The 'legacy' BS - LeBron and others

[trojanfan12]

Yeah true but what I am saying is part of players legacies shouldn't depending on others but unfortunately they do and that's the way it is and that is in every team sport. Yeah I see them at about 4 or 5 too.

Yeah, I see him and Bird as a pretty interchangeable at 4 and 5. Same number of rings, but Lebron has made more finals appearances. Also, just on pure basketball talent, Larry isn't close to Lebron (but then again, not many are).

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Here's the thing. The Cavs won so the narrative is about how LeBron is now for sure a top 5 all timer, defining moment, etc. etc. Fine.

But if Kyrie misses that last 3 and Steph makes his, the Warriors win. Nothing to do with LeBron but then the narrative is "2-5, he sucks, can't win the big series". How is he worse or better just because Kyrie makes a shot and Steph misses one?

Same thing with his time in Miami, if Ray Allen misses that now iconic shot to ice that Finals, how does that change how we view LeBron? Should it?

I try to stay away from the hypothetical but, the reality is Ray Allen and Irving made those shots and Lebron now has 3 rings. But more to your point...at the all time level, obviously they're all great players, but what separates them are rings....the reason you don't hear Malone, Barkley or Stockton mentioned as much or at all in this conversations, they don't have any rings.

Lebron is not any better in my eyes, nor would he be any less had they lost...he's was already a top 5 all time player imo...this 3rd ring just makes the argument stronger.

 

[trojanfan12]

But more to your point...at the all time level, obviously they're all great players, but what separates them are rings....the reason you don't hear Malone, Barkley or Stockton mentioned as much or at all in this conversations, they don't have any rings.

This is what I think some folks don't understand. When you get to the level of the all-time greats, the difference between them is razor thin. You can literally make a very good argument for at least 7-8 players as being GOAT and at least a decent argument for several more.

Because of that, there has to be a "tie breaker" of sorts and that "tie breaker" is rings.

 

[Across The Field]

Precisely why it is so stupid to use championships and finals' record as the primary means to determine the best players of all time.

So much of the circumstance of whether or not a team wins is outside of the individual players' control. A degree of common sense is needed in these arguments, but far too many look blindly at team statistics that are important, but still just a piece of the equation.

If Michael Jordan had been surrounded by current 6er like talent for his entire career, would that really have made him less of a player?

100% accurate. If you put Lebron on Jordan's teams from the 90s, he wins at least 8 rings because he doesn't retire to play baseball for two years. You put Jordan on the shit teams Lebron played on for his first 7 years, he doesn't even make the Finals. There's a reason when Jordan retired for two years, the Bulls still went to the playoffs and won a series both years. Meanwhile, the two years after Lebron left Cleveland, they went straight to the cellar.

 

[tlance]

This is what I think some folks don't understand. When you get to the level of the all-time greats, the difference between them is razor thin. You can literally make a very good argument for at least 7-8 players as being GOAT and at least a decent argument for several more.

Because of that, there has to be a "tie breaker" of sorts and that "tie breaker" is rings.

But that is the whole point. It shouldn't be that. Too many external factors.

LeBron played with Wade for 4 years, and in 2 of them he was elite. Kyrie might be heading in that direction, but he isn't there yet. All the players at the top were paired with another all time great (top 20 player). Yet, when LeBron went ring hunting, he was crucified for it.

The way I see it, we either have to change how we calculate GOAT status, or we should stop criticizing players for doing what LeBron did 6 years ago. It is not fair to do it both ways. The whole legacy process is essentially rigged so nobody will ever top Jordan. That is not very fun, IMO.

I do think there are many here intelligent enough to see that just because ring count is the accepted way to separate greats, does not make it the best.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Very good point that I don't think I've ever really heard argued before.

The counter is you could make an argument that Kobe was never the best player in the league during his career.

 

[trojanfan12]

But that is the whole point. It shouldn't be that.

And yet, no matter how often you say that...it doesn't change.

You can disagree and say it shouldn't be that way all you want. But, it's how the all time greats separate themselves.

