It would atleast prove that he could win without having by FAR the most just "brute-force" talented squad in the L.
Durant will retire w more points and rings than bron
- Thread starter ROFL_GUY
- Start date
On evenly talented teams I agree.
I was moreso thinking about players like Horry with 5 rings and how rings alone shouldnt be the deciding factor.
Winning 3 rings and going 3 for 3 in the finals >>>> winning 4 rings but going 4 for 9
Winning 2 rings as a finals MVP and elite player >>>> winning 5 as a 6th man
Players like horry, rings are more like an add on. Than legacy defining, I suppose its nice to know you were a part of what made a champion a champion. Regardless of how small their part in it was.
Terrible opinion.
You're saying that LeBron dragging Delly and Shump to the Finals and then pushing a stacked Warriors team to 6 hurts his legacy more than Magic and Kareem in the middle of their peak losing in the 1st round to a 40-42 team.
You're saying that LeBron going to the Cavs and winning a title for them was BAD for his legacy because he was 1-3 in the Finals, but Kareem going to the Lakers and not winning anything until Magic came doesn't hurt his legacy because he was smart enough to get run out of town by Portland and Seattle before he even got to the Finals.
Literally no one said this stuff before Nike made the MJ legend. No one uses Hakeem's 2-0 Finals record to argue that he's better than Wilt's 2-4 in the Finals. No one says that Tim Duncan is better than Kareem even though Duncan's 5-1 winning percentage is better than Kareem's 6-4 (and Kareem would have only been 3-3 if he had retired at 37). Wade is 3-2 in the Finals but no one would say that's better than LeBron's 3-6.
Some day casuals are gonna say that David Robinson's 2-0 Finals record shows how much more dominant he was than LeBron.
Last edited:
GoddamnyamanProf
Countdown to Armageddon
That means not only did you have one less championship, but for the rest of the years you weren't good enough to even get there. Versus being a perpetual contender every season and winning an extra one as a result.
Literally make zero sense, brehs.
Literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen in sports fandom.
You're saying that LeBron dragging Delly and Shump to the Finals and then pushing a stacked Warriors team to 6 hurts his legacy more than Magic and Kareem in the middle of their peak losing in the 1st round to a 40-42 team.
You're saying that LeBron going to the Cavs and winning a title for them was BAD for his legacy because he was 1-3 in the Finals, but Kareem going to the Lakers and not winning anything until Magic came doesn't hurt his legacy because he was smart enough to get run out of town by Portland and Seattle before he even got to the Finals.
Literally no one said this dumb stuff before Nike made the MJ legend. No one uses Hakeem's 2-0 Finals record to argue that he's better than Wilt's 2-4 in the Finals. No one says that Tim Duncan is better than Kareem even though Duncan's 5-1 winning percentage is better than Kareem's 6-4 (and Kareem would have only been 3-3 if he had retired at 37). Wade is 3-2 in the Finals but you'd have to be an idiot to say that's better than LeBron's 3-6.
Some day casuals are gonna say that David Robinson's 2-0 Finals record shows how much more dominant he was than LeBron.
Youre a moron who doesnt use context in arguments like this,not surprising since you didny copy my whole post....I pointed out your position on the team matters to the argument in terms of leader,6th man,robin...but your dumbass left that part out.
D-Rob's titles both happened at the end of his career not when he was an MVP and i mentioned that in my post...Players being on equal footing i would measure win pct over number of titles...and nobody but dumbass nikkas like you would make the Wade vs Bron argument because theyre not equals.
If your gonna have a GOAT discussion BRons 3/9 will be mentioned as a legitimate argument...
If your measuring similar players i would choose the guy with the better Finals win pct...all that other shyt includi ng perpetual contenders doesnt matter in this convo,cuz nobody cares or remembers the 92 Blazers or the 96 Sonics...IF your measuring HOFers with no rings youre going on accolades and stats not pacific division banners and conference titles...
Coli Hoecomb
Trollin' in my 64'
As a Spurs fan I beg to differ. We caught all the * smoke in 99’. Cats didn’t ease up til 03’
You're confused, there was a ton of dumb stuff in your argument and now you're only cherry-picking a couple of the dumb things he said.
If D-Rob's titles at the end of his career don't count the same, does that mean Kareem's titles at the end of his career don't count the same either? So what's Kareem's actual Finals record in your eyes, 3-3? Or do you change the argument to fit all the time?
Is Duncan's 5-1 Finals record better than Kareem's 6-4 Finals record? Is Larry Bird's 3-1 Finals record better than Magic Johnson's 5-4 Finals record? Is Hakeem's 2-0 Finals record better than Shaq's 4-2 Finals record? Is John Havlicek's 8-1 Finals record better than Kobe's 5-2 Finals record? Is Bill Walton's 2-1 Finals record better than Wilt Chamberlain's 2-4 Finals record? Is Dwayne Wade's 3-2 Finals record better than LeBron's 3-6 Finals record?
Answer the question.
Kareems finals record and the fact 2 of em were at the end is a reason that Michael goes over him in the GOAT debate....very rarely will nikkas put KAreem over MJ and 6/6 has alot to do with it....was always the leader.
D-Robs titles obviously count but devalued when arguing him against other elite big men in the same category as him....Never won as the lead player in SA during his prime years....Same reason we dont value Clyde Drexlers ring in Houston or Mournings ring with Miami the same....
Now lets argue Havlicek vs Kobe
Mindfield333
Superstar
The mental gymnastics people use to discredit LeBron is crazy lol
fifth column
Superstar
Lebron lost too many times brehLiterally the stupidest idea I've ever seen in sports fandom.
You're saying that LeBron dragging Delly and Shump to the Finals and then pushing a stacked Warriors team to 6 hurts his legacy more than Magic and Kareem in the middle of their peak losing in the 1st round to a 40-42 team.
You're saying that LeBron going to the Cavs and winning a title for them was BAD for his legacy because he was 1-3 in the Finals, but Kareem going to the Lakers and not winning anything until Magic came doesn't hurt his legacy because he was smart enough to get run out of town by Portland and Seattle before he even got to the Finals.
Literally no one said this dumb stuff before Nike made the MJ legend. No one uses Hakeem's 2-0 Finals record to argue that he's better than Wilt's 2-4 in the Finals. No one says that Tim Duncan is better than Kareem even though Duncan's 5-1 winning percentage is better than Kareem's 6-4 (and Kareem would have only been 3-3 if he had retired at 37). Wade is 3-2 in the Finals but you'd have to be an idiot to say that's better than LeBron's 3-6.
Some day casuals are gonna say that David Robinson's 2-0 Finals record shows how much more dominant he was than LeBron.