How would Paul's legacy change if he were to win a ring?

[houston]

he top 5 ever

[jayfan]

You've got that backwards.

No, he's got it right. Thomas wins better. It's Mr. Clutch v. Mr. Not Clutch.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_o...0518_large.jpg





.

[ClipperRevival]

It would do wonders for his legacy and shut a lot of people up. To me, even without a ring, he is the most complete pg ever. Not saying he's the best ever but most complete, which is different. He really had no weakness except his size. What he brings to the table on a nightly basis on both ends is pretty remarkable. A ring is the only thing missing. He barely missed out on an MVP in 2008 but that's alright.

He's one of those guys that would almost guarantee his team a playoff birth, even if you were to put him on the worst team in the league. He just had such a positive impact on both ends.

[GoSpursGo1984]

CP3 make it out of the second round??
Clippers win a title??

[pauk]

Rings are overrated that way.... a player of his caliber with a ring/fmvp all of the sudden is maybe a top 20 player of all time, changing his "legacy" dramatically in the casual fans eyes.... but right now not even close, although he is the same exact player....

Ring = 100% team accomplishment.... you can be the greatest player to ever lace em up and never win one or get maybe 1 or 2 if very lucky.... i have never & never will use it to evaluate an individual players basketball ability.... this is not tennis / 1 on 1...

What you can use is context instead, if a guy has a ring then you should look at the championship run itself from the individuals perspective.... how great was his impact, his performance, what did he have to work with around him, competition?

Rings count is an extremly shallow way for fans to rank players all-time.... this way a LESSER player can be ranked over FAR BETTER actual individual players.... like Russell over Hakeem or Wilt etc.... like Magic over Oscar (no man, he was not better).... like Pippen over Durant..... and so on...

Rings is also arbitrary, like a triple double, 10-10-10 is not better than 15-9-10.... 20-10-10 is not better than 35-8-8....

I mean a guy can have the most amazing individual performance in playoffs history taking the worst supporting cast in NBA history to an NBA finals and then lose in the Finals because his supporting cast just couldnt deal with the opposing stacked talent.... was that really less prestigious to the guy who played much worse and won a ring with the most stacked team ever? Really?

Thats like saying the F1 driver who won the Race did better than the guy who came 0.001 sec. 2nd behind him in a god damn Toyota Prius....

Completely arbitrary....

[coin24]

Rings are overrated that way.... a player of his caliber with a ring/fmvp all of the sudden is maybe a top 20 player of all time, changing his "legacy" dramatically in the casual fans eyes.... but right now not even close, although he is the same exact player....

Ring = 100% team accomplishment.... you can be the greatest player to ever lace em up and never win one or get maybe 1 or 2 if very lucky.... i have never & never will use it to evaluate an individual players basketball ability.... this is not tennis / 1 on 1...

What you can use is context instead, if a guy has a ring then you should look at the championship run itself from the individuals perspective.... how great was his impact, his performance, what did he have to work with around him, competition?

Rings count is an extremly shallow way for fans to rank players all-time.... this way a LESSER player can be ranked over FAR BETTER actual individual players.... like Russell over Hakeem or Wilt etc.... like Magic over Oscar.... like Pippen over Durant..... and so on...

Rings is also arbitrary, like a triple double, 10-10-10 is not better than 15-9-10.... 20-10-10 is not better than 35-8-8....

I mean a guy can have the most amazing individual performance in playoffs history taking the worst supporting cast in NBA history to an NBA finals and then lose in the Finals because his supporting cast just couldnt deal with the opposing stacked talent.... was that really less prestigious to the guy who played much worse and won a ring with the most stacked team ever? Really?

Thats like saying the F1 driver who won the Race was the best and not the guy who came 0.001 2nd behind him in a god damn Toyota Prius....

Completely arbitrary....

2/5

[ClipperRevival]

Rings are overrated that way.... a player of his caliber with a ring/fmvp all of the sudden is maybe a top 20 player of all time, changing his "legacy" dramatically in the casual fans eyes.... but right now not even close, although he is the same exact player....

Ring = 100% team accomplishment.... you can be the greatest player to ever lace em up and never win one or get maybe 1 or 2 if very lucky.... i have never & never will use it to evaluate an individual players basketball ability.... this is not tennis / 1 on 1...

What you can use is context instead, if a guy has a ring then you should look at the championship run itself from the individuals perspective.... how great was his impact, his performance, what did he have to work with around him, competition?

Rings count is an extremly shallow way for fans to rank players all-time.... this way a LESSER player can be ranked over FAR BETTER actual individual players.... like Russell over Hakeem or Wilt etc.... like Magic over Oscar (no man, he was not better).... like Pippen over Durant..... and so on...

Rings is also arbitrary, like a triple double, 10-10-10 is not better than 15-9-10.... 20-10-10 is not better than 35-8-8....

