PDA

View Full Version : Will the legacy of todays NBA stars be affected by the extremely deep league today?



P Harvy
10-03-2012, 01:07 PM
Now I am a younger NBA fan so I'm not the most knowledgable person out there about the history of the NBA.. Especially compared to people who were able to watch different eras of basketball, but just from talking to some people and reading articles it seems to me that the NBA is deeper than it ever has been (correct me if I'm wrong).

With that being said, there are so many good players in this league today that I'm not sure will ever have the chance to win a championship or will ever have a chance to win more than one. I'm thinking Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, Kevin Love, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, Rajon Rondo, Chris Paul, ect.

All those players either don't have a ring or have one ring and they are ALL extremely talented players. I hate to use LeBron as an example but let's say he only finishes his career with 1 ring. Some would argue that since he only has 1 ring it affects his overall ranking on the all-time list of greats. Others would say he's up there regardless but the point I'm trying to make is that if he wins lets say 3 rings people would automatically put him up there with the best. If he only wins 1 I'm not so sure and is that really fair? Does him only having 1 ring mean he wasn't one of the best players of all-time?

Lets look at Durant too. The kid is unbelievable. What if Durant never wins a ring? How does that affect his legacy? Now I know he's still really young but with the Lakers re-stacking in the west are his chances slimming? How long will he have that core of Ibaka, Harden, Westbrook and himself? In a different era Durant might of had the possibility of winning multiple rings but in this deeper league I think his overall legacy will be tarnished.

Lets look at Kevin Love. The man nearly put up averages of 26 and 14. Those are better numbers than a prime Duncan but if he never wins a ring he will never amount to anything close to what Duncan is viewed as. And I'm not sure Love will ever win a ring with the likes of LeBron, Durant, and Dwight.

I want to look at Rose now too. I'm not sure if Rose will EVER win a ring. I think his best chance at a ring already passed. That does take away from the fact that Rose could be one of the greats in the NBA? Unfortunately I think it does.

Chris Paul? Unbelievable point guard. Will he ever win won? How will that affect his overall legacy?

And now I want to look at the trickle down affect. These guys are the cream of the crop right now in the league in terms of players with 0-1 rings. How will the legacy of great 2nd option players be affected? I don't know why but I'm thinking Khawi Leonard right now. He seems to be an up and coming guy but I doubt he will ever win a ring especially with the aging Duncan and Ginobli.

Anyway in short, how will this deep league affect the legacy of some of these players who have a chance to be some of the greatest players in the league but will end up lacking the accolades?

Matrix3132
10-03-2012, 01:19 PM
Now I am a younger NBA fan so I'm not the most knowledgable person out there about the history of the NBA.. Especially compared to people who were able to watch different eras of basketball, but just from talking to some people and reading articles it seems to me that the NBA is deeper than it ever has been (correct me if I'm wrong).

With that being said, there are so many good players in this league today that I'm not sure will ever have the chance to win a championship or will ever have a chance to win more than one. I'm thinking Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, Kevin Love, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, Rajon Rondo, Chris Paul, ect.

All those players either don't have a ring or have one ring and they are ALL extremely talented players. I hate to use LeBron as an example but let's say he only finishes his career with 1 ring. Some would argue that since he only has 1 ring it affects his overall ranking on the all-time list of greats. Others would say he's up there regardless but the point I'm trying to make is that if he wins lets say 3 rings people would automatically put him up there with the best. If he only wins 1 I'm not so sure and is that really fair? Does him only having 1 ring mean he wasn't one of the best players of all-time?

Lets look at Durant too. The kid is unbelievable. What if Durant never wins a ring? How does that affect his legacy? Now I know he's still really young but with the Lakers re-stacking in the west are his chances slimming? How long will he have that core of Ibaka, Harden, Westbrook and himself? In a different era Durant might of had the possibility of winning multiple rings but in this deeper league I think his overall legacy will be tarnished.

Lets look at Kevin Love. The man nearly put up averages of 26 and 14. Those are better numbers than a prime Duncan but if he never wins a ring he will never amount to anything close to what Duncan is viewed as. And I'm not sure Love will ever win a ring with the likes of LeBron, Durant, and Dwight.

