Pivot Points: NBA Titles Don’t Define a Career, They Define a Legacy

Although much has been made about attempts by Kobe Bryant to replicate the persona of NBA legend Michael Jordan, few have noticed efforts by LeBron James to do the same thing, just from a different perspective.

There can be no debating the similar qualities in the games of Jordan and Bryant. From the mannerisms to the rhythmic movements, it's evident that Bryant emulated certain aspects of Jordan's game for his own benefit.

Just as glaring have been James' efforts to brand himself in much the same way Jordan created his own brand, but LeBron has to realize in order for that to happen he may need to win a few rings along the way.

It's true that less emphasis is placed on winning rings in this society, which is so centered on instant gratification and SportsCenter highlights, but the acclaim associated with championships is seen as a legacy stamp for an already great career.

This is a very familiar debate, which has taken many twists and turns through the years. Just how much does a championship mean to a player who has by all means had a great NBA career?

Some offer the reasoning that a championship is more of a team effort and should reflect little on the individual career of a player, but that argument fails to hold weight when given a little perspective.

Robert Horry was a decent journeyman NBA player who may have had the most luck-filled career of any recent player in NBA history as he parlayed his time in the league to an astounding seven championships.

His presence was crucial in some of those title runs (who could forget the shot against Sacramento when Horry was with the Lakers?) but ultimately it was other players who were more responsible for his teams' success.

The critical thing is that Horry, despite his seven rings, was never considered a great player by any measure, and most of his championships were more due to circumstance than his doing.


About the Author