In a way it's a compliment to Lillard that people care if he's won a ring or not. For example, nobody outside Tobias Harris' friends and family are going to care if he wins a ring once his career is over, that's because people reserve that sort of judgement for guys like Barkley and Nash, and that means Lillard is closer to that type of player than to a guy we don't care about.
And CP3…those two are the ones we care about when it comes to this question. Because they have been phenomenal in their positions throughout their career…
Also people fail to add context, did people really expect Dame to beat the Warriors by himself? The Blazers as a TEAM were never that good, they just had a superstar.
I can respect a superstar player who stays loyal to his team and tries his best to win a championship. That being said I also wouldn't blame players if they decide to leave a team that has an inept owner/front office (2000s LeBron).
@STEELWALL43 true at least you think maybe he wouldve or should try to threaten Portland with leaving like Kobe did for LA to get Gasol to show he really wants to go all the way but maybe he really doesn't want to look unloyal that much which is its own problem. I'd be mad as hell if I was him and McCollum was the best they've been able to get him all these years he's given them since LaMarcus Aldridge left. CJ really wasn't even a good fit. Portland should've been doing everything they possibly could to pair him with a star big or a big wing bit they basically wasted his whole career at this point. He's got two or 3 really good years left and less than that if he gets another injury. Especially since he relies on speed a lot.
@@steelwall4396 id argue he's staying on a team where he does everything all the time. Stats stay high. Still wins just not "it all". Otherwise he may be happy and not wanting to move. May have seen what kd went thru, said f that. May have seen kobe and dirk get their love, wants that. May be he thinks being a city's "guy", or at least one of very few, will be thought of better than some guy who won a chip somewhere (Gary payton vs stockton)
@Ben W A team where he does everything, and yet does nothing. The Blazers haven't had expectations his whole career. No one outside of Portland actually cares about them because they're irrelevant He can talk about the grind all he wants, but he has crafted and stayed in an uncompetitive environment by his choice. That's concerning. You can't be your cities Dirk or Kobe with no jewelry, especially with Walton
@@steelwall4396 the issue is not that he stayed - the issue is that he takes all the money so his team has no chance to be competitive - that is the opposite of dirk
Thank you Ryan for carying the torch for Chris Paul. How easily people forget. They forget how lowsy the Suns were before he took them to the finals. How lottery driven the Thunder were before he took them to the playoffs. How frustrating the Rockets were before he made them watchable and almost able to beat the best team of all time. How mediocre the Clippers were before he made them a contender. How he went to the playoffs with a team that changed it's home town due to a huge hurricane disaster. Each time he elevated his team beyond their real value, allowing them to excede expectations and beacuse of those high hopes that should not have existed in the first place, people look down on him. No, rings aren't everything: Barkely, Wilkins, Baylor, Thompson, Iverson and certainly Chris Paul are proofs that.
Every ringless superstar was either a one dimensional player, a notorious playoff choker, or a person who couldn't get the job done. On rare occasions like Dame, you're an undersized player with no help but Dame could have tried to be more of a passer who then took over as a scorer in the 4th instead of being basically a more efficient Iverson.
Chris Paul is a fundamentally flawed person and it’s beautiful to watch him lose every time. He is not an admirable competitor. He’s unsportsmanlike, dirty and a choker. It’s hilarious how the dude will pull out more cheap shots, flops and complaints to refs than anyone in order to win, just to choke at the crucial point. He’ll do anything to win except play well in big moments. And don’t try to argue he overachieved with bad teams. The clippers were loaded, the rockets had more than enough, and the suns had a ton too. Huge games were lost directly because of him shying away from the moment. He is a superstar talent and the biggest choker in the history of the NBA outside of maybe Malone. Karma has shit on him rightfully and it’ll be great to see him retire a bitter loser.
This is my favorite Ryen Russillo clip from the Ringer. I really appreciate the fairness and detail with which he discusses ring culture as well as the sliding scale of expectations depending on a player’s perceived greatness :)
I think it's crazy how much one ring can boost a player's legacy in the eyes of the average fan when there are so many factors that go into a championship and a single player, even a really great one only has a little bit of control about what happens on the court. A championship is a team accomplishment after all and we somehow use it to prop up individuals because of that. It seems silly that guys like Dirk and KG are somehow seen as better than say Karl Malone or Barkley.
I just never understood the KD is the best player narrative, although Russillo admitted here that he pivoted from that stance, and credit to him for that. We know who was the driving factor of Golden State's success, and it wasn't KD as evidenced by their success before and after Durant. Outside of the Curry years? One Finals appearance, one Conference Finals appearance, and a bunch of second-round exits. Yes, small things decided those series but those details stack up and dictate the bigger outcomes.
so lebron is better cause he played in an easier conference with 2 orher top 5-7 players of that conference? kd played contenders in round 1, east, besides lebrons duperteama, did not have legit contenders while the west had like 6. Swap teams what happens?
@DuckMeat PigMeat this is a bad argument. Was the east weaker sure but like were they that much weaker or did they seem weaker because they constantly got their ass beat by LeBron. When we judge every player on playoff success and nobody in the east has any because of LeBron is becomes a catch 22. Was KD losing to really good teams or did they aeen good because KD lost to them? With thay said I do think KD is one if the 15 best players else despite the fact I give him no credit for his rings.
The answer is the toe on the line series he beat the entire Bucks team that went on to win the title and he did it by himself. That's the whole point is KD somehow less good because of that quarter of an inch? Judging based on simply rings is a waste KD was in thay conversation based on watching him play watching how he could dominate more than other players could.
@@45heisman look bro, KD lost to teams in the WCF, the same teams, that lebron is 4-10 or whatever his record is. The fact of the matter, Lebron could cruise through the east and then play only 1 legit team while KD had to beat atleast 3 of them to win the ring, thats where injuries, fatigue etc comes into play. And no, the east wasnt weak cause of lebron. Lebron had Dwade, Kyrie, both of which are better than paul george, demar derozan, kyle lowry, lance stephenson, jeff teauge, all horford and all the other teams that he faced in the east. Tell me, how is it that lebron made the east look weak when lebrons teams had 2 players better than ANY other teams first best player? not to mention love who was borderline 26/12 pre lebron and bosh who was 22/10 pre lebron? Make it make sense
Durant made three WCF and a finals without Curry. And was the tip of his toe away from an ECF. He lost to the eventual champions 4/5 of those seasons. Put some respect on his name.
All things aside, Dame is actually making people talk about ring culture and loyalty more than ever so thats a good thing! Maybe we will look back in years to come and respect the loyal players ring or not!
I'd say the popular opinion regarding Dame is that he's been stellar in the postseason, and simply didn't have enough help. While he certainly did not have awesome teams - his own efficiency/effectiveness takes a decent hit in the playoffs. 58.8% TS in reg season falls to 56.1%. 25 pts per 36 mins falls to 23 pts/36 in postseason. Assists and boards are down just a hair on a per 36 basis. 61 playoff games btw. And of course - teams gameplan to slow Dame down. Back to what I see as the collective perception of him: he has those siiick game winners, so most people see him as a guy that absolutely shows out in the playoffs. He's been great, but not exceptional. Those GW threes were insane. Go to 39 feet at your gym and just think about heaving a rt side step back over a freakish wing athlete. Side complaint .. I think way too many people see his production as being on Steph's level. I spent a couple years in Portland/big Dame fan. Saw him play in person 10 times in his rookie year. No fear, no shame, and he was cool af from day one. But we're talking about a guy with a chance to crack the top 50 all-time vs. the greatest player ever under 6'6". The fact that we have this incorrect perception of his playoff numbers is evidence that seems to back Ryen's theory that some guys just don't get put under the same microscope
If we were truly going to be fair we wouldn’t be having this conversation. When you make it to the NBA you are better at your job than most people could ever dream to be at their job. People underestimate the achievement of making it to the league. They say these guys are lucky to have the physical gifts they have. Are you taking full advantage of your opportunities? Dame Lillard is one hell of a human IMO.
Only one team can win a championship each year. Some players are never going to be on a team that can win it all and that is just the way it goes. We can still recognize greatness in the league. I think Lillard is one of the best shooters of all time and he is a joy to watch. He has hit some VERY clutch playoff shots that will go down in history. He probably will be remembered in a better light than Carmelo but I think that is an interesting comparison. I think Dame could be a #1 guy on a championship team but he'd need to have a strong #2 and #3 on his team to make it. The Blazers will never be able to surround him with the talent to win it all. Realistically though, in recent memory, when has a great point guard carried a team to win the chip? Maybe Steph Curry? While he was the focal point of the Warriors during their best years, they had amazing pieces surrounding him.
I think it's always been the way we've looked at it. For every position and all time great, there's a player at that position who was better who won. Plus, let's not act like Dame ain't making gwop, nor that Portland wouldn't trade Dame if he asked cause they got a good relationship. Dame is in Portland because Dame wants to be in Portland and make 50 Mil/year. He made a Melo like move and there's no harm in that.
Nba fans creating ring culture has completely ruined dialogue associated when talking about players and their success even if it doesn’t equal a ring. It has ruined the idea of players staying loyal because if a team has a down year, nba fans will say that superstar needs to leave and it’s pathetic
If you’re a fan of a team, you’re ultimately rooting for them to win a championship. If you’re content with paying a dude a max to carry you to a first round exit every year, you’re rooting for the franchise to be mediocre. “Oh let’s just sell tickets and be content”. Situations like Beal and Lillard aren’t good for the players cause they can’t really compete for a championship and it’s bad for fans because your team is stunted and unable to actually work on building a contender until your special star finally gets old enough to take a smaller contract or to retire
I think one who doesn’t get talked about enough is Spida because he’s entering his prime years, he’s been on 50 win teams, and now he’s having his best season to date and I feel winning a championship can put him in superstar discussions, and ppl would really have to think about it he’s an all timer
I don't think Mitchell is the type of player who can be the #1 on a championship team. He's a great player, but he needs to be that 1A to a dominant player... similar to how Kyrie was to LeBron, young Kobe was to Shaq, how Booker "might be" to Durant this year. Like if Mitchell played with Giannis... or Embiid... or Jokic... that's the situation he needs to be in. Cleveland won't win anything as long as he's their best player, it's a simple as that.