I mean a guy can have the most amazing individual performance in playoffs history taking the worst supporting cast in NBA history to an NBA finals and then lose in the Finals because his supporting cast just couldnt deal with the opposing stacked talent.... was that really less prestigious to the guy who played much worse and won a ring with the most stacked team ever? Really?

Thats like saying the F1 driver who won the Race did better than the guy who came 0.001 sec. 2nd behind him in a god damn Toyota Prius....

Completely arbitrary....

If this was another sport, I would agree. But not basketball, where one superstar can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. I like the NBA because it is predictable. Every year, before the season even begins, we already know the 4-5 teams that have legit shots at winning it all and these teams are usually led by the top players in the league.

And you are unfairly assuming that a great player might've never had the proper help during this entire career. I would say that a guy like CP3 has had enough help the last few years. So he's had the talent around him to win. If he doesn't win, does that take away from what he was, which is one of the best PGs ever? Of course not. But to me, winning rings is what SEPARATES you from other greats and ELEVATES your legacy to another level. And I see now problem in doing that. Sure, you can be great without a ring but winning rings, especially as "the man", carries weight. And I think fairly so.

[ClipperRevival]

Let's take the example of Olajuwon and Robinson. Both have two rings to their resume but the way they got them are worlds apart. Olajuwon was clearly "the man" in their two runs while Robinson was at the tail end of his career and piggy backed off of Duncan. And history is judging them accordingly. Hakeem is widely accepted as one of the best C ever and while Robinson is also higher regarded, he is clearly a tier below that. And the biggest reason for that is because of how they won their rings. Robinson had his chances against Hakeem, while in his prime, and he came up short.

Same with a guy like Pippen. He has 6 rings but he never won one as "the man". He was always second fiddle to MJ and never had to face the pressure of having defenses focus on him every game and doubling him. He didn't have that burden. So you have to take his 6 rings with a grain of salt.

What about Drexler? He also has a ring. But he also piggy backed off of Olajuwon in 1995. He's still an ATG but his status is not as high as it could be if he had won one as "the man" during his Blazer days. Imagine how much higher his legacy would be if he had actually beaten MJ in 1992?

Having said all of that, this is why I revere MJ so much. The guy was 6/6 in the Finals. He was by far the most popular athlete in basketball and got the opposition's best every night. Yet he still kept winning. He was never pushed to a 7th game in the Finals and took down some great teams in the process. He didn't let the others stars of his era dictate his legacy. He drew the sand on the line and stopped all comers at their tracks. Preventing Magic from getting his 6th, Drexler from getting one, Barkley from getting one, Payton/Kemp from getting one and Malone/Stockton from getting one. He came, he saw, he conquered.

[hawksdogsbraves]

Skillwise he probably already is a top tier PG all time, but yeah he could use a little hardware to cement that legacy. No Finals appearances, no MVP's, that's not a great look when you're trying to compete in a conversation with Magic or Isaiah Thomas.

[yobore]

He is the 2nd best PG all time with or without a ring but it would still make a huge difference.

[SwishSquared]

If this was another sport, I would agree. But not basketball, where one superstar can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. I like the NBA because it is predictable. Every year, before the season even begins, we already know the 4-5 teams that have legit shots at winning it all and these teams are usually led by the top players in the league.

And you are unfairly assuming that a great player might've never had the proper help during this entire career. I would say that a guy like CP3 has had enough help the last few years. So he's had the talent around him to win. If he doesn't win, does that take away from what he was, which is one of the best PGs ever? Of course not. But to me, winning rings is what SEPARATES you from other greats and ELEVATES your legacy to another level. And I see now problem in doing that. Sure, you can be great without a ring but winning rings, especially as "the man", carries weight. And I think fairly so.

I agree with this nearly entirely, but I honestly think his "help" on the Clippers team has been overrated. Their bench has been underwhelming for two years now. Last year the backup big situation was beyond funny and one of Doc's big additions was injured all season long (Dudley). Also, if your 5'11" starting PG is defending the other teams' best offensive wings in fourth quarters, you've done a bad job getting adequate defenders.

This year, the bench "improvements" are pretty bad. Barnes, who's playing very well this year, is more of a bench wing imo, and their depth behind him is underwhelming. CP3 and BG are the only crunch time guys who can make things happen and that poses an issue (predictable offensive sets). Playing Crawford down the stretch can hurt just as much as he helps due to his defense and tendency to have tunnel vision

I think some teams just have lower ceilings and this Clippers team at best wins 2 series any given year, and they would really have to clicking on all cylinders. I don't think that's happened yet in the playoffs.

[ClipperRevival]

I agree with this nearly entirely, but I honestly think his "help" on the Clippers team has been overrated. Their bench has been underwhelming for two years now. Last year the backup big situation was beyond funny and one of Doc's big additions was injured all season long (Dudley). Also, if your 5'11" starting PG is defending the other teams' best offensive wings in fourth quarters, you've done a bad job getting adequate defenders.

