Throwdowns > Forfeited

#thunderup

??

haha

Anyways, titles DO help. Look at Tim Duncan vs Malone. I personally think Malone was the better player, but Tim's got 4 titles.

You know?

This is an interesting topic. Magic was talking a couple nights ago regarding Lebron's legacy (to be) and he talked about a Lakers player/legend (I wanna say it was Elgin Baylor but I may be mistaken) who has been all but forgotten around the area because he never won a championship. It's a shame but a fact that history records champions in stone and the second best gets a footnote.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 07:42 AM ET  06.13 by Lightly Salted Nuts

It's a shame but a fact that history records champions in stone and the second best gets a footnote.

This.

Fair or not, it is reality.

Players like Kobe, MJ, LeBron, etc will be judged with heavy emphasis on rings....but other players aren't....people aren't going to judge Steve Nash based on rings....some positions aren't made to put up gaudy numbers and they don't get the same attention as the top scorers but they are the one's that feed the ball and make the plays happen for the high scoring players. So, it isn't universal that any 2 comparable players will be weighed on their ring count...

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 08:20 AM ET  06.13 by ---Loki---

Players like Kobe, MJ, LeBron, etc will be judged with heavy emphasis on rings....but other players aren't....people aren't going to judge Steve Nash based on rings....some positions aren't made to put up gaudy numbers and they don't get the same attention as the top scorers but they are the one's that feed the ball and make the plays happen for the high scoring players. So, it isn't universal that any 2 comparable players will be weighed on their ring count...

I agree that it isn't universal.

But it is a factor when comparing, let's say, the all-star caliber players and their legacies.

But then, there are some players whose only real accomplishment in greatness is how they DID perform in that big game where they won a ring. I give you Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw. Lifetime career QB rating of 70. But, in the four SBs his team won he had ratings of
108
122
118
101
Sometimes getting it done in the clutch establishes the greatness of a player.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 02:44 AM ET  06.13 by ()0P()0C()0H~HBO SAT. 6 PM!

#thunderup?? haha Anyways, titles DO help. Look at Tim Duncan vs Malone. I personally think Malone was the better player, but Tim's got 4 titles. You know?

Holds hand over challenge button

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 09:42 AM ET  06.13 by Bloggers Needed

There is little argument,people under 30 and/or don't know basketball that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time.

Fixed.

Oddly enough, Had to argue a guy at work that said if Lebron wins a title he's better than JORDAN.

anyone want to help me dig the hole?

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 02:44 AM ET  06.13 by ()0P()0C()0H~HBO SAT. 6 PM!

Look at Tim Duncan vs Malone. I personally think Malone was the better player, but Tim's got 4 titles. You know?

It is a perception thing. With basketball, one player can dominate the game.

Karl Malone and John Stockton are among the top five players ever at their positions. They did not win a title. Is their legacy tainted? Not in my mind.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  06.13 by ...the best policy

Karl Malone and John Stockton are among the top five players ever at their positions. They did not win a title. Is their legacy tainted? Not in my mind.

It is not tainted, absolutely not.

But it would certainly be enhanced had they won 1 or more championships.

That's the difference.

And that's why Karl Malone signed with the Lakers, because he wanted to win a ring to solidify his career.

I think the ring argument is a joke. For example, Wilt was a better basketball player then Russell. Russell however gets more accolades because he won more championships then Wilt, even though Russell's Celtic teammates were vastly better then Wilt's Philly teams.

For me, I think a great player should win at least one championship to legitimize his excellence. Once you win that one championship, then all bets are off.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 07:42 AM ET  06.13 by Lightly Salted Nuts

This is an interesting topic. Magic was talking a couple nights ago regarding Lebron's legacy (to be) and he talked about a Lakers player/legend (I wanna say it was Elgin Baylor but I may be mistaken) who has been all but forgotten around the area because he never won a championship. It's a shame but a fact that history records champions in stone and the second best gets a footnote.

Probably was.



Oscar finally got one at the end of his career.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:27 AM ET  06.13 by OlderthanDirt

But then, there are some players whose only real accomplishment in greatness is how they DID perform in that big game where they won a ring. I give you Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw. Lifetime career QB rating of 70. But, in the four SBs his team won he had ratings of 108122118101Sometimes getting it done in the clutch establishes the greatness of a player.

That's going to be the Eli argument. 2 SuperBowl MVPs, Never in the regular season mix for MVP.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:27 AM ET  06.13 by OlderthanDirt

But then, there are some players whose only real accomplishment in greatness is how they DID perform in that big game where they won a ring. I give you Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw. Lifetime career QB rating of 70. But, in the four SBs his team won he had ratings of 108122118101Sometimes getting it done in the clutch establishes the greatness of a player.

Troy Aikman would be another example.

Like Bradshaw, regular season numbers that were above average, but not great. But in the big game, he put up great numbers (and won).

Bear in mind that my point is that rings are ONE of the arguments to consider, hence a "valid argument".

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 10:12 AM ET  06.13 by Hyped78

And that's why Karl Malone signed with the Lakers, because he wanted to win a ring to solidify his career.

Winning a Championship as an under achieving 6'th man would have meant nothing to anyone but Malone.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 10:19 AM ET  06.13 by we_are___

I think the ring argument is a joke. For example, Wilt was a better basketball player then Russell. Russell however gets more accolades because he won more championships then Wilt, even though Russell's Celtic teammates were vastly better then Wilt's Philly teams. For me, I think a great player should win at least one championship to legitimize his excellence. Once you win that one championship, then all bets are off.

The ring thing is not a joke, especially when you talk about a player like Chamberlain. If Chamberlain had won more rings, he, not Jordan, would be considered the best player of all time. Chamberlain is not considered the greatest of all time, right or wrong, because he didn't win more championships. And it's not just a Russell thing. Most people thought Chamberlain should've dominated the Knicks in '70 after Reed was out.

My point being, sure you can factor the ability to win championships into his legacy, but there are so many factors that go into a championship. It is not fair to say LeBron isn't as good as Derek Fisher because he will have either 4 or 6 less championships than him.

I don't like this argument. You are comparing Lebron (the best player on his team) with Fisher (the 4'th or 5'th best on his team). To be fair compare Lebron to Kobe (the best player on Fishers Championship teams). If Lebron wins 3-4 more MVP's, but 0 Championships, will he be considered better than Kobe? I say no.