@@chili015 which is sort of my point. He’s very similar to Dame. He’s great, and he actually has a pretty good team around him. He’s 26 right now, once Evan gets better, he’s gonna have a shot at some titles if he’s that guy. He’s not looked at like that, but it sort of goes into what he was talking about in the video. Why aren’t more guys held to this standard
@@leothelion2593 - I believe guys like Mitchell aren't held to the same standard because small guards (he's 6'1") are almost never the best player on a championship team. Chris Paul couldn't do it. Steve Nash didn't do it. Allen Iverson didn't do it. You have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas in the 1989-1990 seasons to find a guard that small lead his team to the championship. You did have slightly bigger guards be the best player and win (Steph Curry and Chauncy Billups both at 6'3"), but they also never had less than 2 All-Star teammates on those teams (and in Billups's case, he had 3 and you could even argue he wasn't actually the best player on that team, Rip Hamilton was). My overall point is the formula for championship success is your best player needs to be a taller scoring guard who can play some defense or a dominant forward/center.
IMO This season feels like THE season that we're going to be remembering for a long ass time to come as being perhaps one of the most engaging seasons storyline wise in NBA History. A ton of Parity, all the games count, no super teams, razor thin MVP race. Young rising talents colliding with legends who arent done yet and those who have yet to carve their names in history. To me this is the best NBA season ive had the pleasure of watching storyline wise. This is what sport is about. It's time.
I wish I could agree but I believe a lot of the parity we see this season is a result of many teams struggling as opposed to many teams playing well. Most of these games are disasters to watch
@@gators9570 Idk man we had Dame Luka and Donovans explosion explosion games this season. Also narrative wise + the tightness of the WC race is really intriguing. There are a LOT of nba Storylines colliding this season. Ill give you some of these games suck to watch tho due to the injuries. i wish we could turn injuries off like in 2k :p
Yeah to your point about injuries.... that Nets team that you spoke about also played solely against Tatum and bench guys cuz Brown had surgery and didn't play a second; Timelord played one game on one knee, Kemba didn't play, Smart barely played and he had surgery the day after their season ended, and on and on.
Harden went toe to toe with the all time great warriors, probably beats them if CP played that game 7, people remember that and it counts for something
@@pstratos7 hate to say it but Harden had some monumentally bad playoff performances. Dame has more respect because he has only ever elevated in the clutch and pushed the team forward when it mattered most.
@@boysoul2075 idk about that, taking GSW to 7 games with KD is more impressive than getting swept by GSW without KD, harden also learned how to hold his own on defense while dames best playoff scoring game ever was a loss bc he let Austin rivers put up like 40 on him
Not really a Harden fan. But, his overall playoff numbers are slightly better than Dame's. Dame 23.0 per 36 mins vs Harden 23.1. no difference. But Harden's True-shooting % in the playoffs is 58.9 vs Dame at 56.1%. and I don't think you can knock James for the foul hunting shit bc they call it waay less in the postseason. More assists and boards per 36 minutes as well. No game winners for James though and a few poorly timed stinkers where it seemed he wasn't even interested in playing hard.
I honestly believe Dame doesn't want the pressure to win and is just fine playing basketball making millions and never winning anything. Loyalty is what he hides behind but truth is he doesn't want to go to a team where he has to win or get all the shit that comes with losing when you're suppose to win
Do you really think it would’ve been that hard for him to win if he was on the Celtics last year for example? That’s the kind of teams people go to when they ring chase. We’re not talking about him going to a team with similar chances to Portland
@@UnapologeticRed if he was on the celtics jalen brown wouldn't have been. KD and LeBron have lost with super teams so the idea that Dame and Tatum would've won last year is nonsensical.
@@themoviefan9990 they literally won game 1 in the bay then Tatum’s form tanked. A point guard with the ability to score from anywhere can change everything (gestures vaguely toward finals MVP Steph Curry)
I seen this narrative on twitter and I'm incline to agree. Like you cry about not running from the grind but then say your not trying to rebuild lol. I honestly think Dame is a little delusional he said he wants to be like Dirk and Giannis and win with one team but he's not those guys
Funny how Lillard is talking about how people need to start respecting the regular season more. His team is one of the worst in the leagues and he was talking about sitting out 😂
I am not from Utah and have not connection with the team but watching the NBA from the eighties until now I most enjoyed the Utah Jazz run with Stockton and Malone. No rings just a good team playing well, working hard, competing, great fan support, and giving all the bigger markets and "superstars" all they could handle. When my Mavs drafted Luka a friend asked me if I thought he would bring a championship to Dallas and I replied, I just want 10-15 years of meaningful playoff basketball. When Luka is on the court we have a fighting chance to beat anyone almost even if they are mostly 2nd round picks and undrafted guys. Last year's WCF team with a rotation that was mostly that except for Reggie Bullock who was a very late 1st rounder.
I believe there are levels to it. Players like Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Iverson, Joker didnt win championships but either won MVPs, made several conf finals, finals, olympic medals (or all mentioned) and built amazing career but Lillard never really did any of those and never will. Great player? Sure. Same level as players mentioned? No way
I don't hate a player like Dame who wants to stay where he's comfortable even if they aren't winning. I mostly just don't think about them very much. Him and Beal like where they are and that's okay but as a fan of watching the intensity in the playoffs it's a bummer to know they're never going to be doing anything worthwhile at that level even though they have a lot of talent.
I think the bigger issue is the constant obnoxious storylines about who is the best player in the league/best player of all-time. It over-inflates the value of rings, even though no title team is the same. Dame blows Kyrie out of the water as a player but hasn’t come close to the same postseason success. Will Kyrie be considered a better player in 20 years because he hit that shot in the finals? Who knows.
I'd consider Lillard to be a top player ever in the NBA. Maybe a bit higher than some who have a ring, pierce and Allen for example. It's not his faul that the best guys he ever played with are CJ McCollum and 2 years of lamarcus Aldridge. It's not a players fault that his team gave Evan Turner that massive contract. He might have even overachieved considering he played in a historically strong west . Put him in Kyrie's place, he'd be hitting that shot and probably still be playing with LeBron in Cleveland
Only one team gets to be a champion by the end of season, but that doesn´t mean you should´t compete. Guys like AI, Stockon and Barkley have no ring but they got to the finals and gave super teams an run for their money. Has Lillard ever done this? Dude just goes to get the paycheck and score 30 in a blowout loss.
Hot take: loyalty is really overrated for superstars. We’ve been saying “oh dame so good but the team sucks” for basically his whole career. And we’re doing it again now, Dame so cool playing with the blazers. When in reality he hasn’t elevated his team any higher than Rudy gobert really ever did in Utah. Except dame had a chance in 2019 to just beat the no Kevin Durant warriors. And they got swept. I legit don’t understand why everyone wants to give Dame this pass
A. Anything less than a ring is subjective. Judging players by anything less leads to circular debates.its literally why they lace them up. It's not an optional consideration. B. Even during this segment, the only stats that you're mentioning are offensive. C. Jordan and Pippen were drafted. If there is a 'super-team' element to the 90s Bulls, the closest is grabbing Rodman, bit at that point in Rodmans career, it would be like the Golden State Warriors signing Dillon Brooks. Rodman was a firectionless technical foul FACTORY at that time. So, even when he started winning, it was Jordan who was credited with his turnaround. That speaks to what NBA fans USED to call 'intangibles' or, more recently BBIQ. Analytics has somewhat 'gamified' player analysis to almost only be about double-doubles and triple-doubles. Yet, how many guards EVER win DPOY other than Jordan. Ever. It's normally a shot blocking, big man's stat. What we DONT ask though, is if all that individual performance is in service to victory for the team. Bobby Knight couldn't dunk. He COACHED his teams ro victory. Some basketball positions are colloquially known as "an extension of the coach on the floor". Sometimes, THAT means deferring to a John Paxson, a Judd Buechler or a Craig Hodges if the hand is hot. That's why having the most points ever does not make you the GOAT. That doesn't mean Robert Horry is better than Russell Westbrook. He was like Jae Crowder or Pat Beverly. He rode the right coattails. JJ Reddick never led an NBA team. What's HE losing sleep for? C. I don't hear tennis degrading the significance of winning slams. I don't hear hockey asking this question about the Stanley Cup or Football saying this about the Lombardi Trophy. This is just LeBron fans looking for an angle to argue that LeBron is the GOAT. It's like saying that it's "unfair" that there are lines on a football field that tell you how many yards you gained. If you looked like a fast runner, and fake a lot of tacklers out, it shouldn't matter how many yards you gained. Its ridiculous and unfair to the Emmett Smith's and Erick Dickersons of the world that their achievements should be nullified in favour of a participation trophy. It's rendering championships meaningless for the right to declared someone else the winner for subjective, ethereal reasons.
I do think ring culture has gotten out of hand in everyone's analysis. l hear it all the time media and fans just dismissing players whole careers if they don't win a ring. It's no wonder why players aren't caring about the regular season when media and fans will just say "regular season don't matter do it in the playoffs and win a ring" My prime example of this is the 73-9 Warriors anytime that team gets brought up everyone says "but they didn't win a ring" Someone tried to argue me that the '11 Dallas team is better than the '16 Warriors team just because Dallas won a ring... that's ridiculous but that's how everyone evaluates sports nowadays.
