Printable View
People say Russell's 11 doesn't count cause the state of the league during the time... not enough teams, the rules etc. His last title was 1969 but Kareem's first was only 2yrs later and people have no problem counting it when they say he has 6 titles.There's no disclaimers when it comes to him.
So all titles and individual accolades shouldn't be counted until after the merger of the 2 leagues when ranking players?
I’d say around 2012. Titles won after that seem legit.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15025040]I’d say around 2012. Titles won after that seem legit.[/QUOTE]
Correct. And titles won after say 2020 or so mean less too because of the state of the league.
So it’s really that 9 year span that means the most.
[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15025047]Correct. And titles won after say 2020 or so mean less too because of the state of the league.
So it’s really that 9 year span that means the most.[/QUOTE]
I never thought of it that way, but that’s an excellent point.
So whoever won the most titles between 2012-2020 would logically have to be considered the GOAT.
Among the obvious things like pace, insane number of possessions and no 3PT line, there were limits on the number of black players allowed on teams. It wasn't written in print, but was considered the unofficial quota system. Generally speaking its just tough to rank players from that era. The NBA was at its infancy stage.
Not that past titles don't count, but we get more clarity either during the ABA merger or addition of the 3PT line.
College, the truth of the matter is you can have any reason to discount rings/championships. This is why I look at title runs and making the NBA/Conference finals as the entry bar for legacy.
Walton's 77 ring or Moses/Erving 83 ring or Olajuwon's 94, Detroits 89 ring, or Lebron's 16 ring those mean a lot.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15025048]I never thought of it that way, but that’s an excellent point.
So whoever won the most titles between 2012-2020 would logically have to be considered the GOAT.[/QUOTE]
But you also have to factor in how many rings to subtract for losing in the finals instead of being swept in the first round.
[QUOTE=j3lademaster;15025071]But you also have to factor in how many rings to subtract for losing in the finals instead of being swept in the first round.[/QUOTE]
It’s more like factoring in how Lebron played the majority of his career in a historically weak Eastern Conference which got further weakened after the consolidation of talent from the formation of the 2011 Heat.
[QUOTE=John8204;15025069]College, the truth of the matter is you can have any reason to discount rings/championships. This is why I look at title runs and making the NBA/Conference finals as the entry bar for legacy.
Walton's 77 ring or Moses/Erving 83 ring or Olajuwon's 94,[B] Detroits 89 ring[/B], or Lebron's 16 ring those mean a lot.[/QUOTE]
The ring when they beat the Lakers with Magic playing a grand total of 75 minutes and 42 year old Kareem retiring right after the finals? Yep, tons of value in that one.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;15025084]The ring when they beat the Lakers with Magic playing a grand total of 75 minutes and 42 year old Kareem retiring right after the finals? Yep, tons of value in that one.[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't for an all-time shady officiating they would have beaten the Lakers twice. They swept 3 hall of famers in the first round, 2 in the second, and then they came back from 1-2 to beat Jordan and Pippen.
[QUOTE=warriorfan;15025081]It’s more like factoring in how Lebron played the majority of his career in a historically weak Eastern Conference which got further weakened after the consolidation of talent from the formation of the 2011 Heat.[/QUOTE]
True. Those Raptors were going to be a real bitch to get past in 2011.
Ever since GOAT started running up his TITLE TALLYS between 1990 and 1999 Decade!
Until then.........................
Nobody cared MAGIC had 5. Bird had 3. Russell has 11.
GOAT changed the conversation forever.
2 THREEPEATS in a Single decade was just too much and hollywood fantasy like.
[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15025117]True. Those Raptors were going to be a real bitch to get past in 2011.[/QUOTE]
It prevented them from doing anything for quite a few years. Losing Bosh for nothing is a big set back.
East was historically weak and the decision further weakened it.
You cannot disprove this statement.
Every title counts towards a player's legacy except the 2020 Mickey Mouse bubble. That's the only one that doesn't count.
[QUOTE=John8204;15025111]
If it wasn't for an all-time shady officiating they would have beaten the Lakers twice.
[/QUOTE]
The officiating in the 88 finals has nothing to do with the 89 ring, so like 95% of what you say that's a non-point.
[QUOTE=John8204;15025111]
They swept 3 hall of famers in the first round, 2 in the second, and then they came back from 1-2 to beat Jordan and Pippen.
[/QUOTE]
Lol this dude. At this point one would figure you've exchanged enough words with me to know better than typing such lazy context-free bullshit, but I've surmised you're a self-masochist. This is the kind of intellectually dishonest crap that makes you look like a troll at worst, or just really, really bad at debating any of this stuff without extremely bad faith arguments.
When you're referring to the 3 HOFs on the Celtics, let's break that down. This was a 42 win Celtics squad featuring Mchale and Parish at the end of their primes, Dennis Johnson was well past his. In fact, in that series against the Pistons DJ averaged 3 points and 3 assists off the bench. They had a rising Reggie Lewis, and no Bird. So when you say they 'swept 3 hall of famers', you're doing the thing where you act like these were the same versions of those players who were winning titles 3-5 years before that, instead of what they actually were... an aging past-prime barely over .500 Celtics team. Isiah averaged 12 points on 33% shooting that series and Boston still got swept. What does that tell you about what they actually were at this point?
They beat the 'two HOFer' Bucks squad, again as if beating an aging Jack Sigma or Sidney Moncrief averaging 6 points and 3 rebounds is the prime version of these players and some achievement. Those two were years past their best playing days. Their best player was Terry Cummings, who played 17 minutes in game 3 and scored 4 points on 2/8 shooting.
You then say they 'beat Jordan and Pippen', as if this was prime Pippen and not the 2nd year version who hadn't even made an all-NBA, all-star, or all-defensive team at this point averaging 14/6/4 for the year. Pippen averaged 10/7/3 on 45% TS in this series. The fact that they even were in a 1-2 hole to begin with isn't a testament to their greatness in that moment.
Using the 'they beat HOFer' shtick is actually hilarious because based on your logic, the Pistons themselves had 3 HOFers in 89 and unlike their competition that year, Isiah, Dumars, Rodman were ALL in their primes. PLUS they had prime Mark Aquirre, a 3 time all-star who had averaged 25ppg the prior year as their THIRD scorer, and Vinny Johnson off the bench. The 'they beat HOFers' route wasn't well thought out on your part, but par for the course.
In closing, the 89 Pistons beat a past prime Celtics team, a Bucks team without its best player in Cummings, a young Bulls team with Jordan and a pre-prime Pippen, and a Lakers team ravaged by injury to Magic and a 42 year old Kareem. Now, it's very possible with Magic healthy that they would have won anyway, but lets not act like this was a great run or even a good one.