I want to look at Rose now too. I'm not sure if Rose will EVER win a ring. I think his best chance at a ring already passed. That does take away from the fact that Rose could be one of the greats in the NBA? Unfortunately I think it does.

Chris Paul? Unbelievable point guard. Will he ever win won? How will that affect his overall legacy?

And now I want to look at the trickle down affect. These guys are the cream of the crop right now in the league in terms of players with 0-1 rings. How will the legacy of great 2nd option players be affected? I don't know why but I'm thinking Khawi Leonard right now. He seems to be an up and coming guy but I doubt he will ever wing a ring especially with the aging Duncan and Ginobli.

Anyway in short, how will this deep league affect the legacy of some of these players who have a chance to be some of the greatest players in the league but will end up lacking the accolades?

What era would durrant have won multiple rings??? In the 80s/90s he would've pushed around far too much and become almost exclusively an outside shooter. Not that he isnt a great player but thats just the way it is today, big men are soft and defenders aren't allowed to play defense which in turn has allowed a player like durrant to become one of the best in the league and the big man "enforcer" type to go almost extinct.

You said you're a young nba fan which is obvious from the post because lot's of great players have never won rings and I don't even consider the league particularly deep, perhaps talent wise, but definitely not from a quality of play/competitive standpoint. add in the fact that lots of nba quality players are choosing more or similar money overseas for parts of their careers (for some their whole careers) and this trend just keeps increasing so I think that makes the league even less deep.

a lot of people think a few teams could be easily contracted before you call this era deep and then we'd definitely watch the quality of play go way up.

theducksmuggler
10-03-2012, 01:21 PM
Well last 20 years only 7 different teams have won the ship so i dont think its how deep the league is i think the problem is how powerful our these superstar teams

JasonJohnHorn
10-03-2012, 01:26 PM
Is the league that deep today? I watched guys play in the late 80's and early 90's and THAT was a deep league. Though today's league is deeper with perimiter talent (there are more great SG and SF than in the 80's/90's, but the 80/90's was deeper at C/PF, and both generations have a lot of great PG).

The guys at the top will be remembered, as will the guys who won.

Like the best of the best, Barkley, Karl Malone, they will be remembered despite not winning. But guys like Larry Nance and Otis Thorpe, who though not as good as Malone and Barkley, had seasons that were just as impressive as some of Barkley's and Malone's seasons, they will not be remembered in the generations to come. Stockton will be remembered, but people seem to already forget some truly great PGs like Kevin Johnson and Mark Price. Had these guys been playing for the Bulls, people would remember them.

Same at the Center spot. People will remember Hakeem and Robinson and Ewing, but people will forget Brad Daughtery even though he would perhaps be the best (or cetainly at least second best) center if he was in the league today.

Guys like Dennis Johnson, had he not won with the Celtics and Seatle, he would not be remembered the way he is. Had he been playing at the same level on the Bucks or the Kings in the late 70's/80's, he'd fall into the Mark Price and Kevin Johnson catagroy.

Today's generation, I think it is obvious who will be remembered. Kobe. Wade. LBJ. Durant. CP3. Rose. And the generation leading up to the LBJ era, where Garnett and Duncan and Shaq dominated, I think it is clear who will be remembered. But you'd be surprised. Even talking about SGs people seem to forget George Gervin who had an amazing career and posted rediculous scoring numbers. People, at the time he was playing, would have seen him as one of the best of all time, but I'd bet not one person on PSD would even have him in their top 5 for SGs right now. Had he won a couple titles, people's perception of him would be drastically different.