The reaction to last years Indy-Sac trade made me feel this same way. "The Kings aren't going to a title after this therefore it's a bad move" was spoken far and wide as though everything is pointless if a team doesn't win a title. Surely humans possess enough nuance to understand and celebrate greatness, even when it's not the "greatest."
Yes its unfair.... because you dont wind up in Boston or LA or even hit a random hot run like Chicago in the Jordan era your probably not winning. Lets not mention how Le Bron and KD literally couldn't win it on their own so ran off to join super teams. So if you're ok with tucking tail and running but have issues with a player fighting through it then thats a you issue.
Lillard is the Charles Barkley of this generation. Terrific player, fits the current mold of superstar (guard dominant league) and is going down on some all time lists.
Dame never played with anyone. History says Point guards being the best player on a chip team is probably 3 ever… Dame is a ring away to be a top 5 point of all time. Everyone knows he’s a clutch player. He has all the intangibles you want in a winning player. But sometimes you want to want better for yourself.. let’s see how it plays out
Better way to frame the question is what if Jordan was on a bad Bulls team. As much as everyone wants to think it was him 1 on 5, he had plenty of help. Basketball is a team game. Teams win championships. Lillard is doing what Jordan did. Jordan had a better organization around him that put together championship level rosters.
I think Russillo is way too easy on Kahwi, and somewhat less but still easy on KD. Their legacy gets quite shaken up if they don't win with their current teams.
I mean…maybe. But I don’t put Dame with the top 5 guys in the league any given year. He’s only made 1 all-NBA first team his whole career. Never made a defensive team, never came close to winning an MVP. He’s great, but if he’s your best player, are you winning a title against a team where Lebron, Giannis, or Durant are the best player?
@@kevinc8955 Frankly I think it depends on the rest of his team. If you were to trade Dame and Stephs teams for their careers it is entirely conceivable that Dame would have say two titles with that squad and I doubt Steph would have one with the cast in Portland. But I would still think Steph is the better player (because he is). Or say compare Dame to Billups, who is going to get ranked higher historically? I think Dame is the better player but Billups has a title, of course Billups had a much better squad than what Dame has had. But some people basically just count rings.
I agree with your top comment. And we can argue perhaps Dame would have been better in a better situation .but that’s just playing hypothetical. As his resume is , I think he’s a top 5 shooter ever , one of the greatest combo guards ever and he doesn’t need a ring to validate that those things. He does have a questionable playoff resume but his clutch moments for me balances some of that out But imo all things should be put into perspective when judging a players overall greatness
@Big Problem he has prime Aldridge at one point with Batum, wesley matthews and they all left to go to small market teams except for Matthews who went to Dallas. Batum went to charlotte and Aldridge to the spurs
Depends on how you chose to quantify legacy. For example, I think Damian Lilliards legacy will likely be similar to Dave Bing, in other words, a great scorer but probably not the thought of when you list your Top 10 PG. This is to say great players for their generation, but not so much all-time great (they still be in the top 20). Players who never won a championship are usually harder to determine greatest because it's usually measured by your performance on the biggest stage in winning time. An example of that is Jordan will always be better then Lebron simply because if your not measuring winning (6-0 vs 4-6) how are you going to measure losing? Is it better to lose in the championship or conference finals? At the end of day winning is winning and losing is losing and the parody between the two determines legacy.
I think you have to consider how many seasons these top guys were on championship caliber teams. Each year there are only 4-5 legit championship teams. But there are 20+ legit number one guys in the league.
@@DillzRipz there are 15+ number one guys on horrible teams. Lebron and AD could both be considered number 1 guys and the lakers suck because the roster is bad. It takes a lot more than a #1 guy to be a legit contender.
For as long as this game goes on one thing that can be promised is there will always be a generational talent in every era that won't win. Not because he's not a "winner" but because of math. The odds of winning a championship with all that can go wrong: an injury here, a new dynasty pops up outta nowhere, a game winning shot to win Game 7 rimmed out, whatever. Look at every player in the last maybe 10 years that's left or forced a trade for "greener pastures" or even specifically to win a ring. It can be argued it hasn't worked out even for the guys that won a ring (Bron, KD and Kawhi). And looking at what's become of Westbrook's career...if you were watching all of this and had that decision why would you choose something that has seemingly negatively impacted all these guys careers? If Dame wins a ring, just one, it does more for his legacy if it's in Portland. If Dame doesn't win a ring, he won't get props for falling short.
tl;dr Dame's point really is that he doesn't care what you say and he defines the way he judges his own success in the league because he knows a) you don't really know him to judge him holistically and b) he knows you won't care about him (or anyone else) once they're done playing -- yes you might care about ranking them or who's the goat (Jordan, Lebron, etc), but that debate is a theoretical, old-school bar debate where you actually don't care about the individual in question who you're debating at all. PLUS he can still have an issue the way people's legacy and success gets judged, and how things have basically shifted in an overweighted way to only care about number of rings. Yes we don't watch basketball to judge how good someone is at chess. But basketball includes leadership, growth/improvement, massive outperformance of expectations, or shouldering crazy expectations and delivering, and also how much of a role model these people are. The problem with the focus on rings is stats and counter-factual driven. Rings are a post-hoc way to validate someone's greatness (yes the help you validate, yes a player and his team can win it all), vs. the potential to carry a team. We don't get to see basketball teams play playoffs multiple times like a Monte Carlo simulation. Yes, Russillo briefly touches on things like playoff success as one indicator for Dame, but he absolutely is cherry picking and skipping a few incredible points. - Dame is absolutely a disgusting pure shooter, one of the best we've seen, and scorer. - Dame's shot from deep against PG-13, Playoff P is the stuff of legend. - Yes they got swept by a KD-less Warriors in 2019 playoffs, but 2 games were decided by 4 points or less and one in OT at that. I mean Russillo's opinion is the little stuff doesn't, maybe shouldn't matter, but for people who believe in data and stats as well as narrative, it does. If you play that match up 1,000 times over, it seems rather unlikely that the Blazers wouldn't have gotten at least one game. - Sure, you might say Chris Paul has had more playoff success, but it's a team sport a) he's had better supporting cast and b) he's cheap (yes, cheap) things, and he calls things by the book when suits him, or tries to let/get refs to let things slide when it suits him. He gets under players' skin not by his play, but by what I'll call his antics. Who is a better role model? You want kids looking up to CP3, or Dame Lillard, a man of integrity, a man of incredible talent, someone who constantly worked to better his game, better his community, who was a family man who didn't let basketball (or the media or anyone else) define or put him in a box.
Let's face it... There are some players who are (only) comfortable with being the big fish in a small bowl. K.G. was like that (before Kevin McHale "lovingly" forced him out of Minnesota). Allen Iverson was like that. Karl-Anthony Towns is like that. (To a somewhat lesser degree) Anthony Davis... Luka Doncic is showing signs of being like that. Bradley Beal is like that and I hate to say it, but Dame seems to be like that too. You recognize them by the contracts they sign with teams that are either always on the fringe or going nowhere at all. You know them by the trouble they have playing with other good/great players. Sometimes it works out for them. Most of the time it doesn't and they go ringless.
I despise the whole I did it the right way narrative. Who says which way is the right or wrong way. I'm all for players taking their own ball lives in their own hands
The problem is we only talk about player legacies and not team legacies. Jordan didn't win shit on his own, Curry didn't either. LeBron won 1 ring with an okay team and the rest he had hall of famers with him. The skill difference between Dame and Curry isn't so massive that Curry won all those rings, Curry had Klay, he had Draymond, he had KD, Wiggins. The way we talk about this stuff is ridiculous
It don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that ring. There’s a reason why guys like garnett and dirk get more respect than Malone and Barkley. Each of those players pretty similar in terms of dominance and level of player but dirk and Kg got rings
To me rings matter when comparing players because the winning gene is a real still that only few have. But i appreciate Dame loyalty much more than KD mercenary attitude and that's why his 2 rings don't matter as much since his value in them was important but not fundamental
Perhaps forgotten by the casual, occasional NBA fan a decade after he retires. But to serious fans of the game of basketball and the league, I don't see how Dame and everything he's accomplished in the postseason with Portland over the years along with the sheer brilliance of his individual performance consistently over the course of his career is going to be forgotten very easily. We still well remember or at least I remember guys like Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Steve Nash and even guys one wrung down the ladder beneath them like Mutombo or Penny Hardaway as great NBA players in their day... None of whom have a ring. And honestly if Lillard finished with one ring before the end of his career would I rank him above Steve Nash or Tracy McGrady in the grand scheme of things? No probably not. Lillard being the outlier in his generation in which players of his caliber regularly demand trades to one team after another through their careers, I think probably distorts our perception of just how good he is...
This is why overall just ring counting is dumb. I'll never put someone like klay over payton or Ray Allen but if you are the best player on a championship team it definitely raises your stock significantly because so few people can say that
He’s sent 2 separate franchises home in the playoffs when he was the underdog… who tf cares if he doesn’t get a ring. Stocktock, Malone, Barkley, Iverson, Reggie Miller…. HOF no rings
The ring debate only applies to a starting five and maybe the sixth man. JJ Reddick getting a ring would have meant nothing and I hope his therapist told him so.
Yes.. Judging players by championships is unfair and it isn't logical. It's a team sport, and so much outside of your power has to go right for you to win..To say one player is better or greater than the other simply because he won championships is just lazy.
@@k_hack9441 So you have no issue with saying player X is better than Damian Lillard because Dame didn't put enough pressure on his front office, proving he's not competitive? Respectfully, that is ridiculous. You can't even prove it either. The only logical way to say one player is better than the next, is by comparing their impact *On The Court*
@@emmanuelmoses7249 if we’re talking about legacies, than it matters. Dwight Howard should be a top 75 guy. He was the best center for 6-7 years, a dominant two-way player, and led a team to the finals. He’s had a better career than however Dame ends it.