They all put MJ at #1 and it always comes down to him being 6-0 in the finals.

Who are we to argue with them?

 

[tlance]

The counter is you could make an argument that Kobe was never the best player in the league during his career.

I don't think that is a counter at all. It suggests that Kobe may be a tad overrated on all time lists because of his ring count.

Personally though, I think he was the best player for a couple years in there.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

100% accurate. If you put Lebron on Jordan's teams from the 90s, he wins at least 8 rings because he doesn't retire to play baseball for two years. You put Jordan on the shit teams Lebron played on for his first 7 years, he doesn't even make the Finals. There's a reason when Jordan retired for two years, the Bulls still went to the playoffs and won a series both years. Meanwhile, the two years after Lebron left Cleveland, they went straight to the cellar.

"Meanwhile, the two years after Lebron left Cleveland, they went straight to the cellar."

That's a reflection on the Cavs F.O. in general.
You're expecting different results post James this go round?

 

[RazorsEdge]

I don't think that is a counter at all. It suggests that Kobe may be a tad overrated on all time lists because of his ring count.

Personally though, I think he was the best player for a couple years in there.

Well, a counter in the Kobe v Lebron argument at least.

 

[RazorsEdge]

You put Jordan on the shit teams Lebron played on for his first 7 years, he doesn't even make the Finals.

You tryin to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

 

[Wamu]

You tryin to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Whatever ya do don't drink Jobu's rum!

 

[tlance]

And yet, no matter how often you say that...it doesn't change.

You can disagree and say it shouldn't be that way all you want. But, it's how the all time greats separate themselves.

They all put MJ at #1 and it always comes down to him being 6-0 in the finals.

Who are we to argue with them?

You have also said that many times, but it does not change the fact that it is an archaic way of thinking. Every sport has made immense changes over the last 20 years with advanced analytics. The way that we classify greatness should change too.

Just because someone who was at the top of the league 50 years ago believes one thing does not make him right.

 

[tlance]

Well, a counter in the Kobe v Lebron argument at least.

I would say that LeBron is very clearly ahead of Kobe now.

 

[trojanfan12]

You have also said that many times, but it does not change the fact that it is an archaic way of thinking. Every sport has made immense changes over the last 20 years with advanced analytics. The way that we classify greatness should change too.

Just because someone who was at the top of the league 50 years ago believes one thing does not make him right.

And yet, it never changes, no matter how much you claim it's not fair. And it's not just guys from 50 years ago. But nice try.

And I'd say having actually been at the top gives their opinion more weight than a regular person. Since they've actually been there.

 

[tlance]

And yet, it never changes, no matter how much you claim it's not fair. And it's not just guys from 50 years ago. But nice try.

At least I am thinking for myself and not accepting others' opinions as Gospel.

 

[RazorsEdge]

I would say that LeBron is very clearly ahead of Kobe now.

You'll still find a lot of people that disagree with both of us on that one.

 

[trojanfan12]

At least I am thinking for myself and not accepting others' opinions as Gospel.

I don't care what the all time greats say or what they've all accomplished. They're all wrong because I say so - tlance

 

[Shanemansj13]

And yet, no matter how often you say that...it doesn't change.

You can disagree and say it shouldn't be that way all you want. But, it's how the all time greats separate themselves.

They all put MJ at #1 and it always comes down to him being 6-0 in the finals.

Who are we to argue with them?

The six titles is definitely what separates him but say hypothetically Lebron ends up going 6-4 and has 10 finals appearances with also six titles to his credit. He could have a case of taking teams that shouldn't have been in the Finals to the Finals when in the years MJ didn't get to the Finals it doesn't hurt him because he didn't lose in the Finals. I think if that were to happen there would be some serious discussions.

MJ is goat for now and I don't think there is even a question, but some just think he is there to say and that's it. While that is set in stone now we don't know what is to come. I doubt Lebron gets to 6, but it was just an example.

 

[lakersrule]

If the ultimate goal is to win championship, how can ring count not be a contributing factor to greatness?

That being said, I don't think Finals losses are as big of a negative as some do.