This year, the bench "improvements" are pretty bad. Barnes, who's playing very well this year, is more of a bench wing imo, and their depth behind him is underwhelming. CP3 and BG are the only crunch time guys who can make things happen and that poses an issue (predictable offensive sets). Playing Crawford down the stretch can hurt just as much as he helps due to his defense and tendency to have tunnel vision

I think some teams just have lower ceilings and this Clippers team at best wins 2 series any given year, and they would really have to clicking on all cylinders. I don't think that's happened yet in the playoffs.

I can't disagree with anything you said. You seem to be a Clipper fan based on what you said because you get it. Yeah, our bench was a strength a few years ago with Collison, Bledsoe and Barnes but now it's been a joke the last 2 years. And yes, our lack of a legit, wing player is our biggest hole. CP3 does have to guard the opposition's best player when we absolutely need stops.

But like I said in my original post, if CP3 doesn't win one, it doesn't take much away from what he was. But winning a ring just elevates his legacy. This is an amazingly tough Western Conference right now. Only 1 team can come out on top. I thought we got robbed of the OKC series last year. CP3 choked big time in game 5 but that call was obviously the wrong one. I really thought we had a shot at going all the way had we gone past OKC.

[SwishSquared]

I can't disagree with anything you said. You seem to be a Clipper fan based on what you said because you get it. Yeah, our bench was a strength a few years ago with Collison, Bledsoe and Barnes but now it's been a joke the last 2 years. And yes, our lack of a legit, wing player is our biggest hole. CP3 does have to guard the opposition's best player when we absolutely need stops.

But like I said in my original post, if CP3 doesn't win one, it doesn't take much away from what he was. But winning a ring just elevates his legacy. This is an amazingly tough Western Conference right now. Only 1 team can come out on top. I thought we got robbed of the OKC series last year. CP3 choked big time in game 5 but that call was obviously the wrong one. I really thought we had a shot at going all the way had we gone past OKC.

I absolutely agree that a ring elevates his legacy and separates him from others he's historically clumped with. A ring is obviously the ultimate goal, but for some guys, they kinda are a victim of circumstance and can't do much to advance their legacy. I think CP3's historically great and a ring would be validation for his greatness, but I know just how complete he is as a player so I wouldn't hold it too much against him if he ends up ringless. I agree with your whole 2nd paragraph. In summer 2013 I picked LAC to make the Finals and they had a real shot to do so, but between the bad CP3 decisions and the wrong calls, they just squandered the opportunity to get to WCF.

Paul is playing much harder than he did at the start of the year, likely mostly due to BG's elbow injury, but I think he really wants to atone for last year's Game 5 in this postseason. He hasn't recovered from that the same way the Spurs didn't recover from Game 6 in 2013 until they curb stomped Miami in the Finals a year later. Granted I don't think they'll make or win the Finals...but he's more motivated this season.

Fwiw I'm not a Clippers fan or anything, but I do try to remain objective in rating guys and teams. I just know that the roster has flaws that haven't been addressed and it would take having like 6 guys all rolling at same time for this team to accomplish the type of postseason success casual fans assume/expect from them. And that type of run is not super likely to happen unfortunately.

[ClipperRevival]

I absolutely agree that a ring elevates his legacy and separates him from others he's historically clumped with. A ring is obviously the ultimate goal, but for some guys, they kinda are a victim of circumstance and can't do much to advance their legacy. I think CP3's historically great and a ring would be validation for his greatness, but I know just how complete he is as a player so I wouldn't hold it too much against him if he ends up ringless. I agree with your whole 2nd paragraph. In summer 2013 I picked LAC to make the Finals and they had a real shot to do so, but between the bad CP3 decisions and the wrong calls, they just squandered the opportunity to get to WCF.

Paul is playing much harder than he did at the start of the year, likely mostly due to BG's elbow injury, but I think he really wants to atone for last year's Game 5 in this postseason. He hasn't recovered from that the same way the Spurs didn't recover from Game 6 in 2013 until they curb stomped Miami in the Finals a year later. Granted I don't think they'll make or win the Finals...but he's more motivated this season.

Fwiw I'm not a Clippers fan or anything, but I do try to remain objective in rating guys and teams. I just know that the roster has flaws that haven't been addressed and it would take having like 6 guys all rolling at same time for this team to accomplish the type of postseason success casual fans assume/expect from them. And that type of run is not super likely to happen unfortunately.

Well, I am a Clipper fan and you sound like you keep up with them. But I agree that a lot of people need to get on a roll for this team to have a chance. Meaning their trio has to play at a high level and Redick needs to continue his hot hand. And another guy or two needs to play above their normal level.

[Harison]

Redick made a comment before tonight's game that if CP were to win a championship he would go down as the GOAT PG.

Redick is a funny guy.