I always wonder like if Lillard got drafted by the Warriors and Curry to the Blazers, how would we view Curry if he had 0 championships, or would Portland of won one with him? Then Dame with Klay, Dray, and Kd, he would probably have a few, would he now be one of the GOATS when it was all said and done?
No. The Warriors are only the Warriors bc of Steph. The system never evolves into what it is if you take Steph away, you can't just throw another good player into his spot and expect everything else to stay the same. Yes, Klay and Draymond are still great players, but they likely wouldn't be viewed on that level if they hadn't played with Steph. Dame with that 2015 Warriors would be good for sure, but they don't win a title. Same with the 2022 team. Dame actually plays a much different game than Steph, one that is far more ball dominant, it would change the system.
Dame lillard trusted his bank account and the franchise to build around him and they failed. When he makes “not running from the grind,” and not recruiting players part of his image, people are going to be extra critical when it seems like he wants out now.
Most championship teams have multiple hall of famers, how many will Lillard have played with in his career? I don't think it's fair to ask him to have the same playoff success that curry or lebron have since they have their rings alongside much better teams. Even if Lillard was the best player in the NBA, it's not clear he would have a ring.
Dame not having a ring and a lot playoff success. Is not his fault because he killed and shown up every playoffs. His teams were not good around him outside of CJ.
Look, dame made his choice. He chooses comfortability and money. Theres nothing wrong with that. But that means he shouldnt be allowed in the convo for people who are all time great. He didnt even try. At least people like barkley, cp3 and Harden have tried.
How he never compares to Reggie or brings up that element of it is weird. The value of playing with just one franchise is never broached. That's Dame's whole thing. I feel like I just wasted my time
Steph had the warriors constantly building correctly around him, one of the greatest shooters ever, a dpoy play maker, KD Kyrie has had KD,harden, lebron, Luka. It’s incomparable in terms of team building these guards Dame is compared to
Either winning matters or it doesn't, you're competitive or you're not. Winning a ring represents what? BEING THE BEST -- so, saying there's more to game than being the best -- I would just like to know what exactly that is. From the outside in, it appears to making an excuse as to why you didn't win before your career is even over -- an even more negative interpretation is that Dame doesn't want people to have expectations of him and his teams.
Looking at The Trailblazers roster, nobody realistically has ever had them as contenders. Dame's team has never been good enough. Swap him with any great player in the league, they wouldn't win with that team either.. So yeah, winning matters, but how can you judge a player for losing when his team is clearly not good enough? Jordan needed Pippen/Grant, Without them he doesn't win, even though he's the SAME player lol.
Winning a ring represents that you were the best TEAM that year. Yes, in the NBA individuals impact winning more than other team sports but there still are cases where the best player doesn't have the best team and does not win the finals.
@@emmanuelmoses7249only player in the league you could swap him with and maybe they win is lebron but I’m talking prime Miami/2nd time with Cleveland bron and even then idk.
@@emmanuelmoses7249 It's been the same story for how many seasons now? at some point, you look elsewhere to go win -- or at the very least you put pressure on the organization to build a contender, when NBA stars are unhappy with a situation and want things to change, they speak up and make noise. Dame doesn't do that, instead he talks about "Loyalty".
The bigger scandal is that we all basically validate KD and Lebron's rings on superteams. A generation from now people will laugh to themselves at the fact that they broke the biggest taboo in team sports and joined up with their competitors to win. Barring injuries, it's almost impossible to lose when you're the team with the best players. Especially KD, he's a highly efficient scorer who actually should have scored more (he's still not at 30k)
Then you get judged for NOT winning. Lebron losing to Dirk hurt his legacy pretty badly. I’d argue KDs legacy after the Nets is the worst it’s ever been. If he doesn’t win in Phoenix, people will look back at this guy as one of the most overrated players of his generation. It all matters. You can ring chase and stack the deck, but when you do it, you better win.
Only reason he isn’t at 30K is cus of the injuries. Without the Achilles injury plus all the other injuries he would definitely have passed 30K already easily
@@kevinc8955agreed on everything you said pretty much. Lebrons legacy took a massive hit losing to dirk, they really should have won that series they were the more talented team by far and if you look at the end of some of the games in that series it really seems like bron didn’t want the ball at all. Also with KD what really hurt him more than anything was steph and the warriors winning another ring last season without that you could’ve maybe argued they needed KD to win anymore than that first ring but since they won again that argument is thrown out the window.
@@kevinc8955 Name me a single all time great who never won who also didn't have great opportunities but choked or was never on a great team. Lebron would have won eventually in Cleveland, KD with OKC. Not winning is basically just as bad as stacking the deck.
It would be unfortunate if Jokic wins a 3rd consecutive MVP and doesn’t make the Finals but it is bc he hasn’t even been to the Finals that I think he shouldn’t get this particular MVP. Does he have a case? Absolutely. Is he the clear cut MVP favorite? Absolutely not. Has any player ever won 3 consecutive MVPs? Absolutely, 3 have. Had either of them at the very least made the finals by the time of the 3rd MVP? Absolutely, Bird, Wilt and Bill Russel had all either won a chip OR had been to the finals. It’s that simple to me, I like the precedent and I don’t think it should change. We didn’t change it for Mike or Bron why would we change it now? So I say it would be unfortunate bc it would serve as a catalyst to distract from Jokic’s overall greatness. As a huge Lebron fan, I hate that this is what sports media has deteriorated down to for the NBA. We will see how this year plays out.
Eh, there's so much luck and randomness that goes into it. Not to mention context. Thinking the last fifteen years through, there are so few titles that boil down to "one player was transcendent" without serious caveats. And if we're paying tribute to more than one player, then why do they get all the flowers come legacy time? Durant doesn't win without the Warriors. LeBron doesn't win without the Heat. Kawhi doesn't win if GS is healthy. Makes zero sense to lift those players above Tatum, who's been carrying teams to the ECF since his rookie season, or Jokic, who's had zero healthy teams in the playoffs since he hit prime.
Durrant seems super petty and I definitely wasn’t a fan of him going to Golden State ring chase. I still kind of root for the guy, but I am going to Golden State cheap in the rings. If he wins in Phoenix, then maybe, but the whole Brooklyn thing was a mess.
We kinda know who's that great. I think the more rings means you're a better player argument really got popularized as an anti LeBron measuring stick vs Jordan. Hakeem 2 , Shaq 4 still a debate Bird. 3. Magic 5 still a debate Even Russell 11 vs Wilts 2 wasn't a big enough gap in rings for probably at least 50% of fans and former players to believe Wilt was better. So I don't really see it as significantly different measuring 1 ring players vs zero rings. Do people really rank Isiah Thomas over Malone and Barkley because he has 2 and they have none? I think most mvp caliber players who have led their teams to 60 win seasons are capable of winning a ring in the right circumstances and any allstar (besides Westbrook) could win a ring as a 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. But there's usually only 5 or 6 guys in the league at a time who are best player on a champion level and Dame isn't really that.
Ppl just want to see him on that stage and show his greatness I mean that’s a part of fandom you believe in a guy and his ability and right now it’s dame is so good but …. and his team has never been good enough on defense to get him there
In a way it's a compliment to Lillard that people care if he's won a ring or not. For example, nobody outside Tobias Harris' friends and family are going to care if he wins a ring once his career is over, that's because people reserve that sort of judgement for guys like Barkley and Nash, and that means Lillard is closer to that type of player than to a guy we don't care about.
And CP3…those two are the ones we care about when it comes to this question. Because they have been phenomenal in their positions throughout their career…
Ring or not, Lillard is on a much different than Tobias, but I get your point
Also people fail to add context, did people really expect Dame to beat the Warriors by himself? The Blazers as a TEAM were never that good, they just had a superstar.
Melo not getting one hurts me. He was just as good as Bron and Wade in their primes. Idc what anyone thinks.
@@Dnero518 we just gonna pretend defense doesn’t exist? Bc lebron and wade were amazing defenders in their primes
I can respect a superstar player who stays loyal to his team and tries his best to win a championship. That being said I also wouldn't blame players if they decide to leave a team that has an inept owner/front office (2000s LeBron).
He's not trying to win a championship is the issue. He's cashing his checks and playing on a team with no expectations. That's running from the grind
@STEELWALL43 true at least you think maybe he wouldve or should try to threaten Portland with leaving like Kobe did for LA to get Gasol to show he really wants to go all the way but maybe he really doesn't want to look unloyal that much which is its own problem. I'd be mad as hell if I was him and McCollum was the best they've been able to get him all these years he's given them since LaMarcus Aldridge left. CJ really wasn't even a good fit. Portland should've been doing everything they possibly could to pair him with a star big or a big wing bit they basically wasted his whole career at this point. He's got two or 3 really good years left and less than that if he gets another injury. Especially since he relies on speed a lot.
@@steelwall4396 id argue he's staying on a team where he does everything all the time. Stats stay high. Still wins just not "it all". Otherwise he may be happy and not wanting to move. May have seen what kd went thru, said f that. May have seen kobe and dirk get their love, wants that. May be he thinks being a city's "guy", or at least one of very few, will be thought of better than some guy who won a chip somewhere (Gary payton vs stockton)
@Ben W A team where he does everything, and yet does nothing. The Blazers haven't had expectations his whole career. No one outside of Portland actually cares about them because they're irrelevant
He can talk about the grind all he wants, but he has crafted and stayed in an uncompetitive environment by his choice. That's concerning. You can't be your cities Dirk or Kobe with no jewelry, especially with Walton
@@steelwall4396 the issue is not that he stayed - the issue is that he takes all the money so his team has no chance to be competitive - that is the opposite of dirk
Thank you Ryan for carying the torch for Chris Paul.
