People say Lebron’s longevity doesn’t matter because Jordan won more rings in less time. Is this valid?

Not really. Just like with Finals appearances, previously an accomplishment (in this case longevity) has been turned into a negative and ONLY for Lebron. Previously, a player is praised for having longevity – see Kareem, Duncan, Malone, Stockton etc but for Lebron it’s a negative. Why? Because now people think it’s more impressive to win more rings in less time. Because just like with the Finals records (6–0 vs 4–6) it always comes down to ring count for these casuals.
So just like with Finals records, I’m going to bring up Bill Russell, Sam Jones and Tom Heinsohn in particular because these guys all have MORE rings than Jordan in LESS time. So they are better than Jordan right?
Well no those guys played against inferior competition, can’t use them right? ok, let me offer up Magic Johnson. 12 season, 9 Finals, 5 rings. Compared to Jordan’s 15 seasons, 6 Finals, 6 rings. Ok Jordan has one more ring but Magic went to more Finals in less time. So at the very least we should be putting Magic in the GOAT convo too right?
So however you want to twist things against Lebron, I can always find a counterexample. Finals record? John Havlicek is 8–0 and has the SAME number of All-NBA selections as Jordan (11). Tom Heinsohn went to 9 Finals and won 8 rings in 9 seasons. Every single season he went to the Finals and nearly every season won a ring. No other player matches that ring to seasons ratio.
See, people just want to find ways to hate on Lebron’s accomplishments (in this case turning his longevity against him, now longevity is a BAD thing)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.