So to answer your question, I think the best of the best at each position, people will remember them. Howard will be remembered, and perhaps Bynum if he can continue to bring up his game and stay away from injuries. The PF spot is a little harder to tell. Obviously Duncan and Garnett will be remembered, and I think Bosh and Gasol will both come away with enough hardware so that people will remember them, but I think, unless there are some titles coming NY's way soon, people will forgot hwo good Amare was (they already seem to be forgetting to be honest). At SF I think LBJ and Durant are the only two that people will really remember, unless of course, as I said, there are some titles coming NY's way soon. SG I think Wade and Kobe will be remembered, and obviously Allen (I think, though they are still playing, guys like Allen, Garnett, Pierce, Duncan and such are of a different era). At PG, CP3 will be remembered, and Rose, so long as he comes back from this injury 100%, but I think guys like Westbrook and even Rondo will have a harder time making sure people remember them. I mean, just think back to all the great PGs that played between 1980-1999, and most that people really remember are Stockton, Thomas and Magic, and then you have to start thinking (obviously Kidd and Nash, but they are of a different generation even though they were drafted in the 90's).

So yeah... I don't think the league is that deep to be honest, but unless you win a lot, or make clear that you are a very special player, it's hard to make your name last through the generations. I mean, there were all kinds of great centers and powr forwards in the late 60's and 70's, but everytime people say how good Wilt and Russell and kareem were, people say thye were playing in a league where they were the only good players at their position and nothing could be farther from the truth.

P Harvy
10-03-2012, 01:29 PM
Well last 20 years only 7 different teams have won the ship so i dont think its how deep the league is i think the problem is how powerful our these superstar teams

This is more of what I was trying to get at I guess. I think there are going to be unreal players with talent that either can be matched in the past or not matched at all who will never win a ring. I think overall looking at it from a league wide standpoint there is no way the league in the 80/90s had the overall skill of todays league. They definitely had the greats who will be up there til the end of time but was the league as a WHOLE as talented?

mightybosstone
10-03-2012, 01:38 PM
I don't think this is as big of a problem as you're making it out to be. Look at the early-mid 90s and you'll see what I'm talking about. In a span of like 5-10 years, the following players were in the tail end or beginning their primes: Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, David Robinson, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and Shaquille O'Neal.

That's 13 of the 40-50 greatest players in the history of the league. Not all of them won a title (Stocton, Malone, Ewing, Barkley) and some only won 1 or 2 (Isiah, Hakeem, Robinson). But that doesn't impact them that greatly when people discuss their legacies. What impacts their legacies (for me, at least) were how those guys played when given an opportunity for success. Malone is one of the all-time greatest postseason chokers and Hakeem's infamous beat down of David Robinson after Robinson won his MVP is legendary.

Paul is a great example. He may never win an NBA title, but statistically he has been a top five player in the league for probably 4-5 years now and he has regularly carried his teams through the postseason. No matter if he wins a title or not, he'll go down as one of the greatest point guards in the history of the league. You could make a similar argument for Dwight.

On the flip side of this, though, Love has never played a playoff game. It CAN kill your legacy if you have little to no playoff experience by the end of your career. If he can make some playoff runs, though, and prove himself in big moments, then there's nothing holding him back from being in the same category as guys like Malone and Barkley.

ink
10-03-2012, 01:41 PM
"Legacy" does NOT mean accomplishments.

Only a handful of players in NBA history actually have a "legacy".


leg·a·cy   [leg-uh-see] Show IPA noun, plural leg·a·cies.
1.
Law . a gift of property, especially personal property, as money, by will; a bequest.
2.
anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome.
3.
an applicant to or student at a school that was attended by his or her parent.
4.
Obsolete . the office, function, or commission of a legate.

You can't hand down statistical accomplishments or rings. They belong only to one individual.

You can hand down lasting INFLUENCE ON THE GAME like Jordan did. Do you see any players in today's NBA who will have a lasting influence on the game? Maybe Lebron, but since he's a freak of nature like Wilt or Shaq, I don't see how he will influence the game down the road.

This has nothing to do with depth in the league.

mightybosstone
10-03-2012, 01:51 PM
"Legacy" does NOT mean accomplishments.

Only a handful of players in NBA history actually have a "legacy".

You can't hand down statistical accomplishments or rings. They belong only to one individual.

