lebron was 6/6, wouldn't he have a case for GOAT?


This thread is just Lebron nut huggers trying to excuse 2/6.

[sdot_thadon]

If Lebron was 6/6, wouldn't he have a case for GOAT?


This thread is just Lebron nut huggers trying to excuse 2/6.
He'd have a case that basically highlights the question in the op. Winning those 4 series don't automatically make him a better player. He's good enough for the debates already.

And 6/6 wouldn't make him goat, the CONTEXT would make him goat:

Won in 07 with literally no help, the definition of carrying a team. Against the spurs dynasty no less.

Won in 15 with no help, 2nd and 3rd options lost to injury. basically carrying an entirely different squad against another all time great team, 8 years later.

Along the way a 5 peat occurs, during that 5 peat he goes back to back with 2 different franchises. Just because of the sheer degree of difficulty.....

That would be worthy of goat, not just the count. Funniest thing is this is what you 2/6 guys ask and expect of Lebron. You have unflappable faith, sounds like you guys believe he's the goat.:biggums: