The "Ring" Argument

[Figlo]

Is completely stupid.

I see people always comparing players (top players such as Kobe with Lebron, wade, tmac, carter, allen iverson, pierce, etc, etc) based on the amount of rings they've won.

Is it really a reasonable means to carry out a comparison to see who the better player is?

In my opinion: No.
We know Basketball is a TEAM oriented game and thus, TEAMS win championships, not players alone.
yes, some players on a team have a much more impact on a teams success, however, who is to say that if you replace Kobe with Tmac In that early era or even VC, that they wouldn't win.

The Ring argument is the weakest way to point out that player X is better than player Y.

EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.

In my opinion, how the player plays should determine who the better player is:
ex: compare dunking, compare 3 point shooting, compare CLUtch-ness ---> these are better arguments than the typical RING argument.

so im wondering, is it just the casuals who believe in that or do people actually think this way to compare players is a good idea (give reasons).

[Tenchi Ryu]

Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that. Cleveland Lebron was a testament to that. T-Mac on the Rockets had a opportunity IMHO.

[guy]

This counter-argument is so tired and misleading. Rings do mean alot because the players that lead them there have alot to do with them getting there and the whole make up of that team in general and how good they are. Certain players are easier to build around because of how dominant and versatile they are and/or because of how their skillset is easier to surround complementary pieces with. I wrote the following in a post a long time ago about this same subject:

My point is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it.

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade.
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

Bottom line is championships validate how strong of a cornerstone for winning certain players are. And winning is the whole point.

[Psileas]

This counter-argument is so tired and misleading. Rings do mean alot because the players that lead them there have alot to do with them getting there and the whole make up of that team in general and how good they are. Certain players are easier to build around because of how dominant and versatile they are and/or because of how their skillset is easier to surround complementary pieces with. I wrote the following in a post a long time ago about this same subject:

My point is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it.

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade.
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

Bottom line is championships validate how strong of a cornerstone for winning certain players are. And winning is the whole point.

Yes, but..................well, this time nobody mentioned Horry. Isn't this some kind of progress?

[D-Wade316]

http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/82056/horry7.jpg

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Nash]

Thats what I've been saying all this time. Kobe winning a ring with Shaq or Gasol, Bynum and Odom is equally as impressive as what Lebron did with those Cleveland scrubs.

[Rake2204]

I have seen this discussion a number of times here. As always, I do not believe championship rings are directly correlated to how great a player is. For instance, if LeBron James hypothetically won two championships, it wouldn't be as simple as labeling him three championships less as good than Kobe Bryant.

More than anything else, the team aspects of basketball eliminate the simple matter with which people wish they could rank their favorite players. For instance, as Tenchi Ryu correctly asserted, certain stars play huge roles in their teams winning championships. But not every star plays as big of a role in that ring. There's an impossible number of other factors that contribute to a team winning an NBA championship. Therefore, I also do not subscribe to the idea that ranking role players according to rings doesn't make sense but ranking star players according to rings does.

Every single superstar needs help to win a championship ring. My main example of this is Kobe's inability to come close to winning a ring with Smush Parker and Chris Mihm starting alongside. However, once Andrew Bynum developed a little and once the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in exchange for peanuts, the championship aspirations returned. That's how it works. Would I view Kobe Bryant differently as a player if he had to play with Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Kwame Brown his whole career and therefore never won a ring?

There's a continuum of reasonings as to why particular players don't win championships. It's honestly nearly an infinite list of legitimate reasons a star might not have been able to win a ring, and they don't always correlate to his individual abilities not being good enough. It's certainly not coincidence when teams featuring great players win, it's just not a situation where the #1 player of all time will have the most rings, the #2 player the 2nd most, etc . . .

Thankfully, Karl Malone is considered one of the greatest power forwards of all-time (and John Stockton one of the best point guards) regardless of their championship numbers. I use them as an example because they seemed to be victims of running up against not just two other great players, but a great all-around team in MJ, Scottie and the 90's Bulls. Would it have helped if Karl Malone didn't miss a couple of clutch free throws in Chicago? Yes. You know what else would have helped? If Greg Ostertag, old Antoine Carr, and post-mediocre prime Chris Morris weren't primary performing teammates.

Great players play huge roles, but they're not equal roles and the reasonings teams win championship are too plentiful and differentiated to count. That's why I don't feel championship comparisons make sense.


Thats what I've been saying all this time. Kobe winning a ring with Shaq or Gasol, Bynum and Odom is equally as impressive as what Lebron did with those Cleveland scrubs.
I don't even like to bring LeBron in when making the Kobe statement. To me, Bryant helping his '06 squad win 45 games with Smush Parker as the team's third leading scorer and nearly upsetting the Suns in the first round was just as impressive to me as his being a part of a super talented championship team featuring Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, and Andrew Bynum. Again, if the Gasol deal was never struck, would Kobe be viewed as "less great" if he then never developed a solid enough supporting cast to win any Shaq-less rings? Yes, Kobe would probably be viewed as such. But would it be accurate? No. Would he be any less of a great player? No.

[swi7ch]

There's no I in TEAM, but there is in WIN.

[M.V.W.]

Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominant force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring.

This. It's one means of distinguishing elite/superstar players stand out from each other, especially when they are peers and at the same position. Still, a few in here have great arguments against it.

[koBEDABEST]

guy ur just cherry picking qualities, while ignoring the fact that the players you put down are better in some of these categories than the ones you praised, and the ones you praised are worse in some of these categories than the ones you put down. no player is perfect so youre argument is flawed, and very one-sided.

no doubt some players r better "winners" than others, but the number of rings is not a valid way to compare players.

[guy]

I have seen this discussion a number of times here. As always, I do not believe championship rings are directly correlated to how great a player is. For instance, if LeBron James hypothetically won two championships, it wouldn't be as simple as labeling him three championships less as good than Kobe Bryant.

More than anything else, the team aspects of basketball eliminate the simple matter with which people wish they could rank their favorite players. For instance, as Tenchi Ryu correctly asserted, certain stars play huge roles in their teams winning championships. But not every star plays as big of a role in that ring. There's an impossible number of other factors that contribute to a team winning an NBA championship. Therefore, I also do not subscribe to the idea that ranking role players according to rings doesn't make sense but ranking star players according to rings does.

Every single superstar needs help to win a championship ring. My main example of this is Kobe's inability to come close to winning a ring with Smush Parker and Chris Mihm starting alongside. However, once Andrew Bynum developed a little and once the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in exchange for peanuts, the championship aspirations returned. That's how it works. Would I view Kobe Bryant differently as a player if he had to play with Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Kwame Brown his whole career and therefore never won a ring?

There's a continuum of reasonings as to why particular players don't win championships. It's honestly nearly an infinite list of legitimate reasons a star might not have been able to win a ring, and they don't always correlate to his individual abilities not being good enough. It's certainly not coincidence when teams featuring great players win, it's just not a situation where the #1 player of all time will have the most rings, the #2 player the 2nd most, etc . . .

Thankfully, Karl Malone is considered one of the greatest power forwards of all-time (and John Stockton one of the best point guards) regardless of their championship numbers. I use them as an example because they seemed to be victims of running up against not just two other great players, but a great all-around team in MJ, Scottie and the 90's Bulls. Would it have helped if Karl Malone didn't miss a couple of clutch free throws in Chicago? Yes. You know what else would have helped? If Greg Ostertag, old Antoine Carr, and post-mediocre prime Chris Morris weren't primary performing teammates.

Great players play huge roles, but they're not equal roles and the reasonings teams win championship are too plentiful and differentiated to count. That's why I don't feel championship comparisons make sense.


I don't even like to bring LeBron in when making the Kobe statement. To me, Bryant helping his '06 squad win 45 games with Smush Parker as the team's third leading scorer and nearly upsetting the Suns in the first round was just as impressive to me as his being a part of a super talented championship team featuring Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, and Andrew Bynum. Again, if the Gasol deal was never struck, would Kobe be viewed as "less great" if he then never developed a solid enough supporting cast to win any Shaq-less rings? Yes, Kobe would probably be viewed as such. But would it be accurate? No. Would he be any less of a great player? No.

Almost all great players get several good enough chances to win championships. If a player is that great, the only reason he wouldn't get enough chances is because his career gets cut short by injuries or his management are incredibly dumb. I'm a huge AI and T-Mac fan. But I can easily see that its incredibly wrong to suggest that the only reason they didn't win a title is cause of the teams around them. Sure they haven't had the greatest luck, but AI's biggest problem was his style of play and work ethic/leadership, while T-Mac's was work ethic, injuries, and mentality. Your Kobe example is misleading cause he's had great teams around him for the vast majority of his career. Like I said, if a player is that great its incredibly hard to not be able to at some point or another surround that player with the right pieces for a significant amount of years.

The Malone example is bad. He played for 19 years, not 2. He's always had good enough talent around him (at least for the simple fact that he had Stockton). But he was always a horrible closer and shrunk in big moments. The 97 and 98 series against the Bulls were definitely winnable for the Jazz, especially the 98 series when Pippen's back just killed him after game 4. He's still pretty high up on an all-time list anyway, but the players that are ahead of him deserve to be.

[TheFrozenOne]

Is completely stupid.

I see people always comparing players (top players such as Kobe with Lebron, wade, tmac, carter, allen iverson, pierce, etc, etc) based on the amount of rings they've won.

Is it really a reasonable means to carry out a comparison to see who the better player is?

In my opinion: No.
We know Basketball is a TEAM oriented game and thus, TEAMS win championships, not players alone.
yes, some players on a team have a much more impact on a teams success, however, who is to say that if you replace Kobe with Tmac In that early era or even VC, that they wouldn't win.

The Ring argument is the weakest way to point out that player X is better than player Y.

EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.

In my opinion, how the player plays should determine who the better player is:
ex: compare dunking, compare 3 point shooting, compare CLUtch-ness ---> these are better arguments than the typical RING argument.

so im wondering, is it just the casuals who believe in that or do people actually think this way to compare players is a good idea (give reasons).



Combination of Watching/following players career, casual fans vote,hardcore fans vote, basketball players peer vote, media vote.

example: If you watched Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

casual fans, hard core fans , media etc. understand this.


example:2 If you followed Lebron's whole career you would understand he Quit on a 65 win team, something happened last year that is still unexplainable,he is maybe the greatest physical player ever but mentally has made some really weird decisions, and since winning is the ultimate goal he has never shown that he can win it all...everyone understands this and this is his weakness and that is why everyone harps him to fix it.

example:3 nearly everyone has followed Kobe's whole career, his peers call him the best , media call's him a top 5 - 7 alltime player, he has won 5 Championships as the premiere player in the NBA.

people say Rings> because it basically sums up everything (criteria I stated) all in one. (assuming you watch basketball and understand Horry/Kerr was not nearly the allaround player as NBA Superstars were)

[La Frescobaldi]

Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably every season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.

[ralph_i_el]

This counter-argument is so tired and misleading. Rings do mean alot because the players that lead them there have alot to do with them getting there and the whole make up of that team in general and how good they are. Certain players are easier to build around because of how dominant and versatile they are and/or because of how their skillset is easier to surround complementary pieces with. I wrote the following in a post a long time ago about this same subject:

My point is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it.

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade.
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

Bottom line is championships validate how strong of a cornerstone for winning certain players are. And winning is the whole point.

5 confused me. you can't build a team around david robinson?

[guy]

guy ur just cherry picking qualities, while ignoring the fact that the players you put down are better in some of these categories than the ones you praised, and the ones you praised are worse in some of these categories than the ones you put down. no player is perfect so youre argument is flawed, and very one-sided.

no doubt some players r better "winners" than others, but the number of rings is not a valid way to compare players.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm pointing out examples as to why they're easier to build around. Sure, Barkley's probably a better rebounder and scorer then Duncan. But he's nowhere near the defender and at the PF and C position, its usually important to have at least 1 defensive anchor down there. Barkley is already taking up one of those slots, so then his teams are limited to only 1 slot where they can fill that role i.e. making it harder to build around him. On the other hand, while Duncan isn't as good of a rebounder or scorer, he's still elite in that area while filling up the defensive anchor role. This means he really didn't need much of a center alongside him, which was the case for his last 3 titles.

[TheFrozenOne]

Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably every season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.


yes but as the superstar of the team you are responsible for the pulse of the team, more so then the coaches and "system"

the team is a direct reflection of you as the superstar more so then any of the "3 legs"....find a way to win even through injuries , non smoothnes of a sytem , and talent.

to the winner goes the spoils.....






duh.

[HurricaneKid]

Combination of Watching/following players career, casual fans vote,hardcore fans vote, basketball players peer vote, media vote.

example: If you watched Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

casual fans, hard core fans , media etc. understand this.


example:2 If you followed Lebron's whole career you would understand he Quit on a 65 win team, something happened last year that is still unexplainable,he is maybe the greatest physical player ever but mentally has made some really weird decisions, and since winning is the ultimate goal he has never shown that he can win it all...everyone understands this and this is his weakness and that is why everyone harps him to fix it.

example:3 nearly everyone has followed Kobe's whole career, his peers call him the best , media call's him a top 5 - 7 alltime player, he has won 5 Championships as the premiere player in the NBA.people say Rings> because it basically sums up everything (criteria I stated) all in one. (assuming you watch basketball and understand Horry/Kerr was not nearly the allaround player as NBA Superstars were)

You are missing the point. Horry might not be in Kobe's echelon. But it certainly helps Kobe to have guys like him around. Kobe's peak physical season was probably the one where he couldn't get his sorry team into the playoffs.

Kobe was no where NEAR the premiere player in the league during the first three titles. I'd probably argue that he wasn't near the premiere player during the last two either but thats immaterial.

[TheFrozenOne]

You are missing the point. Horry might not be in Kobe's echelon. But it certainly helps Kobe to have guys like him around. Kobe's peak physical season was probably the one where he couldn't get his sorry team into the playoffs.

Kobe was no where NEAR the premiere player in the league during the first three titles. I'd probably argue that he wasn't near the premiere player during the last two either but thats immaterial.


#1. Many great player play on great teams for many years and never win anything or never win at the level of expectations and some do win ...

but this arguement that "some players just have better coaching systems and teamates".....is just a silly attempt

Grant Hill played on many good/great teams and never won.
Penny hardaway played on many great teams and never won.
Everyone thought TMAC was going to win in HOuston with Ming.
Vince Carter and Kidd
AI and Anthony in Denver
Kevin Durant has been on a great team his whole career so far
Duncan came to SA and had great team since his Rookie year
Lebron had a great team since 2003' and has had allstar teamates his whole career
Dirk had great teams his whole career

this silly arguement that winning is all luck is dumb....it's the NBA...they are all great players and desparaty in talant is marginal at best.



#2. Kobe was already one of if not the best allaround player in 2001....and alot more popular then any other palyer except MJ.





deal wit it.

[RRR3]

Some people get mad when people use the "Robert Horry 7 rings>>>" argument, and to be sure, that is a statement that is made w/o considering context (Horry was never the first option or even the second option on any of his championship teams, hell he was a bench player for most them). Still, it's understandable why people use it when people use "rings" as their only argument when comparing two players. If you're gonna say "player a>player b" and then use "rings" as your reasoning and give no other reasons, then you're not making much of an argument in the first place and should expect the Horry rebuttal IMO. And seriously, I don't need rings to tell me Kobe Bryant has had a better career than Allen Iverson or Tracy McGrady. Kobe in his prime is fairly equal to AI in terms of scoring volume-wise, but Kobe was a good deal more efficient and a superior defender as well. T-Mac was quite close to Kobe at one point in time, and was arguably equal or better than him for a brief period, but injuries quickly led to a decline whereas Kobe has continued to play at an elite level. Back to the rings, though: Robert Horry wasn't a star player, true, but why then, can't we say "John Havlicek>Kobe" because Havlicek had 8 rings? Was Havlicek a star player? Yes. Was Havlicek a first option type scorer? The stats would indicate it to be so. He scored 22 PPG for his playoff career, including championship runs where he averaged 23.6 PPG, 25.9 PPG, 25.4 PPG, and 27.1 PPG. People need to be more consistent with these kinds of arguments IMO. I don't think Havlicek is better than Kobe, rings or not, but I don't think Kobe is better than Larry Bird despite having more rings.

[All Net]

It's not that players get rings it's how they are won.

[guy]

5 confused me. you can't build a team around david robinson?

Robinson's biggest criticism was he was too nice and wasn't competitive enough, and it showed in the playoffs when he underperformed. How many players like that have led teams to championships? He only won once Duncan, a better player that didn't have the same issues, came to the Spurs.

[Alamo]

Individual talent means nothing if you can't help your team win. Winning a championship is the greatest achievement in sports. Look at the top 10 NBA players of all time, what do they all have in common? Rings.

Lebron is the best player in the league? That's good, but what does he have to show for it?

[pauk]

wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

well said and i agree... had many of these threads before exposing the ring argument...

I agree on evaluating a players career/talent/skill based on the impact he was able to give to his team... resulting in team success........ you have to also look at what he had to work with around him and the competition he was up against, thats very important! But i dont agree on evaluating a players career and so on based on simply RINGS......... this is not tennis!

a player can be a WINNER without ever winning a ring... how? By getting the best team record, getting to the ECF/Finals with a scrub team who immediately have the worst record in the NBA when you leave them....... thats one example of being a WINNER making your teammates so much better........

When looking upon a players Championship rings... you want to look at what he did for that team..
was he the best player in that team?
was he the best player in the nba?
was he a sidekick? benchplayer? roleplayer? 6th man?
what did he had to work with around him, where they scrubs, where they stacked?

my point is... its about the CONTEXT/VALUE of that Championship Ring and not about the Number of RINGS....

[kentatm]

http://i42.tinypic.com/if5y06.jpg

[La Frescobaldi]

yes but as the superstar of the team you are responsible for the pulse of the team, more so then the coaches and "system"

the team is a direct reflection of you as the superstar more so then any of the "3 legs"....find a way to win even through injuries , non smoothnes of a sytem , and talent.

to the winner goes the spoils.....





duh.

**************

Totally wrong, sorry.