You can hand down lasting INFLUENCE ON THE GAME like Jordan did. Do you see any players in today's NBA who will have a lasting influence on the game? Maybe Lebron, but since he's a freak of nature like Wilt or Shaq, I don't see how he will influence the game down the road.

This has nothing to do with depth in the league.

I completely disagree and think you're looking at the word "legacy" with far too narrow a perspective. Any person on this planet leaves a legacy. If you work somewhere for 5-10 years and people remember you when you leave that job, then you've got a legacy. And when players retired from the league, people remember their accomplishments and their achievements. For example, could you describe to me what kind of influence Bill Russell had on the game or what his jump shot looked like? Probably not. Could you tell me that he was the defensive anchor for a Celtics franchise that won 11 championships, including one in which he coached? Probably so.

You don't have to make an impact on the league itself to leave a legacy behind. You just have to be remembered for something.

C_Mund
10-03-2012, 02:01 PM
I think social media will lead people in future generations to believe that the mid-2000's was a huge boom in talent because a bunch of really good (not GREAT) players began branding themselves.

BklynKnicks3
10-03-2012, 02:02 PM
Lebron the coward and his watered down ring he will win 3 or 4 more but they wont be worth the same as when mike larry or mj did it.

ink
10-03-2012, 02:04 PM
I completely disagree and think you're looking at the word "legacy" with far too narrow a perspective. Any person on this planet leaves a legacy.

It's about literacy levels and misusing words. The dictionary is not wrong. The media is just stupid on this one and unfortunately fans buy into the misuse of "legacy".

And not everyone on the planet leaves a legacy. A legacy has to be something noteworthy that you leave behind. I would say that John Stockton's air of professionalism and consistency in Utah is more of a legacy than player X's 3-4 rings which won't be accomplished in the same way by anyone else. What influence would his 3-4 rings have on anyone? They're his. Stockton's professionalism and consistency is a legacy that someone could emulate; player X's 3-4 rings can't be "emulated".


If you work somewhere for 5-10 years and people remember you when you leave that job, then you've got a legacy.

I agree with that as long as they remember you for something significant. They're not going to remember you if you're just some dude that was there for 5-10 years. And you had to make a lasting mark on the organization, changed it in some way. Rings and stats in themselves don't do that, yet that's how the media and fans misuse this word. There are some really illiterate things about sport discussion. This is the worst.


And when players retired from the league, people remember their accomplishments and their achievements. For example, could you describe to me what kind of influence Bill Russell had on the game or what his jump shot looked like? Probably not. Could you tell me that he was the defensive anchor for a Celtics franchise that won 11 championships, including one in which he coached? Probably so.

Russell is easy. His legacy is the winning tradition he established. You just named his biggest legacy though: his defence. THAT is a legacy that Celtics teams have prided themselves on continuing over the years. Inadvertently you described exactly what a legacy actually was. The 11 championships are not nearly as important as the role he played for the franchise on D, and the continuing LEGACY of defence you see with today's Celtics. He established the way that team would always strive to play.

Do I see anyone today that will have a legacy? The Spurs, Tim Duncan, and Gregg Popovich will have established a legacy, and again it has nothing to do with #s of championships. It has to do with the balance and flawless fundamentals of the team style. Duncan's legacy will be professionalism and execution. That IS something that can be emulated by a franchise. It's something he leaves behind for those that follow him, and that is exactly what legacy means.

JasonJohnHorn
10-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Lebron the coward and his watered down ring he will win 3 or 4 more but they wont be worth the same as when mike larry or mj did it.

I'm not a fan of LBJ jumping ship the way he did, but in all honesty, when he was playing in Cleveland, he had nobody nearly as talented as Pippen and Rodman, the way Jordan had. Nor did he have anybody as talented as McHale and Parish, or as good defensively as Dennis Johnson was the way Bird had. Nor did he have anybody as good as Norm Nixon and Kareem when Magic had them to start his career, or James Worthy later in his career.

LBJ has Wade and Bosh now... like Jordan had Pippen and Rodman, and Bird had McHale and Parish and Magic had Kareem and Worthy.

