Nah yall can't have it both ways. It sounds like *you* disagree, but LWO as a collective are notorious for the, "rings are what matter here", you guys and Celtics fans created that standard....
So if thats the standard, Baylor failing to win a ring matters. Otherwise, your own argument works against you. Whats the bar of demarcation for ring count? One isn't enough for Bron, so is it also not enough for Wilt, is Baylor over Wilt as a Laker? What about 2, is that the bar? 3?
I give Baylor a ton of props for being one if the greatest "walk in the door" players ever, he was awesome from Day One. He actually had a pretty lengthy prime, around 11 years, but in that prime he was 0-4 in Finals, 4-2 in the Division Finals. He was 0-3 as a #1, that ZERO is a big number that also affects his historic placement at large compared to other guys....
A bunch of 1-title guys are considered ahead of him historically: Jokic, Giannis, Dirk, Garnett, Mo, West, O...
Karl Malone is generally considered the greatest player with no rings, but Baylor is right after him. Baylor gets his respect, but you want this to work differently in Laker hierarchy?
Its not simply that though, as great as he was, to your point he was a #2 to West. 1963-64 was the transition year, by 1964-65 it was clear West was the best player on the team. When you're lining up Lakers and their run of accomplishments, I think you also gotta weigh how long these guys were #1...
The counter argument will get made ridiculously that LeBron has never been the Lakers best player or some stupid shyt that minimizes his run as their best player. But I also think in terms of context, while Baylor's NBA was stacked, again its better today...
Baylor gets his flowers, there're a lot of guys with *multiple* titles who are viewed as historically inferior to him: Robinson, Wade, Hondo, Pippen, Zeke, Kawhi, Pettit...
So this isn't a shyt on Baylor thing. But the golden trifecta of Lakers who spent their whole careers there and won a title there are West, Magic, and Kobe...
Neither Shaq nor Kareem were lifelong Lakers, but their impact as Lakers resonated stronger...
He's at best #6 Laker all time as currently stands, if you wanna make the case ge's still over Bron, I disagree, but I hear you. I think Bron as of now, has a case as #6 as well, amd playing in a stronger, more advanced era, winning a title, and winning it as a #1, puts him over Baylor...
But I hear you!
I am, but I'm admittedly fairweather. I didn't care about the Lakers again until Bron got here...
But I spent part of my childhood in South Central, went to Weemes Elementary blocks away from USC. When I first got into sports, the very first team I rooted for in basketball, was the Lakers. My very first "favorite player", was Kobe Bryant. As a kid living in the Brims in South Central...
So I'm not a diehard but neither are 95% of the Laker heads on here, and neither are half the Laker heads in real life. But I always been real with that and I have real emotional history to the franchise, so when I choose to root for em.........it's because I started here with em.
"Legit chip"
every team had the same chance to win that title that year. The funny thing is if they didn't win it that year yall would be knocking him for it too, yall want it both ways...
...