No team is a reflection of its superstar except in the NBA, which has largely abandoned great basketball teamwork in favor of individual glory.

Fans increase that anomaly because they seem to think the superstar is supposed to drag a bunch of scrubs along behind him, making him seem more heroic.

Couldn't disagree with a post more than yours, sorry.

[guy]

wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

well said and i agree... had many of these threads before exposing the ring argument...

I agree on evaluating a players career/talent/skill based on the impact he was able to give to his team... resulting in team success........ you have to also look at what he had to work with around him and the competition he was up against, thats very important! But i dont agree on evaluating a players career and so on based on simply RINGS......... this is not tennis!

a player can be a WINNER without ever winning a ring... how? By getting the best team record, getting to the ECF/Finals with a scrub team who immediately have the worst record in the NBA when you leave them....... thats one example of being a WINNER making your teammates so much better........

When looking upon a players Championship rings... you want to look at what he did for that team..
was he the best player in that team?
was he the best player in the nba?
was he a sidekick? benchplayer? roleplayer? 6th man?
what did he had to work with around him, where they scrubs, where they stacked?

my point is... its about the CONTEXT/VALUE of that Championship Ring and not about the Number of RINGS....

Lebron will most likely be a top 15-20 player of all-time even if he chokes a bunch of times like he has the past 2 years and never wins a title. Thats a testament to how great he is and everything else that he's accomplished. But that would be what separates him from the likes of Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.

[Legends66NBA7]

EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.

No, that's not making a logical point at all.

You know what the roles of Fisher and Iverson were. Fisher was role player and Iverson was a superstar.

When people (the casual fans usually or the majority) says "Kobe 5 rings, LeBron 0 rings", they mean that Kobe was a star player winning those rings.

Kobe wasn't superstar level to me in 2000 (he was a rising star), but he did earn the ring in spurts of brilliance. Two quick examples would be Game 7 2000, vs. Portland, where he outplayed the leader and best player of that team in Shaq. Or in Game 4 2000 Finals vs. Pacers, he came up super clutch to win that game when Shaq fouled out, including the game winning put back.

Kobe in 2001 and 2002 was a superstar player (he wasn't the best player or the leader, but he was damn good player). He put up 29/7/6 on 47% in 2001 and only had one bad game in the finals, where the rest were pretty okay/good. He put up 27/6/5 on 43% in 2002 and had a much better finals appearance this time around.

However, people will point out that Kobe didn't win Finals MVP's as they were dominated by Shaq. Shaq was the leader and the clear best player for that 3 year run, not going to deny that. But you can't deny what impact Kobe brought in as the second option either.

The same way how Scottie Pippen's runs in the playoffs/finals were much more valuable to the Chicago Bulls than Steve Kerr

[DKLaker]

Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that. Cleveland Lebron was a testament to that. T-Mac on the Rockets had a opportunity IMHO.

That was very well explained :applause: :cheers: :applause:

People arguing against this need to realize their player didn't have the fight or the guts to get their team over the top....as great a player as they may be.
Look at Lebron......nice 4th quarters in the finals......THAT is why he doesn't have a ring, dude froze up completely and was looking for help from the equally frozen Wade. Kobe would've finished those games.
Bottom line it's all about winning and only partial credit can go to a Fisher or Horry for their huge shots.

[Deuce Bigalow]

:facepalm

[ILLsmak]

Things I'd say:

Horry should be a HOFer. Probably the best role player ever; STATS are not as important. If anything, that's the issue.

And with rings, it's like, how hard did a player have to play, did they play above their head? Like what happened with Dirk, that was amazing. Hakeem, that was amazing. Those rings were won by a team, but they had those guys leading. Or, even Lakers in 2000 with Shaq.

Then you take Allen Iverson getting to the Finals. John Stockton/Malone. GP/Kemp getting to the finals. Those are very close to rings. But if you get to the Finals and get swept (unless it was on some total bullshit like what happened to Shaq in 95) then maybe it isn't as good.

There are great players that never got a chance to win, and it shouldn't be held against them, but players who DID have a chance to win and failed... even if they had a tiny chance to win, that should be held against them.

Most intelligent people can tell who was balling and who wasn't. The rings, stats, awards... etc. That's bullshit. Kobe "umad" 5 rings, heh.

It's sad that in history the end result is always what will be remembered not how people got there.

-Smak

[TheFrozenOne]

**************

Totally wrong, sorry.

No team is a reflection of its superstar except in the NBA, which has largely abandoned great basketball teamwork in favor of individual glory.

Fans increase that anomaly because they seem to think the superstar is supposed to drag a bunch of scrubs along behind him, making him seem more heroic.

Couldn't disagree with a post more than yours, sorry.


sorry but you are 100% wrong.

Basketball more so then any other team sport where the individual player can affect his team .

there are only 4 other players compared to other team sports who have many. the playing field/court is very small in comparison to any other team sport.

you have to learn how to bring everything you have as a player/person and incorporate into a team....basketball has this magnified because of the reasons I showed.

this is exactly why especially in Basketball , stars are judged on how they can effect thier team in the "winning aspect"....


imagine Micahel Jordan never won 1 championship, and failed every year in the palyoff's to win.....do you think his legacy would be anywhere near what it is?


nuff said.

[La Frescobaldi]

sorry but you are 100% wrong.

Basketball more so then any other team sport where the individual player can affect his team .

there are only 4 other players compared to other team sports who have many. the playing field/court is very small in comparison to any other team sport.

you have to learn how to bring everything you have as a player/person and incorporate into a team....basketball has this magnified because of the reasons I showed.

this is exactly why especially in Basketball , stars are judged on how they can effect thier team in the "winning aspect"....


imagine Micahel Jordan never won 1 championship, and failed every year in the palyoff's to win.....do you think his legacy would be anywhere near what it is?


nuff said.

**************************
Absolutely. We agree on all that.

The point is, saying Jordan for example is greater than Kobe Bryant simply because he has 6 rings instead of 5 is an absurdity.

Now MJ may be greater than KB, but it's not because of an extra ring.

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

Did the Bulls have talent?
Did the Bulls lose starters to DNP in Finals?
Did the Bulls have a great system/coaching?

