This question can be asked a number of ways: Would you rather be Charles Barkley or Robert Horry? Would you rather be the best heart surgeon in the world and make $10MM, or win $100MM in the lottery? Basically, the answer boils down to whether the journey matters to you or the end result: are you an inputs-driven person or an outputs-driven person? Being in the HOF is primarily an input-driven goal: it's entirely reflective of you, your work-ethic, your talent, etc. Winning championships is an output - the inputs are your skill level, the team around you, health, luck, timing, etc. Different people are wired differently and would answer accordingly. Looking at NBA players, if you're driven to be amongst the top few hundred people in the world at your profession, you're probably driven by inputs and the journey. I'd guess more role players would objectively trade their careers to be Charles Barkley, than Barkleys/Stocktons/etc would trade their careers to be Robert Horry.
But would he really? Maybe he says that because he won so many. Horry was obviously fortunate enough to play on some great teams with great players. He may feel differently if he had never won. I can appreciate people/players wanting to be the best at what they do, that said, it's all about winning. Why play sports to not win?
No, you play sports to be the best, the best get into the HOF. You don't play sports hoping to be on the best team.
Again, I'll say this; What will T-Mac be remembered for? Hall of fame career? Maybe. Not making it to the second round and obviously not winning a title? That's what I'll remember the most. Sure the dunk over Bradley or the 13 in 33, both left lasting impressions. So what? He didn't win and as a Rockets fan I wanted him to win a championship, all else meant very little. I appreciate what Mac brought as a player, always will, but he didn't win and that's what matters most. Not trying to turn this into a Mac thread, just an example.
Yeah, I'd much rather be Norris Cole than Kevin Garnett or Dirk Nowitzki. Stupid question, championships are team achievement, HOF is invidiual.
Btw: This guy: has more rings than Charles Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, Elgin Baylor, John Stockton, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing, Iverson, McGrady...combined. Spoilered for size...this picture says it all... Spoiler
Lol, I would rather win chips and be a team player and get a ring than any amount of personally glory, and I bet 90% of the league would agree with me. You play for chips not HOF
It's a catch-22, since it is a team sport and your personal accomplishments for a lack of a better are more or less forgetable unless you are an exceptional to good, well above average talent. People do not seem to understand that we can judge individuals by championships in team sports, because it is 5 to 22 player game. That's too many hands involved for one individual to absorb all of the credit or blame. If it were boxing, track & field, or figure skating I'd understand
Well personally I'd rather be in the HOF since that meant I was a great player and thus made a ton of money. But to be honest if I wouldve made the same regardless I would choose the multiple rings...just so you have memorabilia. I mean if you think about, everyone and their mom would say Nash is better than Chalmers, but the fact that he has no rings has got to est at Nash while Chalmersparties every night with his not 1, but 2, soon to be 3 rings.
I'll take the championships. My level of talent is whatever it is. But, if I'm going to spend 15 years doing something in my life, I want to be successful at it. I don't want to go down like a Charles Barkley with everyone saying I had so much potential and could accomplish so much, if only I applied myself (which is what people seem to say about me now).