The ring James won is no different than the rings that Bird and Magic and Jordan won. And this is coming from a James hater. Well... not literally hate, I'm sure he's a nice guy, I just don't like the way he left Cleveland.

SteBO
10-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Blind leading the blind. It's this very same "legacy" concept that has driven stars to teaming up with other stars. The pressure the national media puts on these stars to win championships is absurd. LeBron has been unfairly criticized and ridiculed for years for this very reason and now that that narrative ended in June of last year, they're going to move on to the next guy (Carmelo possibly). Then it's going to be KD should he not win one in the next couple of years. Hell, Kobe was heavily criticized himself for not winning a title "post-Shaq" until 2009, and that's with 3 rings already under his belt.

SteBO
10-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Lebron the coward and his watered down ring he will win 3 or 4 more but they wont be worth the same as when mike larry or mj did it.
Another prime example of the "blind leading the blind".

naps
10-03-2012, 02:47 PM
You can hand down lasting INFLUENCE ON THE GAME like Jordan did. Do you see any players in today's NBA who will have a lasting influence on the game? Maybe Lebron, but since he's a freak of nature like Wilt or Shaq, I don't see how he will influence the game down the road.

This has nothing to do with depth in the league.

Not sure if serious :confused:

You don't think Wilt and Shaq has no legacy? All they things they did on the court and all the accolades they complied over the years don't translate into legacy? Just because they were physical freaks they didn't have any skills? What does freak of nature means? You are completely ignoring amazing skill sets they had. And why would their physical ability go against them to begin with?

ink
10-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Not sure if serious :confused:

You don't think Wilt and Shaq has no legacy? All they things they did on the court and all the accolades they complied over the years don't translate into legacy? Just because they were physical freaks they didn't have any skills? What does freak of nature means? You are completely ignoring amazing skill sets they had. And why would their physical ability go against them to begin with?

We're only talking about legacy. Did they give their skill sets or size to other players who followed in their footsteps??? lol. Obviously not. So there is no legacy. No one has or will replicate what Wilt did or Shaq did. Both of them are one-of-a-kind. They have to have LEFT SOMETHING BEHIND FOR THOSE THAT FOLLOWED THEM. Accomplishments and accolades are NOT legacy. You can't pass on your stats to others, you can't pass on your rings to others, you also can't pass on your skills. And if you can't pass those things on, they aren't a legacy. It's that simple.

TheLegend
10-03-2012, 07:17 PM
"Now I am a younger NBA fan so I'm not the most knowledgable person out there about the history of the NBA.."

Exactly. You simply don't have the age and experience to know what you're talking about in this regards. Also, it's "knowledgeable". The league isn't particularly deep. I see no difference from now then the way it always have been. Which is numerous good teams but only 2 or 3 capable of winning it all.

naps
10-03-2012, 07:28 PM
We're only talking about legacy. Did they give their skill sets or size to other players who followed in their footsteps??? lol. Obviously not. So there is no legacy. No one has or will replicate what Wilt did or Shaq did. Both of them are one-of-a-kind. They have to have LEFT SOMETHING BEHIND FOR THOSE THAT FOLLOWED THEM. Accomplishments and accolades are NOT legacy. You can't pass on your stats to others, you can't pass on your rings to others, you also can't pass on your skills. And if you can't pass those things on, they aren't a legacy. It's that simple.

LMAO! Then who has legacy? None. Not even Jordan. No one has his skill sets or his accomplishmets. Ladies and gentlemen NBA has no one with legacy from it's half century history!!

C-Style
10-03-2012, 07:46 PM
Was Magics? Birds, Kareems? or West' for playing with Baylor, Goodrich & Wilt and vice versa

Hawkeye15
10-03-2012, 07:48 PM
Lebron the coward and his watered down ring he will win 3 or 4 more but they wont be worth the same as when mike larry or mj did it.

So, leaving in free agency after your contract is up to go to a good team is worse than forcing a trade? Not everyone can be drafted into ready made contenders, or in MJ's case, have a front office that goes out and gets him his help and coach.