For example - and I do not mean to take away from the 91 Bulls at all - the Lakers' Worthy & Scott going down to injury & DNP was sure a big factor in that Finals.

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

A great dynasty run is every bit as much a testament to the team's GM, coaches, and physical trainers as it is to the superstar.

If that Bulls dynasty did not have all 3 factors working in their favor, Michael Jordan would not be looked at the same way today.

[Round Mound]

I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

There Has Been Many Great Players ...Better than Others Who Won Rings or Won More Rings.

Broken Down Stats is More Clear to a Player`s Efficiency and If You Watch them Play then You Got Reality of How Good a Player Was.

[guy]

**************************
Absolutely. We agree on all that.

The point is, saying Jordan for example is greater than Kobe Bryant simply because he has 6 rings instead of 5 is an absurdity.

Now MJ may be greater than KB, but it's not because of an extra ring.

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

Did the Bulls have talent?
Did the Bulls lose starters to DNP in Finals?
Did the Bulls have a great system/coaching?

For example - and I do not mean to take away from the 91 Bulls at all - the Lakers' Worthy & Scott going down to injury & DNP was sure a big factor in that Finals.

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

A great dynasty run is every bit as much a testament to the team's GM, coaches, and physical trainers as it is to the superstar.

If that Bulls dynasty did not have all 3 factors working in their favor, Michael Jordan would not be looked at the same way today.

Bulls were up 2-1 and the Lakers were already losing by alot in game 4 when Scott and Worthy went down. It would've been 3-1 regardless. And then even if Scott and Worthy were healthy for game 5, they would've had to win 3 games in a row, 2 of which would've been in Chicago. So their injuries really weren't a big factor.

[Duncan21formvp]

You gotta remember that it depends on the organization you go to. Lakers have already been in half the NBA Finals so obviously going to them top players will win titles guaranteed. But if those same players that went to the Lakers actually went to franchises like the Nuggets or Pacers teams that never won anything they may still put those teams on the map, but they wouldn't win nearly as much with them. IMO Shaq winning 1 ring with the Magic would have held more weight than 3 rings with the Lakers. Which is why I value Hakeem's 2 rings more so than Shaq's since Hakeem went to an organization that never won anything prior to him arriving.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

There Has Been Many Great Players ...Better than Others Who Won Rings or Won More Rings.

Broken Down Stats is More Clear to a Player`s Efficiency and If You Watch them Play then You Got Reality of How Good a Player Was.
Yeah thats because you're a Barkley-stan

[Round Mound]

Yeah thats because you're a Barkley-stan

:no: Basketball Fan that is not biased by the media and the ring crap.

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...

[keepinitreal]

This counter-argument is so tired and misleading. Rings do mean alot because the players that lead them there have alot to do with them getting there and the whole make up of that team in general and how good they are. Certain players are easier to build around because of how dominant and versatile they are and/or because of how their skillset is easier to surround complementary pieces with. I wrote the following in a post a long time ago about this same subject:

My point is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it.

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade.
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

Bottom line is championships validate how strong of a cornerstone for winning certain players are. And winning is the whole point.

You make a good point, but I still think you are underrating the importance of the organization you are a part of, your teammates, and luck. These three things are weighed so heavily in whether or not a player's team wins or loses.

Kevin Garnett played for Minnesota for 12 years, wins MVP, but he wins 0 rings... 1st season in Boston and he wins a ring...

If John Starks pump fakes, drains a three, and the Knicks win a championship... Ewing is looked at as a better player?

If the SAS don't win the draft lottery to get Tim Duncan... David Robinson isn't a strong cornerstone for winning?

:confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

:no: Basketball Fan that is not biased by the media and the ring crap.

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...
yes even jlauber admits it

[MooseJuiceBowen]

4 rings f@ggot

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Some people just have no idea how hard it is to win and win consistently. Guys like Jordan, Kobe, Shaq and Duncan have made it look easy; always competing for or winning titles almost every year. The amount of effort and ability it takes to lead a team to a title is starting to become really underrated on ISH.

In the internet age with stats readily available, along with kids who haven't had the chance to watch a lot of the greats play as well as understand what they were watching, winning titles is underrated.

[longtime lurker]

I thought the whole point of playing the game is for rings. Since "winning" is all a product of luck then why bother playing, just have a lottery to see who the NBA champion is.

[DirtySanchez]

CHarles Barkely....Karl Malone...are they better then Tim Duncan? Did they have better careers?

I would pick Timmy any day of the week over them...you know why?

The rings.....

END THREAD

[SlayerEnraged]

Rings matter. Nope, Fisher isn't better than Lebron but when you compare 2 players who are about equal as far as ability goes, the one with more rings should and always does get the nod.

[DirtySanchez]

Rings matter. Nope, Fisher isn't better than Lebron but when you compare 2 players who are about equal as far as ability goes, the one with more rings should and always does get the nod.

YUP....

/Thread

[KDthunderup]

Rings matter. Nope, Fisher isn't better than Lebron but when you compare 2 players who are about equal as far as ability goes, the one with more rings should and always does get the nod.
What happens when a player has only been in the league for a year and is already at the same ability as an older player with rings? Please stfu, using rings in a argument is stupid, so many factors and luck combine to win a championship, teammates, coaches, injuries, chemistry etc.

Kobe isnt better then Lebron because he has 5 rings ffs He has had the fortitude of having some great teammates and the greatest coach of all time and playing for a team that can go highly over the cap each year having the best talent.

[The Iron Fist]

Funny how no one dared to say this when people argue Jordan as the GOAT.

Its only come to light recently as Kobe has racked them up and proven to be a better player than his peers.

Suddenly, rings are a team achievement and hold no weight in determining an individuals worth. :roll: :roll:

[KDthunderup]

If Jordan only won 1 ring he would be still the GOAT.

His abilities cant be questioned over a stupid ring.

[Lebron23]

What happens when a player has only been in the league for a year and is already at the same ability as an older player with rings? Please stfu, using rings in a argument is stupid, so many factors and luck combine to win a championship, teammates, coaches, injuries, chemistry etc.

Kobe isnt better then Lebron because he has 5 rings ffs He has had the fortitude of having some great teammates and the greatest coach of all time and playing for a team that can go highly over the cap each year having the best talent.