How easily people forget. They forget how lowsy the Suns were before he took them to the finals. How lottery driven the Thunder were before he took them to the playoffs. How frustrating the Rockets were before he made them watchable and almost able to beat the best team of all time. How mediocre the Clippers were before he made them a contender. How he went to the playoffs with a team that changed it's home town due to a huge hurricane disaster.
Each time he elevated his team beyond their real value, allowing them to excede expectations and beacuse of those high hopes that should not have existed in the first place, people look down on him.
No, rings aren't everything: Barkely, Wilkins, Baylor, Thompson, Iverson and certainly Chris Paul are proofs that.
Every ringless superstar was either a one dimensional player, a notorious playoff choker, or a person who couldn't get the job done. On rare occasions like Dame, you're an undersized player with no help but Dame could have tried to be more of a passer who then took over as a scorer in the 4th instead of being basically a more efficient Iverson.
Chris Paul is a fundamentally flawed person and it’s beautiful to watch him lose every time. He is not an admirable competitor. He’s unsportsmanlike, dirty and a choker. It’s hilarious how the dude will pull out more cheap shots, flops and complaints to refs than anyone in order to win, just to choke at the crucial point. He’ll do anything to win except play well in big moments. And don’t try to argue he overachieved with bad teams. The clippers were loaded, the rockets had more than enough, and the suns had a ton too. Huge games were lost directly because of him shying away from the moment. He is a superstar talent and the biggest choker in the history of the NBA outside of maybe Malone. Karma has shit on him rightfully and it’ll be great to see him retire a bitter loser.
Ryen is too damn good at this
This is my favorite Ryen Russillo clip from the Ringer. I really appreciate the fairness and detail with which he discusses ring culture as well as the sliding scale of expectations depending on a player’s perceived greatness :)
I think it's crazy how much one ring can boost a player's legacy in the eyes of the average fan when there are so many factors that go into a championship and a single player, even a really great one only has a little bit of control about what happens on the court. A championship is a team accomplishment after all and we somehow use it to prop up individuals because of that. It seems silly that guys like Dirk and KG are somehow seen as better than say Karl Malone or Barkley.
I just never understood the KD is the best player narrative, although Russillo admitted here that he pivoted from that stance, and credit to him for that. We know who was the driving factor of Golden State's success, and it wasn't KD as evidenced by their success before and after Durant. Outside of the Curry years? One Finals appearance, one Conference Finals appearance, and a bunch of second-round exits. Yes, small things decided those series but those details stack up and dictate the bigger outcomes.
so lebron is better cause he played in an easier conference with 2 orher top 5-7 players of that conference? kd played contenders in round 1, east, besides lebrons duperteama, did not have legit contenders while the west had like 6. Swap teams what happens?
@DuckMeat PigMeat this is a bad argument. Was the east weaker sure but like were they that much weaker or did they seem weaker because they constantly got their ass beat by LeBron. When we judge every player on playoff success and nobody in the east has any because of LeBron is becomes a catch 22. Was KD losing to really good teams or did they aeen good because KD lost to them? With thay said I do think KD is one if the 15 best players else despite the fact I give him no credit for his rings.
The answer is the toe on the line series he beat the entire Bucks team that went on to win the title and he did it by himself. That's the whole point is KD somehow less good because of that quarter of an inch? Judging based on simply rings is a waste KD was in thay conversation based on watching him play watching how he could dominate more than other players could.
@@45heisman look bro, KD lost to teams in the WCF, the same teams, that lebron is 4-10 or whatever his record is. The fact of the matter, Lebron could cruise through the east and then play only 1 legit team while KD had to beat atleast 3 of them to win the ring, thats where injuries, fatigue etc comes into play. And no, the east wasnt weak cause of lebron. Lebron had Dwade, Kyrie, both of which are better than paul george, demar derozan, kyle lowry, lance stephenson, jeff teauge, all horford and all the other teams that he faced in the east. Tell me, how is it that lebron made the east look weak when lebrons teams had 2 players better than ANY other teams first best player? not to mention love who was borderline 26/12 pre lebron and bosh who was 22/10 pre lebron? Make it make sense
Durant made three WCF and a finals without Curry. And was the tip of his toe away from an ECF. He lost to the eventual champions 4/5 of those seasons. Put some respect on his name.
All things aside, Dame is actually making people talk about ring culture and loyalty more than ever so thats a good thing! Maybe we will look back in years to come and respect the loyal players ring or not!
That Atlanta series was absolutely on Embiid
I'd say the popular opinion regarding Dame is that he's been stellar in the postseason, and simply didn't have enough help. While he certainly did not have awesome teams - his own efficiency/effectiveness takes a decent hit in the playoffs. 58.8% TS in reg season falls to 56.1%. 25 pts per 36 mins falls to 23 pts/36 in postseason. Assists and boards are down just a hair on a per 36 basis. 61 playoff games btw. And of course - teams gameplan to slow Dame down. Back to what I see as the collective perception of him: he has those siiick game winners, so most people see him as a guy that absolutely shows out in the playoffs. He's been great, but not exceptional. Those GW threes were insane. Go to 39 feet at your gym and just think about heaving a rt side step back over a freakish wing athlete. Side complaint .. I think way too many people see his production as being on Steph's level. I spent a couple years in Portland/big Dame fan. Saw him play in person 10 times in his rookie year. No fear, no shame, and he was cool af from day one. But we're talking about a guy with a chance to crack the top 50 all-time vs. the greatest player ever under 6'6". The fact that we have this incorrect perception of his playoff numbers is evidence that seems to back Ryen's theory that some guys just don't get put under the same microscope
If we were truly going to be fair we wouldn’t be having this conversation. When you make it to the NBA you are better at your job than most people could ever dream to be at their job.
People underestimate the achievement of making it to the league. They say these guys are lucky to have the physical gifts they have. Are you taking full advantage of your opportunities? Dame Lillard is one hell of a human IMO.
"Winning in life" is such a cop out. You can make that claim every time you don't reach your goal which will mean you keep lowering your bar.
Only one team can win a championship each year. Some players are never going to be on a team that can win it all and that is just the way it goes.
We can still recognize greatness in the league. I think Lillard is one of the best shooters of all time and he is a joy to watch. He has hit some VERY clutch playoff shots that will go down in history.
He probably will be remembered in a better light than Carmelo but I think that is an interesting comparison.
I think Dame could be a #1 guy on a championship team but he'd need to have a strong #2 and #3 on his team to make it. The Blazers will never be able to surround him with the talent to win it all.
Realistically though, in recent memory, when has a great point guard carried a team to win the chip? Maybe Steph Curry? While he was the focal point of the Warriors during their best years, they had amazing pieces surrounding him.
I think it's always been the way we've looked at it. For every position and all time great, there's a player at that position who was better who won. Plus, let's not act like Dame ain't making gwop, nor that Portland wouldn't trade Dame if he asked cause they got a good relationship.
Dame is in Portland because Dame wants to be in Portland and make 50 Mil/year. He made a Melo like move and there's no harm in that.
Nba fans creating ring culture has completely ruined dialogue associated when talking about players and their success even if it doesn’t equal a ring. It has ruined the idea of players staying loyal because if a team has a down year, nba fans will say that superstar needs to leave and it’s pathetic
It's horrible and out of control
If you’re a fan of a team, you’re ultimately rooting for them to win a championship. If you’re content with paying a dude a max to carry you to a first round exit every year, you’re rooting for the franchise to be mediocre. “Oh let’s just sell tickets and be content”. Situations like Beal and Lillard aren’t good for the players cause they can’t really compete for a championship and it’s bad for fans because your team is stunted and unable to actually work on building a contender until your special star finally gets old enough to take a smaller contract or to retire
I think one who doesn’t get talked about enough is Spida because he’s entering his prime years, he’s been on 50 win teams, and now he’s having his best season to date and I feel winning a championship can put him in superstar discussions, and ppl would really have to think about it he’s an all timer
I don't think Mitchell is the type of player who can be the #1 on a championship team. He's a great player, but he needs to be that 1A to a dominant player... similar to how Kyrie was to LeBron, young Kobe was to Shaq, how Booker "might be" to Durant this year. Like if Mitchell played with Giannis... or Embiid... or Jokic... that's the situation he needs to be in. Cleveland won't win anything as long as he's their best player, it's a simple as that.
@@chili015 which is sort of my point. He’s very similar to Dame. He’s great, and he actually has a pretty good team around him. He’s 26 right now, once Evan gets better, he’s gonna have a shot at some titles if he’s that guy. He’s not looked at like that, but it sort of goes into what he was talking about in the video. Why aren’t more guys held to this standard
@@leothelion2593 - I believe guys like Mitchell aren't held to the same standard because small guards (he's 6'1") are almost never the best player on a championship team. Chris Paul couldn't do it. Steve Nash didn't do it. Allen Iverson didn't do it. You have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas in the 1989-1990 seasons to find a guard that small lead his team to the championship. You did have slightly bigger guards be the best player and win (Steph Curry and Chauncy Billups both at 6'3"), but they also never had less than 2 All-Star teammates on those teams (and in Billups's case, he had 3 and you could even argue he wasn't actually the best player on that team, Rip Hamilton was). My overall point is the formula for championship success is your best player needs to be a taller scoring guard who can play some defense or a dominant forward/center.
What’s the name of that song that you play after every video. I like that song
IMO This season feels like THE season that we're going to be remembering for a long ass time to come as being perhaps one of the most engaging seasons storyline wise in NBA History. A ton of Parity, all the games count, no super teams, razor thin MVP race. Young rising talents colliding with legends who arent done yet and those who have yet to carve their names in history. To me this is the best NBA season ive had the pleasure of watching storyline wise. This is what sport is about. It's time.