3RDASYSTEM
10-03-2012, 07:49 PM
Not at all

KOBE is not LBJ/DURANT/ROSE generation

he is with SHAQ/AI/DUNCAN/KG/KIDD era...i cant help it you young *** fans forgot he was a backup guard and try to throw him in there when he got his fulltime starting gig in 2000(drafted in 96) and then BRON came in 2003...thats a 7yr gap...basically a whole career, next

Guys like BARKLEY/MALONE/IVERSON/STOCKTON/EWING and etc are always going to be remembered for their individual game and impact regardless of a ring,even if WILT/BRON/SHAQ/ALCINDOR/DUNCAN/KG dont win rings it still didnt take away from they dominance/impact...game is game, ring is a ring..big difference when judging the actual 'player'...team game discussion is for later debate(greatest teams of alltime)

you think because PIPPEN has 6 rings he was better than BARKLEY? not saying who wouuld you rather have, but as individual/day1 impact player? but people will say PIPP has 6rings, and im like what does that mean?

nba/nfl/mlb has and always will have talent,jus because it only had like 8 or watever so teams back then,they still had talent and as it expanded so did the talent..basic ****

ink
10-03-2012, 08:22 PM
LMAO! Then who has legacy? None. Not even Jordan. No one has his skill sets or his accomplishmets. Ladies and gentlemen NBA has no one with legacy from it's half century history!!

That's pretty absurd. Every SG that followed MJ and imitated him is his legacy. His influence on his position has been complete.

Think of legacy as an inheritance.

What did today's players inherit from players of the past? And who did they inherit it from? Answer those questions and you will know who has a legacy.

IndyRealist
10-03-2012, 11:59 PM
My guess is, more people from the 80's or 90's will be in the HOF than the 00's.

mightybosstone
10-04-2012, 12:11 PM
It's about literacy levels and misusing words. The dictionary is not wrong. The media is just stupid on this one and unfortunately fans buy into the misuse of "legacy". And not everyone on the planet leaves a legacy. A legacy has to be something noteworthy that you leave behind.
Look at your own definition of the word that you just posted:
"anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor." The key word in that definition is "anything." It could be a book, it could be a series of memories or a fortune or a lasting difference that you make on society. A legacy can literally be anything. And almost everyone leaves some kind of legacy at some point in your life. If an NBA player is remembered for something (good or bad), that player has left a legacy.


I would say that John Stockton's air of professionalism and consistency in Utah is more of a legacy than player X's 3-4 rings which won't be accomplished in the same way by anyone else. What influence would his 3-4 rings have on anyone? They're his. Stockton's professionalism and consistency is a legacy that someone could emulate; player X's 3-4 rings can't be "emulated".
Except that as a Rockets fan, I hated Stockton's guts growing up and will remember him as a dirty play who regularly killed Houston with his big shots. I'll also remember he and Malone as huge playoff chokers.

See? Legacies can be left in various forms to various people. Robert Horry wasn't a great player, but the fact that he won seven titles with three different teams and was known as "Big Shot Rob" is certainly a legacy.


Rings and stats in themselves don't do that, yet that's how the media and fans misuse this word. There are some really illiterate things about sport discussion. This is the worst.
Again, I'm going to have to disagree. People will not only remember MJ's six rings, they'll remember how he got them, winning six games in eight years with a 1 1/2 year hiatus. They'll remember the flu game and the game winning shot against Utah. They'll even remember the years he failed to beat Detroit and when he was a young player putting up 63 in a losing effort to the dominant 80s Celtics.

Wilt, for example, leaves a very unusual legacy. We have all of his unbelievable statistical numbers to look at and his 100 point game which will forever stand the test of time. But his lack of titles in a diluted league in the 60s-70s and the fact that he could never beat Russell's Celtics when it mattered will forever be a part of his legacy.


The 11 championships are not nearly as important as the role he played for the franchise on D, and the continuing LEGACY of defence you see with today's Celtics. He established the way that team would always strive to play.
Yeahhh.... This is ********. You can be a great defensive player, but people won't give a damn about you unless you do something remarkable. Think about it. Russell was never a great offensive player and yet he still finds himself among discussions as a top 10 all-time great and among the five greatest centers of all time. Why? Because the dude was clutch when it mattered and led those Celtics teams to 11 titles. If he had won 3-4, would he still be in those discussions? No, IMO.