Repped

This

It's very unfair to compare Kobe's career to LBJ and Durant because Kobe started his career in 1996. LeBron and Durant might win more Regular Season and Finals MVP than Kobe before they officially retires in the NBA.

[The_Yearning]

wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

well said and i agree... had many of these threads before exposing the ring argument...

I agree on evaluating a players career/talent/skill based on the impact he was able to give to his team... resulting in team success........ you have to also look at what he had to work with around him and the competition he was up against, thats very important! But i dont agree on evaluating a players career and so on based on simply RINGS......... this is not tennis!

a player can be a WINNER without ever winning a ring... how? By getting the best team record, getting to the ECF/Finals with a scrub team who immediately have the worst record in the NBA when you leave them....... thats one example of being a WINNER making your teammates so much better........

When looking upon a players Championship rings... you want to look at what he did for that team..
was he the best player in that team?
was he the best player in the nba?
was he a sidekick? benchplayer? roleplayer? 6th man?
what did he had to work with around him, where they scrubs, where they stacked?

my point is... its about the CONTEXT/VALUE of that Championship Ring and not about the Number of RINGS....

You're a clown. You would be singing a different tune right now if LeBron won the chip in 2007... or even 1 game for that matter.

[Simple Jack]

Funny how no one dared to say this when people argue Jordan as the GOAT.

Its only come to light recently as Kobe has racked them up and proven to be a better player than his peers.

Suddenly, rings are a team achievement and hold no weight in determining an individuals worth. :roll: :roll:

No one said it about Jordan because he dominated like few have ever had, maybe even more so, during both the regular season and playoffs in addition to obtaining nearly every individual accolade one can achieve.

[Lebron23]

Funny how no one dared to say this when people argue Jordan as the GOAT.

Its only come to light recently as Kobe has racked them up and proven to be a better player than his peers.

Suddenly, rings are a team achievement and hold no weight in determining an individuals worth. :roll: :roll:


6x NBA MVP, 6x Finals MVP, and 11x Scoring Champion >>>> 1x NBA MVP, 2x FInals MVP, and 2x Scoring Champion.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

What happens when a player has only been in the league for a year and is already at the same ability as an older player with rings? Please stfu, using rings in a argument is stupid, so many factors and luck combine to win a championship, teammates, coaches, injuries, chemistry etc.

Kobe isnt better then Lebron because he has 5 rings ffs He has had the fortitude of having some great teammates and the greatest coach of all time and playing for a team that can go highly over the cap each year having the best talent.

As far as all time rankings, yes Kobe is ahead of LeBron (partially) due to his rings. You think Kobe would be a Top 10 player all time if he had no championships or finals mvps?

Also, haven't you ever thought that Kobe has played a part in those Lakers teams and Phil being so highly revered? If Kobe were just another scrub, Phil most likely doesn't have 11 rings and Shaq doesn't have 4. Doesn't that count for something?

[kennethgriffin]

Loser talk


This is lebron fans in a nutshell

They think a role player ring is the same as a superstar ring lool


Just excuses for their choking hero

Fact is horrys rings do count WHEN COMPARING HIM TO ANOTHER ROLE PLAYER

Just as phil jacksons rings count WHEN COMPARING HIM TO ANOTHER COACH


Not all rings are created equally


When comparing kobe to lebron.. HELL YEA RINGS COUNT

Its why jordan is #1 all time and guys like malone and baylor are 15th at best

[Lebron23]

Jordan is also a superior regular season, playoffs, and finals performer than Kob1tch Bryant.

[SlayerEnraged]

What happens when a player has only been in the league for a year and is already at the same ability as an older player with rings? Please stfu, using rings in a argument is stupid, so many factors and luck combine to win a championship, teammates, coaches, injuries, chemistry etc.

Kobe isnt better then Lebron because he has 5 rings ffs He has had the fortitude of having some great teammates and the greatest coach of all time and playing for a team that can go highly over the cap each year having the best talent.


No excuses. Bosh is > than Gasol (which incase you're a moron, Kobe won 2 with him) and Lebron had Wade last year and failed. Lebrons team actually had the best regular season record several years but he wasn't able to maintain that. You can be flamboyant about it all you want but the obstacle in basketball is to win. Therefore if you don't get it done (regardless of what reason), you haven't accomplished that obstacle. Duncan is gonna get the nod over Malone every time. Also in Lebrons 2 chances, they likely could have won if he would had played even decent.

[KDthunderup]

No excuses. Bosh is > than Gasol (which incase you're a moron, Kobe won 2 with him) and Lebron had Wade last year and failed. Lebrons team actually had the best regular season record several years but he wasn't able to maintain that. You can be flamboyant about it all you want but the obstacle in basketball is to win. Therefore if you don't get it done (regardless of what reason), you haven't accomplished that obstacle. Duncan is gonna get the nod over Malone every time. Also in Lebrons 2 chances, they likely could have won if he would had played even decent.You say Bosh is better then Gasol but you claim that players around the same ability should be judged on rings :roll: :roll: Please, go suck Kobe's nuts some more

[RRR3]

John Havlicek 8 rings. HOF'er, career 22 PPG in playoffs. Better than Kobe, right?

[KDthunderup]

John Havlicek 8 rings. HOF'er, career 22 PPG in playoffs. Better than Kobe, right?
Must be according to Kobe fans

[Lebron23]

John Havlicek 8 rings. HOF'er, career 22 PPG in playoffs. Better than Kobe, right?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=178915

Nice posts by Kblaze300000 in this thread.

[SlayerEnraged]

You say Bosh is better then Gasol but you claim that players around the same ability should be judged on rings :roll: :roll: Please, go suck Kobe's nuts some more


Your whole anaysis/logicin your head is beyond my impair. Anyone that thinks Karl Malone is > Duncan or Lebron is > Kobe is a complete moron. Sure those guys played and were keyword trying to win, but they failed. That's what it's all about. Let's say Joe and Bob average 94% on regular tests, but Joe fails his final test and gets 50% on his final while Bob passes it. That's exactly what guys like Stockton, Malone and Lebron(up to this point) are.

