Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite
Bad take. I'm loving watching the Wiggins resurgence but it has literally been ~30 games. Consecutive MVPs is undoubtedly a more significant achievement than winning a championship on this generation's biggest dynasty.
The fetishizing of rings is one of the worst things the modern sports media has cemented in its coverage of the NBA.
|
Again, those two MVPs Nash won were highly controversial.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...otly%20debated.
Wiggins hasn't simply signed on to winning (potentially) a title by joining a dynasty, he's a key reason that they're even in it. Without him they would not have made it to the finals.
Plus, what on earth does "fetishizing" rings mean? That's the entire point of playing. Charles Barkley, John Stockton and Karl Malone were all great players who will be in the hall of fame, but their greatness comes with an asterisk: no titles. As does Steve Nash's.
Someone on here keeps bringing up a woman's basketball team from a hundred years ago that won a lot of games, which is of course a nice achievement. But the Raptors are Canada's greatest hoops team because they won the NBA title. There's really no argument against that.
Okay, you can do an extreme thought experiment and argue that the best player on a team that loses the finals ten times in a row is better than a key player on a one-time winner. But that's not what we're dealing with here.
Nash had many great seasons, and is highly ranked, without question. But did he ever lead the team to a title? No.
Titles are trump cards. I'm not saying that Wiggins is now better than Barkley, Stockton and Malone, mind you. They do actually pose a problem to my position vis-a-vis said thought experiment. But Nash, good as he was, was always overrated. As much as I despise our current era of woke race-huckstering, he got disproportionate plaudits partly for being a successful white guy, something that's blindingly obvious in retrospect.