Do I see anyone today that will have a legacy? The Spurs, Tim Duncan, and Gregg Popovich will have established a legacy, and again it has nothing to do with #s of championships. It has to do with the balance and flawless fundamentals of the team style. Duncan's legacy will be professionalism and execution. That IS something that can be emulated by a franchise. It's something he leaves behind for those that follow him, and that is exactly what legacy means.
No, again you're looking at an extremely narrow perspective of the word. That is the ideal definition of "legacy," but it's not the only one. I'll remember VC's unbelievable high flying dunks and the fact that he was always an awful postseason player. I'll remember that ridiculous seven game series with the Bulls and Celtics from a few years ago where Ben Gordon channeled his inner MJ and Rondo played like a mad man.

If someone remembers you for doing something, that is part of the legacy you leave behind when you're gone. If you're remembered for a particular story, for a particular habit or a particular facial expression, that's part of the legacy you leave behind.

Chronz
10-04-2012, 12:15 PM
My guess is, more people from the 80's or 90's will be in the HOF than the 00's.

That tells me just how deep the league is now. Hall of fame is basically a list of players who were lucky enough to play with each other, with the talent spread out the way it is and Free Agency being what it is, its harder to win to make the cut of HOF. But its an argument of talent distribution, is a 30 team league with 6 powers deeper than a 10 team league with 3?

Chronz
10-04-2012, 12:18 PM
But his lack of titles in a diluted league in the 60s-70s and the fact that he could never beat Russell's Celtics when it mattered will forever be a part of his legacy.



What? That is quite possibly the hardest era to win a title in if your not on the Celtics. Think about it, 1 team MONOPOLIZED the talent in an era where player movement was stifled. Most of the time they were so much better than the opposition, it was a miracle just to push them to the limit.


Yeahhh.... This is ********. You can be a great defensive player, but people won't give a damn about you unless you do something remarkable. Think about it. Russell was never a great offensive player and yet he still finds himself among discussions as a top 10 all-time great and among the five greatest centers of all time. Why? Because the dude was clutch when it mattered and led those Celtics teams to 11 titles. If he had won 3-4, would he still be in those discussions? No, IMO.
Without those titles, I highly doubt the term defense wins championships is ever coined. Thats Russel's legacy right there

mlisica19
10-04-2012, 12:21 PM
I think up to 20 players on the 50 greatest of all time list include players who played in the 80's or 90's. Many of the greatest names we can come up with today in any position played during these times.

Yet Jordan had no issue with his legacy and there is no way that the league today is as strong as it was during those times. Were talking about several legends who never retrieved a ring simply because Jordan matured into the greatest athlete of all time.

Its great what the NBA is turning into, looks like a more diversified league then in recent years. More teams are up to the title charge but I still believe there could be more. Now lets see.. but no way does the amount of superstars now or amount of elite teams now affect someone like James, Kobe, Wades legacy. Their legacy is all about them and what they wish to do with it...

Stinkyoutsider
10-04-2012, 12:49 PM
I've never used rings as a way to judge a player's talent or quality. There's always going to be elite players who don't win a title in their career. It's all about what the front office does to build the team. For example, Lebron James playing for the Cavs. You can be the best player and be playing with guys like Mo Williams and not win a single title...

As far as depth of the league, I actually think over time we may lose talent here. Basketball is so global now and even though the NBA is the most competitive league in the world, there are players playing in Europe (Spain for example) who could be very good players here in the NBA.

ink
10-04-2012, 04:05 PM
Look at your own definition of the word that you just posted:
"anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor." The key word in that definition is "anything." It could be a book, it could be a series of memories or a fortune or a lasting difference that you make on society. A legacy can literally be anything. And almost everyone leaves some kind of legacy at some point in your life. If an NBA player is remembered for something (good or bad), that player has left a legacy.