[Jasper]

.

To me, Bryant helping his '06 squad win 45 games with Smush Parker as the team's third leading scorer and nearly upsetting the Suns in the first round was just as impressive to me as his being a part of a super talented championship team featuring Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, and Andrew Bynum. Again, if the Gasol deal was never struck, would Kobe be viewed as "less great" if he then never developed a solid enough supporting cast to win any Shaq-less rings? Yes, Kobe would probably be viewed as such. But would it be accurate? No. Would he be any less of a great player? No.
Nice point - but it is strictly a appreciation of a player balling not per say his validation to getting to a championship or a ring.

AI had 100% role players around him , which equates to 1 super star taking his team to the finals. (Yes that was impressive)
But to put the validation that Kobe is a top 5 or 10 all time player , and not reaching the finals except when he had Shaq or Pau validates those players were a large key to those championships than Kobe's career ring total.

I am picking on Kobe as an example because he's quote " super star " unquote

And will be in the HOF , but not honing that those 5 rings were because of his dominate role.

OP focusing on rings is an opstacle to valid players worth , should be re-evaluted even super star value to rings , when a player has 5 or 6 compared to a superstar with a weaker roster and won 3 rings.
-------------

[KDthunderup]

Your whole anaysis/logicin your head is beyond my impair. Anyone that thinks Karl Malone is > Duncan or Lebron is > Kobe is a complete moron. Sure those guys played and were keyword trying to win, but they failed. That's what it's all about. Let's say Joe and Bob average 94% on regular tests, but Joe fails his final test and gets 50% on his final while Bob passes it. That's exactly what guys like Stockton, Malone and Lebron(up to this point) are.
I give up with these Kobe fans, they contradict themselves, they come up with retarded examples, not including all the variables that can occur in a final.

On ability wise how the **** can you compare Lebron to Kobe at all? How can you not see that Lebron is nearly better then Kobe at all facets of the game? Im Durant fan, I have no reason to be bias at all.

I see it with my glasses off, whilst you still have your yellow and purple ones still on.

[longtime lurker]

Anyone that even brings up the Derek Fisher or Robert Horry argument is a moron devoid of basketball intelligence.

[SlayerEnraged]

I give up with these Kobe fans, they contradict themselves, they come up with retarded examples, not including all the variables that can occur in a final.

On ability wise how the **** can you compare Lebron to Kobe at all? How can you not see that Lebron is nearly better then Kobe at all facets of the game? Im Durant fan, I have no reason to be bias at all.

I see it with my glasses off, whilst you still have your yellow and purple ones still on.

I never said Lebron wasn't better than Kobe this season or last season u moron. Here's the problem with 90% of ISH'ers: They're full of assumptions. They assume u think this or that but really don't know wtf they're talking about. We're talking about all time wise and no untill Lebron wins a championship, he's not gonna be with the elites. U mad and gonna :cry: ?

[SlayerEnraged]

I give up with these Kobe fans, they contradict themselves, they come up with retarded examples, not including all the variables that can occur in a final.

On ability wise how the **** can you compare Lebron to Kobe at all? How can you not see that Lebron is nearly better then Kobe at all facets of the game? Im Durant fan, I have no reason to be bias at all.

I see it with my glasses off, whilst you still have your yellow and purple ones still on.

What variable did Lebron not have in his 2 finals appearences? Maybe i'd feel sympathetic for him losing if he didn't play like shit in the finals :lol

[KDthunderup]

I never said Lebron wasn't better than Kobe this season or last season u moron. Here's the problem with 90% of ISH'ers: They're full of assumptions. They assume u think this or that but really don't know wtf they're talking about. We're talking about all time wise and no untill Lebron wins a championship, he's not gonna be with the elites. U mad and gonna :cry: ?
Why the **** are we judging on career status when both their careers aren't even over or are at the same stage?

Still rings dont make one player then another, they could of just had the fortitude of having great teammates, coach, money to buy more players.

And why would I be mad if Lebron wins a championship or not, I support the Thunder, I have owned you to many times now to keep caring.

[longtime lurker]

I give up with these Kobe fans, they contradict themselves, they come up with retarded examples, not including all the variables that can occur in a final.

On ability wise how the **** can you compare Lebron to Kobe at all? How can you not see that Lebron is nearly better then Kobe at all facets of the game? Im Durant fan, I have no reason to be bias at all.

I see it with my glasses off, whilst you still have your yellow and purple ones still on.

Wait what? :oldlol: Did you seriously just post that?

[KDthunderup]

Wait what? :oldlol: Did you seriously just post that?Currently yes, and it isnt even close, Kobe is better at playing in the post and shooting, but that's where it ends.

[SlayerEnraged]

Why the **** are we judging on career status when both their careers aren't even over or are at the same stage?

Still rings dont make one player then another, they could of just had the fortitude of having great teammates, coach, money to buy more players.

And why would I be mad if Lebron wins a championship or not, I support the Thunder, I have owned you to many times now to keep caring.

Ur a sad little chitzu trying to play and compete with the big german shepards. Hurry move along now...everybody lets give KDthunderup a loud :applause: for his commendable effort lmao. P.S. What was Lebrons age in the finals last year? 26 or 27? 26 year old Kobe isn't going to lose with Wade and Bosh on his team lol.:sleeping u weak.

[Round Mound]

Tim Duncan had he faced a Healthy Prime Barkley and a Prime Malone would have gotten poulverized.

The only thin he is Better than Barkley and Malone is as a Shot Blocker cause he plays more like a Center.

Barkley outplayed Duncan at ages 34-36 when he was overweight and constantly injured

[kennethgriffin]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=178915

Nice posts by Kblaze300000 in this thread.


Well if that was done today or even 20 years ago you might say some of those celtic players might have a case.. But just like jordans 6 modern day titles look better than russells 11 from the 60s... So do kobes 5 against somes 7 or 8 from that period aswell...


What lebron fans fail at most on here is comon sense


They like to make half a$$d judgement against anything lebron lacks

They would be willing to drop jordans accomplishments just to degrade kobes


The fact is.. Rings are what back up jordans stats and records.. Without rings mj wouldnt even sniff the top 5.. People would treat him like they do baylor or malone...