Lol how old are you? This season is not special. no one cares about the regular season anymore until the last 10 games.
I wish I could agree but I believe a lot of the parity we see this season is a result of many teams struggling as opposed to many teams playing well. Most of these games are disasters to watch
@@gators9570 Idk man we had Dame Luka and Donovans explosion explosion games this season. Also narrative wise + the tightness of the WC race is really intriguing. There are a LOT of nba Storylines colliding this season.
Ill give you some of these games suck to watch tho due to the injuries. i wish we could turn injuries off like in 2k :p
Yeah to your point about injuries....
that Nets team that you spoke about also played solely against Tatum and bench guys cuz Brown had surgery and didn't play a second; Timelord played one game on one knee, Kemba didn't play, Smart barely played and he had surgery the day after their season ended, and on and on.
Harden in Houston never got this kind of grace as much as Dame does
Harden went toe to toe with the all time great warriors, probably beats them if CP played that game 7, people remember that and it counts for something
@@pstratos7 hate to say it but Harden had some monumentally bad playoff performances. Dame has more respect because he has only ever elevated in the clutch and pushed the team forward when it mattered most.
@@boysoul2075 idk about that, taking GSW to 7 games with KD is more impressive than getting swept by GSW without KD, harden also learned how to hold his own on defense while dames best playoff scoring game ever was a loss bc he let Austin rivers put up like 40 on him
facts
Not really a Harden fan. But, his overall playoff numbers are slightly better than Dame's. Dame 23.0 per 36 mins vs Harden 23.1. no difference. But Harden's True-shooting % in the playoffs is 58.9 vs Dame at 56.1%. and I don't think you can knock James for the foul hunting shit bc they call it waay less in the postseason. More assists and boards per 36 minutes as well. No game winners for James though and a few poorly timed stinkers where it seemed he wasn't even interested in playing hard.
what camera do we think he is using?
He’s got the same resume as Carmelo, Tracy McGrady, etc that’s who he is and what he’ll be historically remembered as
I think the annoying thing is it's like people expect everyone to win but forget only one team wins each year . So the math doesn't work 😅
They want the super team link ups so they can complain about it and have 24/7 news (ie Heat and Nets)
I honestly believe Dame doesn't want the pressure to win and is just fine playing basketball making millions and never winning anything. Loyalty is what he hides behind but truth is he doesn't want to go to a team where he has to win or get all the shit that comes with losing when you're suppose to win
Yeah he took max money!!!! Loyalty is overrated
Do you really think it would’ve been that hard for him to win if he was on the Celtics last year for example? That’s the kind of teams people go to when they ring chase. We’re not talking about him going to a team with similar chances to Portland
@@UnapologeticRed if he was on the celtics jalen brown wouldn't have been. KD and LeBron have lost with super teams so the idea that Dame and Tatum would've won last year is nonsensical.
@@themoviefan9990 they literally won game 1 in the bay then Tatum’s form tanked. A point guard with the ability to score from anywhere can change everything (gestures vaguely toward finals MVP Steph Curry)
I seen this narrative on twitter and I'm incline to agree. Like you cry about not running from the grind but then say your not trying to rebuild lol. I honestly think Dame is a little delusional he said he wants to be like Dirk and Giannis and win with one team but he's not those guys
Funny how Lillard is talking about how people need to start respecting the regular season more. His team is one of the worst in the leagues and he was talking about sitting out 😂
I am not from Utah and have not connection with the team but watching the NBA from the eighties until now I most enjoyed the Utah Jazz run with Stockton and Malone. No rings just a good team playing well, working hard, competing, great fan support, and giving all the bigger markets and "superstars" all they could handle.
When my Mavs drafted Luka a friend asked me if I thought he would bring a championship to Dallas and I replied, I just want 10-15 years of meaningful playoff basketball. When Luka is on the court we have a fighting chance to beat anyone almost even if they are mostly 2nd round picks and undrafted guys. Last year's WCF team with a rotation that was mostly that except for Reggie Bullock who was a very late 1st rounder.
I believe there are levels to it. Players like Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Iverson, Joker didnt win championships but either won MVPs, made several conf finals, finals, olympic medals (or all mentioned) and built amazing career but Lillard never really did any of those and never will. Great player? Sure. Same level as players mentioned? No way
I don't hate a player like Dame who wants to stay where he's comfortable even if they aren't winning. I mostly just don't think about them very much. Him and Beal like where they are and that's okay but as a fan of watching the intensity in the playoffs it's a bummer to know they're never going to be doing anything worthwhile at that level even though they have a lot of talent.
I think the bigger issue is the constant obnoxious storylines about who is the best player in the league/best player of all-time. It over-inflates the value of rings, even though no title team is the same. Dame blows Kyrie out of the water as a player but hasn’t come close to the same postseason success. Will Kyrie be considered a better player in 20 years because he hit that shot in the finals? Who knows.
Russillo, Shumpert and Reddick would be the best basketball show in modern times.
Replace Shumpert with Raja Bell and we good
I'd consider Lillard to be a top player ever in the NBA. Maybe a bit higher than some who have a ring, pierce and Allen for example. It's not his faul that the best guys he ever played with are CJ McCollum and 2 years of lamarcus Aldridge. It's not a players fault that his team gave Evan Turner that massive contract.
He might have even overachieved considering he played in a historically strong west .
Put him in Kyrie's place, he'd be hitting that shot and probably still be playing with LeBron in Cleveland
Great take Ryan
Only one team gets to be a champion by the end of season, but that doesn´t mean you should´t compete. Guys like AI, Stockon and Barkley have no ring but they got to the finals and gave super teams an run for their money. Has Lillard ever done this? Dude just goes to get the paycheck and score 30 in a blowout loss.
His one real chance he got absolutely steamrolled by GSW in the conference finals
Hot take: loyalty is really overrated for superstars. We’ve been saying “oh dame so good but the team sucks” for basically his whole career. And we’re doing it again now, Dame so cool playing with the blazers.
When in reality he hasn’t elevated his team any higher than Rudy gobert really ever did in Utah. Except dame had a chance in 2019 to just beat the no Kevin Durant warriors. And they got swept. I legit don’t understand why everyone wants to give Dame this pass
y’all better put the foil convo from life advice out on social media stat
A. Anything less than a ring is subjective. Judging players by anything less leads to circular debates.its literally why they lace them up. It's not an optional consideration.
B. Even during this segment, the only stats that you're mentioning are offensive.
C. Jordan and Pippen were drafted. If there is a 'super-team' element to the 90s Bulls, the closest is grabbing Rodman, bit at that point in Rodmans career, it would be like the Golden State Warriors signing Dillon Brooks. Rodman was a firectionless technical foul FACTORY at that time. So, even when he started winning, it was Jordan who was credited with his turnaround.
That speaks to what NBA fans USED to call 'intangibles' or, more recently BBIQ. Analytics has somewhat 'gamified' player analysis to almost only be about double-doubles and triple-doubles. Yet, how many guards EVER win DPOY other than Jordan. Ever. It's normally a shot blocking, big man's stat.
What we DONT ask though, is if all that individual performance is in service to victory for the team. Bobby Knight couldn't dunk. He COACHED his teams ro victory. Some basketball positions are colloquially known as "an extension of the coach on the floor".
Sometimes, THAT means deferring to a John Paxson, a Judd Buechler or a Craig Hodges if the hand is hot. That's why having the most points ever does not make you the GOAT.
That doesn't mean Robert Horry is better than Russell Westbrook. He was like Jae Crowder or Pat Beverly. He rode the right coattails. JJ Reddick never led an NBA team. What's HE losing sleep for?
C. I don't hear tennis degrading the significance of winning slams. I don't hear hockey asking this question about the Stanley Cup or Football saying this about the Lombardi Trophy. This is just LeBron fans looking for an angle to argue that LeBron is the GOAT.
It's like saying that it's "unfair" that there are lines on a football field that tell you how many yards you gained. If you looked like a fast runner, and fake a lot of tacklers out, it shouldn't matter how many yards you gained.
Its ridiculous and unfair to the Emmett Smith's and Erick Dickersons of the world that their achievements should be nullified in favour of a participation trophy. It's rendering championships meaningless for the right to declared someone else the winner for subjective, ethereal reasons.
I do think ring culture has gotten out of hand in everyone's analysis. l hear it all the time media and fans just dismissing players whole careers if they don't win a ring. It's no wonder why players aren't caring about the regular season when media and fans will just say "regular season don't matter do it in the playoffs and win a ring" My prime example of this is the 73-9 Warriors anytime that team gets brought up everyone says "but they didn't win a ring" Someone tried to argue me that the '11 Dallas team is better than the '16 Warriors team just because Dallas won a ring... that's ridiculous but that's how everyone evaluates sports nowadays.
The reaction to last years Indy-Sac trade made me feel this same way. "The Kings aren't going to a title after this therefore it's a bad move" was spoken far and wide as though everything is pointless if a team doesn't win a title. Surely humans possess enough nuance to understand and celebrate greatness, even when it's not the "greatest."
Yes its unfair.... because you dont wind up in Boston or LA or even hit a random hot run like Chicago in the Jordan era your probably not winning. Lets not mention how Le Bron and KD literally couldn't win it on their own so ran off to join super teams. So if you're ok with tucking tail and running but have issues with a player fighting through it then thats a you issue.
Lillard is the Charles Barkley of this generation. Terrific player, fits the current mold of superstar (guard dominant league) and is going down on some all time lists.
Chuck don't fit no moulds tho 😂
Dame never played with anyone. History says Point guards being the best player on a chip team is probably 3 ever… Dame is a ring away to be a top 5 point of all time. Everyone knows he’s a clutch player. He has all the intangibles you want in a winning player. But sometimes you want to want better for yourself.. let’s see how it plays out
Better way to frame the question is what if Jordan was on a bad Bulls team. As much as everyone wants to think it was him 1 on 5, he had plenty of help. Basketball is a team game. Teams win championships.
