Number of rings earned is not an indicator of how good a player is. You know who else has 5 rings? Steve Kerr. Yeah, a guy who started all of 30 NBA games in his entire career... whose highest scoring season was 8.6 points per game... who averaged 6.0 points per game through his career... whose sole other distinction was that he was a really good three point shooter. Basketball is a team sport. If you're trying to justify a player's greatness by how many championships his teams have won, you've already failed at analyzing the sport, or in fact, knowing anything about team sports in general.
There is a difference when you are talking about a superstar or scrub. Teams acquire superstars for one purpose- to LEAD them to championships. # of rings is how you measure the success they have had in that area. To say # of rings do not matter is ridiculous. Because that is their purpose. That is the reason they get the money they do. To lead their teams to the promise land. It is a team game. If MJ did not have Jackson/Pippen/depth, they would not have won 6 rings (which is why I think Dream is the GOAT).
I don't think so. I respect Kobe's work ethic and game a lot. But, take a guy like Jordan, he was always the best player by far on his team. Kobe was Robin to Shaq's Batman during those championships. But what do I know.
I see what you mean now. But I think you misunderstood my first post. When I said "Kobe didn't do crap without Shaq or Pau," I was just using the "ring logic" to show its fallacy. Kobe did not win any TEAM achievements without good teammates. That means he was not a great player without them, according to the ring logic.
Hakeem was surrounded by good players and plenty of depth, too. I challenge you to find one championship team where that wasn't the case. Teams don't acquire superstars to "lead them" to championships, they acquire superstars to contribute to championship runs. There's a difference. A superstar might make a bigger contribution than any other single player on the team, but remember those NBA commercials from awhile back? It still "takes five". (Actually, closer to ten.)
so to compare both, you put the best players in the spurs, but you put the scrubs on the lakers side, why not you put Shaq, Gasol, Odom, Horry. and phil Jackson as a coach. and btw Robert Horry is not a thug.
No, he is certainly not the greatest player of all time, even if he wins 5 titles. He isnt even the greatest Laker of all time. Magic, Kareem, Shaq and West all are arguably better. Kobe has been the best player on only one championship team. He really isnt close to Jordan, so this is a stupid question.
The Lakers became contenders as soon as Shaq arrived. Kobe wasn't even part of the rotation at first, and then he was the sixth man. They didn't win any championships until Kobe became an outstanding player in his own right (and more importantly I think, Phil Jackson arrived), but that's not the same as "shaq wouldn't have done sh**."
Shaq was three-time Finals MVP. That tells you something. Even Jordan needed Pippen and Phil Jackson to succeed, and yes I agree with you that Shaq needing a second-chair to win championships doesn't equal to "Shaq wouldn't have done ****."
Exactly my point. Shaq needed Kobe. Kobe needed Shaq. Jordan needed Pippen. Pippen needed Jordan. Garnett didn't win anything before he joined Pierce and Allen. Pierce didn't win jack before he got Garnett and Allen. Allen... you get my point. That's why using how many championships to answer the question: Who is GOAT is just senseless.
rings should not be the end all say all to rank the greatest but finals mvp's hold more weight. and jordan has 6, shaq has 3, hakeem has 2, and kobe only has 1 (right now). EVERY championship team needs talent around their superstar to win championships (jordan needed pippen but jordan was the biggest contributer overall to those bulls championships, same with kobe and shaq) but finals mvp separates the jordans from the robert horry's, meaning they separate the guys who led and were the biggest contributers for their championship teams and the guys who stepped up in big moments.
That's somewhat disingenuous and a bit misleading. You realize Shaq in his first year in the league lead his team to 20 more wins and almost reached the playoffs. Also, he had better numbers in his rookie season than Dwight Howard has had in his peak season. When he left Orlando, Los Angeles, and Miami, each of those teams got worse the next season. It only took Shaq, three years to reach Finals. Also, even before the emergence of Kobe, the Lakers were already being primed as the team that would take the mantle away from the Bulls ... because of Shaq. These types of games are always going to favor a center or big man, unless it is an exceptional wing, like MJ or Magic.
If Kobe gets #5 with Bynum, Pau, Artest injured, while MBenga is the only Laker beside Kobe to score in the double digits... Then yes, I will crown him GOAT. But Kobe isn't getting #5 without those players. And MBenga won't average 4 ppg in the near future. So no, Kobe will not be GOAT. Very, very, very, very, VERY good player. But not GOAT.
For me to say Kobe is the greatest of all-time he needs to win 2 MVP's 3 more NBA titles and become league all-time leading scorer. That is one way that even I can't argue him being the GOAT. Reason is because I play devils advotcate and say there is a case to be made for 5 diffrent players of being the greatest to ever play the NBA. I'm not part of the consensus that automatically say it's Jordan.
No, that's why using championships (with no all-star help) to determine who is the GOAT leads to the inevitable conclusion:
That argument still doesn't hold. If we are going to base it on number of rings, lets base it on number of rings with Finals MVP trophies. Kobe =1 MJ =6 LBJ=0 TD = 3 I think this is the standard for LEADING your team to a championship. Kobe is a very distant #8 or so all time.
For me the discussion starts when Kobe or even LBJ win the MVP, All-Star Game MVP, Scoring Title, and Defensive Player of the Year..... ALL IN THE SAME SEASON! MJ did that.