Except that as a Rockets fan, I hated Stockton's guts growing up and will remember him as a dirty play who regularly killed Houston with his big shots. I'll also remember he and Malone as huge playoff chokers.

See? Legacies can be left in various forms to various people. Robert Horry wasn't a great player, but the fact that he won seven titles with three different teams and was known as "Big Shot Rob" is certainly a legacy.


Again, I'm going to have to disagree. People will not only remember MJ's six rings, they'll remember how he got them, winning six games in eight years with a 1 1/2 year hiatus. They'll remember the flu game and the game winning shot against Utah. They'll even remember the years he failed to beat Detroit and when he was a young player putting up 63 in a losing effort to the dominant 80s Celtics.

Wilt, for example, leaves a very unusual legacy. We have all of his unbelievable statistical numbers to look at and his 100 point game which will forever stand the test of time. But his lack of titles in a diluted league in the 60s-70s and the fact that he could never beat Russell's Celtics when it mattered will forever be a part of his legacy.


Yeahhh.... This is ********. You can be a great defensive player, but people won't give a damn about you unless you do something remarkable. Think about it. Russell was never a great offensive player and yet he still finds himself among discussions as a top 10 all-time great and among the five greatest centers of all time. Why? Because the dude was clutch when it mattered and led those Celtics teams to 11 titles. If he had won 3-4, would he still be in those discussions? No, IMO.


No, again you're looking at an extremely narrow perspective of the word. That is the ideal definition of "legacy," but it's not the only one. I'll remember VC's unbelievable high flying dunks and the fact that he was always an awful postseason player. I'll remember that ridiculous seven game series with the Bulls and Celtics from a few years ago where Ben Gordon channeled his inner MJ and Rondo played like a mad man.

If someone remembers you for doing something, that is part of the legacy you leave behind when you're gone. If you're remembered for a particular story, for a particular habit or a particular facial expression, that's part of the legacy you leave behind.

You're still confusing legacy with "reputation", "remembering", and "accomplishments". They aren't the same thing.

Here are 47 synonyms for the word "legacy". Not one of them is "remembering", "accomplishments", or "reputation":


attested copy
bequeathal
bequest
birthright
borough-English
by-product
codicil
coheirship
consequent
coparcenary
corollary
derivation
devise
distillate
entail
eventuality
eventuation
gavelkind
harvest
heirloom
heirship
hereditament
heritable
heritage
heritance
incorporeal hereditament
inheritance
law of succession
line of succession
logical outcome
mode of succession
offshoot
patrimony
postremogeniture
precipitate
primogeniture
probate
resultant
reversion
sequel
sequela
sequence
sequent
succession
testament
ultimogeniture
will

http://thesaurasize.com/legacy

The clearest example of an actual legacy would be if an NBA player donated a huge sum to a hospital or a university to build a research centre or a library. That is literally what "legacy" means: something bestowed upon those that follow.

I agree with you though that there can be a negative legacy. Just as a player could leave something positive behind, they could also do damage to an organization. We have lots of recent examples of negative legacies. But there is actual damage, not just the reputation. Toronto fans would undoubted argue that VCs legacy is a negative one because some significant damage happened to the organization because of him. Same might be said in CLE or ORL. So, that in mind, some of today's players like Howard, Lebron, Carter, and CP3 might be said to have a negative legacy in the cities whose franchises they damaged.

ink
10-04-2012, 04:59 PM
Without those titles, I highly doubt the term defense wins championships is ever coined. Thats Russel's legacy right there

Yes, the legacy is the defensive approach. That's something that can actually be used by future generations. The titles are just the result of the legacy, much like this example:

Say a player gives $1M to a university to build a cancer research centre. That money and that centre is the athlete's legacy. All the lives that are saved are the result of the legacy.

Chronz
10-04-2012, 05:58 PM
Yes, the legacy is the defensive approach. That's something that can actually be used by future generations. The titles are just the result of the legacy, much like this example:

Say a player gives $1M to a university to build a cancer research centre. That money and that centre is the athlete's legacy. All the lives that are saved are the result of the legacy.

Your both deep