Lillard is doing what Jordan did. Jordan had a better organization around him that put together championship level rosters.
I think Russillo is way too easy on Kahwi, and somewhat less but still easy on KD.
Their legacy gets quite shaken up if they don't win with their current teams.
The issue I have is people who ignore all context and just count rings.
I mean…maybe. But I don’t put Dame with the top 5 guys in the league any given year. He’s only made 1 all-NBA first team his whole career. Never made a defensive team, never came close to winning an MVP.
He’s great, but if he’s your best player, are you winning a title against a team where Lebron, Giannis, or Durant are the best player?
@@kevinc8955 Frankly I think it depends on the rest of his team. If you were to trade Dame and Stephs teams for their careers it is entirely conceivable that Dame would have say two titles with that squad and I doubt Steph would have one with the cast in Portland. But I would still think Steph is the better player (because he is).
Or say compare Dame to Billups, who is going to get ranked higher historically? I think Dame is the better player but Billups has a title, of course Billups had a much better squad than what Dame has had. But some people basically just count rings.
I agree with your top comment. And we can argue perhaps Dame would have been better in a better situation .but that’s just playing hypothetical. As his resume is , I think he’s a top 5 shooter ever , one of the greatest combo guards ever and he doesn’t need a ring to validate that those things. He does have a questionable playoff resume but his clutch moments for me balances some of that out
But imo all things should be put into perspective when judging a players overall greatness
@@justinlevy274 anybody that says Billups is better than Dame is dumb . But Billups is underrrated lol
Theres no context without a ring. Without a ring any nba player can jus put up numbers
Ryen is preparing for Jokic to choke in the first round…
I ain’t even watching the video, the answer to the title of this video is “Yes we are being unfair”
The reason you can’t put that pressure on tatum like you could with LeBron is their highlight reel man.
Harden and Russ in their prime were much better than Dame and got more hate because of playoff failures. Why Dame gets to have a pass?
@Big Problem he has prime Aldridge at one point with Batum, wesley matthews and they all left to go to small market teams except for Matthews who went to Dallas. Batum went to charlotte and Aldridge to the spurs
Depends on how you chose to quantify legacy. For example, I think Damian Lilliards legacy will likely be similar to Dave Bing, in other words, a great scorer but probably not the thought of when you list your Top 10 PG. This is to say great players for their generation, but not so much all-time great (they still be in the top 20). Players who never won a championship are usually harder to determine greatest because it's usually measured by your performance on the biggest stage in winning time. An example of that is Jordan will always be better then Lebron simply because if your not measuring winning (6-0 vs 4-6) how are you going to measure losing? Is it better to lose in the championship or conference finals? At the end of day winning is winning and losing is losing and the parody between the two determines legacy.
I think you have to consider how many seasons these top guys were on championship caliber teams. Each year there are only 4-5 legit championship teams. But there are 20+ legit number one guys in the league.
If there were 20+ #1 guys there would be more legit contenders
@@DillzRipz there are 15+ number one guys on horrible teams. Lebron and AD could both be considered number 1 guys and the lakers suck because the roster is bad. It takes a lot more than a #1 guy to be a legit contender.
For as long as this game goes on one thing that can be promised is there will always be a generational talent in every era that won't win. Not because he's not a "winner" but because of math. The odds of winning a championship with all that can go wrong: an injury here, a new dynasty pops up outta nowhere, a game winning shot to win Game 7 rimmed out, whatever.
Look at every player in the last maybe 10 years that's left or forced a trade for "greener pastures" or even specifically to win a ring. It can be argued it hasn't worked out even for the guys that won a ring (Bron, KD and Kawhi). And looking at what's become of Westbrook's career...if you were watching all of this and had that decision why would you choose something that has seemingly negatively impacted all these guys careers?
If Dame wins a ring, just one, it does more for his legacy if it's in Portland. If Dame doesn't win a ring, he won't get props for falling short.
Aye the media giving clippers basically a pass after crowning them in 2020 is hilarious
tl;dr Dame's point really is that he doesn't care what you say and he defines the way he judges his own success in the league because he knows a) you don't really know him to judge him holistically and b) he knows you won't care about him (or anyone else) once they're done playing -- yes you might care about ranking them or who's the goat (Jordan, Lebron, etc), but that debate is a theoretical, old-school bar debate where you actually don't care about the individual in question who you're debating at all.
PLUS he can still have an issue the way people's legacy and success gets judged, and how things have basically shifted in an overweighted way to only care about number of rings. Yes we don't watch basketball to judge how good someone is at chess. But basketball includes leadership, growth/improvement, massive outperformance of expectations, or shouldering crazy expectations and delivering, and also how much of a role model these people are.
The problem with the focus on rings is stats and counter-factual driven. Rings are a post-hoc way to validate someone's greatness (yes the help you validate, yes a player and his team can win it all), vs. the potential to carry a team. We don't get to see basketball teams play playoffs multiple times like a Monte Carlo simulation.
Yes, Russillo briefly touches on things like playoff success as one indicator for Dame, but he absolutely is cherry picking and skipping a few incredible points.
- Dame is absolutely a disgusting pure shooter, one of the best we've seen, and scorer.
- Dame's shot from deep against PG-13, Playoff P is the stuff of legend.
- Yes they got swept by a KD-less Warriors in 2019 playoffs, but 2 games were decided by 4 points or less and one in OT at that. I mean Russillo's opinion is the little stuff doesn't, maybe shouldn't matter, but for people who believe in data and stats as well as narrative, it does. If you play that match up 1,000 times over, it seems rather unlikely that the Blazers wouldn't have gotten at least one game.
- Sure, you might say Chris Paul has had more playoff success, but it's a team sport
a) he's had better supporting cast and b) he's cheap (yes, cheap) things, and he calls things by the book when suits him, or tries to let/get refs to let things slide when it suits him. He gets under players' skin not by his play, but by what I'll call his antics.
Who is a better role model? You want kids looking up to CP3, or Dame Lillard, a man of integrity, a man of incredible talent, someone who constantly worked to better his game, better his community, who was a family man who didn't let basketball (or the media or anyone else) define or put him in a box.
Rings matter. Dominique Wilkins can’t even get a restaurant table in his city of Atlanta for that very reason. True story.
Let's face it... There are some players who are (only) comfortable with being the big fish in a small bowl. K.G. was like that (before Kevin McHale "lovingly" forced him out of Minnesota). Allen Iverson was like that. Karl-Anthony Towns is like that. (To a somewhat lesser degree) Anthony Davis... Luka Doncic is showing signs of being like that. Bradley Beal is like that and I hate to say it, but Dame seems to be like that too. You recognize them by the contracts they sign with teams that are either always on the fringe or going nowhere at all. You know them by the trouble they have playing with other good/great players. Sometimes it works out for them. Most of the time it doesn't and they go ringless.
I despise the whole I did it the right way narrative. Who says which way is the right or wrong way. I'm all for players taking their own ball lives in their own hands
Hey Ryan!!! KD had OT also..
The problem is we only talk about player legacies and not team legacies. Jordan didn't win shit on his own, Curry didn't either. LeBron won 1 ring with an okay team and the rest he had hall of famers with him. The skill difference between Dame and Curry isn't so massive that Curry won all those rings, Curry had Klay, he had Draymond, he had KD, Wiggins. The way we talk about this stuff is ridiculous
I think with Lillard you have to respect how he wants to live his life.
There’s a reason why Lillard is my favorite player in the league.
It don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that ring. There’s a reason why guys like garnett and dirk get more respect than Malone and Barkley. Each of those players pretty similar in terms of dominance and level of player but dirk and Kg got rings
Dame reminds me a bit of Matt Stafford.
To me rings matter when comparing players because the winning gene is a real still that only few have. But i appreciate Dame loyalty much more than KD mercenary attitude and that's why his 2 rings don't matter as much since his value in them was important but not fundamental
Dame is and will always be a hall of famer
Lillard isn't being loyal, he's not a dog. Portland can pay him the most money, he's a businessman
Dame will always be underrated because he played when steph played which sucks because steph is that great
Dame is afraid of being forgotten. And he should be.
Perhaps forgotten by the casual, occasional NBA fan a decade after he retires. But to serious fans of the game of basketball and the league, I don't see how Dame and everything he's accomplished in the postseason with Portland over the years along with the sheer brilliance of his individual performance consistently over the course of his career is going to be forgotten very easily.
We still well remember or at least I remember guys like Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Steve Nash and even guys one wrung down the ladder beneath them like Mutombo or Penny Hardaway as great NBA players in their day... None of whom have a ring.
And honestly if Lillard finished with one ring before the end of his career would I rank him above Steve Nash or Tracy McGrady in the grand scheme of things? No probably not. Lillard being the outlier in his generation in which players of his caliber regularly demand trades to one team after another through their careers, I think probably distorts our perception of just how good he is...
@@Romana6794 Of course he has you. He wants global love, like winners get, from the casuals. He knows he’s not going to get it, so he’s crying.
This is why overall just ring counting is dumb. I'll never put someone like klay over payton or Ray Allen but if you are the best player on a championship team it definitely raises your stock significantly because so few people can say that
He’s sent 2 separate franchises home in the playoffs when he was the underdog… who tf cares if he doesn’t get a ring. Stocktock, Malone, Barkley, Iverson, Reggie Miller…. HOF no rings
No
The stark reality is that Dame is not a championship transcendent player. He is a new age Steve Francis with a better jump shot.
A ring should NOT make you coincidentally forget context. That is stupid .
That's the only comeback Shaq has for Charles Barkley😂😂
I think if kyrie didn’t have a ring, maybe lebron didn’t return to the cavs, he would be in a similar situation to dame
The ring debate only applies to a starting five and maybe the sixth man. JJ Reddick getting a ring would have meant nothing and I hope his therapist told him so.
Yes.. Judging players by championships is unfair and it isn't logical. It's a team sport, and so much outside of your power has to go right for you to win..To say one player is better or greater than the other simply because he won championships is just lazy.
Except it’s more on the star player in this era, bc of the power they wield. Dame hasn’t held the franchise accountable and deserves blame.
@@k_hack9441 But what you just described doesn't make another player any better than him at all.
@@emmanuelmoses7249 it exposes Dame as less competitive, and is absolutely a negative against his career.
@@k_hack9441 So you have no issue with saying player X is better than Damian Lillard because Dame didn't put enough pressure on his front office, proving he's not competitive?
Respectfully, that is ridiculous. You can't even prove it either. The only logical way to say one player is better than the next, is by comparing their impact *On The Court*
@@emmanuelmoses7249 if we’re talking about legacies, than it matters. Dwight Howard should be a top 75 guy. He was the best center for 6-7 years, a dominant two-way player, and led a team to the finals. He’s had a better career than however Dame ends it.
I always wonder like if Lillard got drafted by the Warriors and Curry to the Blazers, how would we view Curry if he had 0 championships, or would Portland of won one with him? Then Dame with Klay, Dray, and Kd, he would probably have a few, would he now be one of the GOATS when it was all said and done?
No. The Warriors are only the Warriors bc of Steph. The system never evolves into what it is if you take Steph away, you can't just throw another good player into his spot and expect everything else to stay the same. Yes, Klay and Draymond are still great players, but they likely wouldn't be viewed on that level if they hadn't played with Steph. Dame with that 2015 Warriors would be good for sure, but they don't win a title. Same with the 2022 team. Dame actually plays a much different game than Steph, one that is far more ball dominant, it would change the system.
@@dangolden8020 You hit the nail on the head.
I think we will look back and Harden and Dame will be respected like an Iverson and Steve Nash. Top 10 players majority of their prime
Dame never played with someone like clay OR Draymond so you can’t really compare him to the warriors.
Even Kareem couldn’t get two in Milwaukee. If Giannis gets two that puts him right up there.
Dame went for the maximum money he could get. It was money over championship contending.
Dame lillard trusted his bank account and the franchise to build around him and they failed. When he makes “not running from the grind,” and not recruiting players part of his image, people are going to be extra critical when it seems like he wants out now.
Most championship teams have multiple hall of famers, how many will Lillard have played with in his career? I don't think it's fair to ask him to have the same playoff success that curry or lebron have since they have their rings alongside much better teams. Even if Lillard was the best player in the NBA, it's not clear he would have a ring.
Dame not having a ring and a lot playoff success. Is not his fault because he killed and shown up every playoffs. His teams were not good around him outside of CJ.
Naw he folded in 2019 and 2020 playoffs
Except when Jrue Holiday locked him up…like Jrue owned him.
Look, dame made his choice. He chooses comfortability and money. Theres nothing wrong with that. But that means he shouldnt be allowed in the convo for people who are all time great. He didnt even try. At least people like barkley, cp3 and Harden have tried.
yes, it’s the American attribute that has outlived it’s time
How he never compares to Reggie or brings up that element of it is weird. The value of playing with just one franchise is never broached. That's Dame's whole thing. I feel like I just wasted my time
I'd rather have Damian Lillard leading my team than Kyrie Irving, I know that much.
Steph had the warriors constantly building correctly around him, one of the greatest shooters ever, a dpoy play maker, KD
Kyrie has had KD,harden, lebron, Luka. It’s incomparable in terms of team building these guards Dame is compared to
What's this thing with Lillard? He barely was top 5 once? Not like Dirk who could have had 2 MVP, 2 championships.
Either winning matters or it doesn't, you're competitive or you're not. Winning a ring represents what? BEING THE BEST -- so, saying there's more to game than being the best -- I would just like to know what exactly that is. From the outside in, it appears to making an excuse as to why you didn't win before your career is even over -- an even more negative interpretation is that Dame doesn't want people to have expectations of him and his teams.
Looking at The Trailblazers roster, nobody realistically has ever had them as contenders. Dame's team has never been good enough. Swap him with any great player in the league, they wouldn't win with that team either..
So yeah, winning matters, but how can you judge a player for losing when his team is clearly not good enough? Jordan needed Pippen/Grant, Without them he doesn't win, even though he's the SAME player lol.
Winning a ring represents that you were the best TEAM that year. Yes, in the NBA individuals impact winning more than other team sports but there still are cases where the best player doesn't have the best team and does not win the finals.
@@emmanuelmoses7249only player in the league you could swap him with and maybe they win is lebron but I’m talking prime Miami/2nd time with Cleveland bron and even then idk.
@@jeremyroberts8822 Right. The greatest player ever 😂.. And like you said, even then I wouldn't pick them to win in the West.
@@emmanuelmoses7249 It's been the same story for how many seasons now? at some point, you look elsewhere to go win -- or at the very least you put pressure on the organization to build a contender, when NBA stars are unhappy with a situation and want things to change, they speak up and make noise. Dame doesn't do that, instead he talks about "Loyalty".
The bigger scandal is that we all basically validate KD and Lebron's rings on superteams. A generation from now people will laugh to themselves at the fact that they broke the biggest taboo in team sports and joined up with their competitors to win. Barring injuries, it's almost impossible to lose when you're the team with the best players. Especially KD, he's a highly efficient scorer who actually should have scored more (he's still not at 30k)
Then you get judged for NOT winning. Lebron losing to Dirk hurt his legacy pretty badly.
I’d argue KDs legacy after the Nets is the worst it’s ever been. If he doesn’t win in Phoenix, people will look back at this guy as one of the most overrated players of his generation.
It all matters. You can ring chase and stack the deck, but when you do it, you better win.
Only reason he isn’t at 30K is cus of the injuries. Without the Achilles injury plus all the other injuries he would definitely have passed 30K already easily
@@kevinc8955agreed on everything you said pretty much. Lebrons legacy took a massive hit losing to dirk, they really should have won that series they were the more talented team by far and if you look at the end of some of the games in that series it really seems like bron didn’t want the ball at all. Also with KD what really hurt him more than anything was steph and the warriors winning another ring last season without that you could’ve maybe argued they needed KD to win anymore than that first ring but since they won again that argument is thrown out the window.
All the great players had super teams Bill Russell, Wilt, Kareem, magic, Bird, Jordan, kobe, shaq, Duncan all super teams
@@kevinc8955 Name me a single all time great who never won who also didn't have great opportunities but choked or was never on a great team. Lebron would have won eventually in Cleveland, KD with OKC. Not winning is basically just as bad as stacking the deck.
I don't think anyone would be mad if Lillard went ring chasing except Portland lol
It would be unfortunate if Jokic wins a 3rd consecutive MVP and doesn’t make the Finals but it is bc he hasn’t even been to the Finals that I think he shouldn’t get this particular MVP. Does he have a case? Absolutely. Is he the clear cut MVP favorite? Absolutely not. Has any player ever won 3 consecutive MVPs? Absolutely, 3 have. Had either of them at the very least made the finals by the time of the 3rd MVP? Absolutely, Bird, Wilt and Bill Russel had all either won a chip OR had been to the finals. It’s that simple to me, I like the precedent and I don’t think it should change. We didn’t change it for Mike or Bron why would we change it now? So I say it would be unfortunate bc it would serve as a catalyst to distract from Jokic’s overall greatness. As a huge Lebron fan, I hate that this is what sports media has deteriorated down to for the NBA. We will see how this year plays out.
Eh, there's so much luck and randomness that goes into it. Not to mention context. Thinking the last fifteen years through, there are so few titles that boil down to "one player was transcendent" without serious caveats. And if we're paying tribute to more than one player, then why do they get all the flowers come legacy time? Durant doesn't win without the Warriors. LeBron doesn't win without the Heat. Kawhi doesn't win if GS is healthy. Makes zero sense to lift those players above Tatum, who's been carrying teams to the ECF since his rookie season, or Jokic, who's had zero healthy teams in the playoffs since he hit prime.
If Giannis didn't win that ring they were gonna blow it up. At the very least Bud wasn't coming back.
Its the Tmac treatment 😮💨
Durrant seems super petty and I definitely wasn’t a fan of him going to Golden State ring chase.
I still kind of root for the guy, but I am going to Golden State cheap in the rings. If he wins in Phoenix, then maybe, but the whole Brooklyn thing was a mess.
We kinda know who's that great. I think the more rings means you're a better player argument really got popularized as an anti LeBron measuring stick vs Jordan.
Hakeem 2 , Shaq 4 still a debate
Bird. 3. Magic 5 still a debate
Even Russell 11 vs Wilts 2 wasn't a big enough gap in rings for probably at least 50% of fans and former players to believe Wilt was better.
So I don't really see it as significantly different measuring 1 ring players vs zero rings.
Do people really rank Isiah Thomas over Malone and Barkley because he has 2 and they have none?
I think most mvp caliber players who have led their teams to 60 win seasons are capable of winning a ring in the right circumstances and any allstar (besides Westbrook) could win a ring as a 2nd or 3rd best player on the team.
But there's usually only 5 or 6 guys in the league at a time who are best player on a champion level and Dame isn't really that.
Ppl just want to see him on that stage and show his greatness I mean that’s a part of fandom you believe in a guy and his ability and right now it’s dame is so good but …. and his team has never been good enough on defense to get him there
Lillard running from the grind & now Atp he holding the blazers back he don’t wanna win big
Most teams or players never win. Plain and simple.