This is what validates kobe.. History


Sorry lebrick fans. You cant rewrite history

[longtime lurker]

Currently yes, and it isnt even close, Kobe is better at playing in the post and shooting, but that's where it ends.

Okay thanks for clearing that up. I thought you meant throughout their careers. Fair enough, but even post mortem Kobe is doing his best to keep up with Lebron despite the fact that it's his like 15th year in the league. Some players are still calling him the best player in the league.

[I.R.Beast]

Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that. Cleveland Lebron was a testament to that. T-Mac on the Rockets had a opportunity IMHO.


this..... Football is the sport where i would say the rings argument is kinda baseless. Basketball on the other hand is a sport where one player can carry team.

[32Dayz]

Rings are meaningless.
Performances are the only things that matter.

Good playoff performances enhance a players career.
Good Finals performances enhance a players career.

Lebron is a better playoff performer then Kobe outside of the Finals.
Kobe has 2-3 good Finals performances.

Lebron with 2+ good Finals performances surpasses Kobe.

Its pretty simple stuff.

:applause:

[keepinitreal]

this..... Football is the sport where i would say the rings argument is kinda baseless. Basketball on the other hand is a sport where one player can carry team.

Some of the positions make less of an impact, but quarterback definitely makes a big impact... Look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and then this year without him..

Furthermore, look at all of the teams that have won superbowls since 1967... overwhelming number of those teams had great QBs.

I agree that one player can carry a team easier in basketball than football, but one player can only carry a team so far in both sports.

[kennethgriffin]

Rings are meaningless.
Performances are the only things that matter.

Good playoff performances enhance a players career.
Good Finals performances enhance a players career.

Lebron is a better playoff performer then Kobe outside of the Finals.
Kobe has 2-3 good Finals performances.

Lebron with 2+ good Finals performances surpasses Kobe.

Its pretty simple stuff.

:applause:


You have to be the most idiotic dumb reeetard piece of monkey meat sucking delusional ignorant son of a b$tch on the internet



RINGS ARE MEANINGLESS?????!!!!????


Holy sweet mary mother of jesus christ son of god.... How on gods green earth can the most important thing inbasketball BE EFFING MEANINGLESS


RINGS BY A SUPERSTAR > RINGS BY A STAR > RINGS BY A ROLE PLAYER > RINGS BY A SCRUB


HOW IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Jordan isnt goat because he scored a ton of points... OR ELSE IVERSON WOULD BE TOP 10!!!!!!

its about rings PLUS stats PLUS records PLUS skills

Everything counts numbnuts... THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME OF BASKETBALL THAT IS MEANINGLESS EXCEPT YOUR DUMBAAAASSSS

[Faptastrophe]

^Why did you post the same thing again after 4 minutes and then deleted the first one? :lol

[Simple Jack]

Rings give people an excuse/reason to state the obvious.

KG wasn't any better in 08 than he was in 04; in fact, he wasn't even close to as dominant. He was just put in a better situation. KG was amazing all along. You knew it. I knew it. Everyone knew it. The fact that he won that ring in 08, despite not being nearly as good as he was 4 years earlier just gave the simpletons a reason to finally admit it.

Does anyone honestly believe he was better in 08? Or rather, was it a product of him coming to a much more complete and well coached team (and better organization)? What if KG was never put in that situation? We'd have trolls like plenty of people in this thread claiming he wasn't good enough and shouldn't be compared to ____ because he didn't have a ring when clearly he could have (and did) win won, when he was put in a better situation.

Rings aren't meaningless; they are just overused when discussing the impact of individual players for the reasons I mentioned above.

[32Dayz]

I made a thread once on multiple forums asking how many Rings Kobe would have won if he played his Career with the exact same rosters Iverson had.

(Both Iverson and Kobe entered the league in 1997).

99% of people said 0-2 and I'd say more like 75%+ said 0-1.

Would Kobe have been a worse player?
No, but he would have won less because of shitty rosters.

This is why Rings are absolutely meaningless in Player Comparisons.

[I.R.Beast]

Some of the positions make less of an impact, but quarterback definitely makes a big impact... Look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and then this year without him..

Furthermore, look at all of the teams that have won superbowls since 1967... overwhelming number of those teams had great QBs.

I agree that one player can carry a team easier in basketball than football, but one player can only carry a team so far in both sports.

not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.

[32Dayz]

lol @ 1 player being able to carry a team.

Basketball is 5 on 5.

The weight of 4 players will always far outweigh the weight of 1 player no matter how good he is.

Winning rings is about having the right rosters + luck, nothing else.

the individual greatness of a player can heighten the quality of a roster but not make a roster unless your Peak Jordan/Shaq/Kareem and even then if you face a much better opposing "team" they wont win.

[I.R.Beast]

Rings give people an excuse/reason to state the obvious.

KG wasn't any better in 08 than he was in 04; in fact, he wasn't even close to as dominant. He was just put in a better situation. KG was amazing all along. You knew it. I knew it. Everyone knew it. The fact that he won that ring in 08, despite not being nearly as good as he was 4 years earlier just gave the simpletons a reason to finally admit it.

Does anyone honestly believe he was better in 08? Or rather, was it a product of him coming to a much more complete and well coached team (and better organization)? What if KG was never put in that situation? We'd have trolls like plenty of people in this thread claiming he wasn't good enough and shouldn't be compared to ____ because he didn't have a ring when clearly he could have (and did) win won, when he was put in a better situation.

Rings aren't meaningless; they are just overused when discussing the impact of individual players for the reasons I mentioned above.

As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.

[Simple Jack]

As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.

Plenty of players getting respect, all-time, for their rings, had more talent on their respective teams than the 08 Celtics. People are creating this warped view of how rings SHOULD be won when in reality, none of that ever existed. Blame the internet, or the media, I guess.

[Legends66NBA7]

Rings are meaningless.

Disagree. Context does matter, but they go together as well.

Kobe's done well in both a 2nd option and a leader.

[keepinitreal]

not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.

Special teams isn't 1/3rd of the game and QBs can help out their defense a lot by putting a lot of points on the board plus time of possession... a bad offense that goes three and out don't give their defense much of a rest. They impact more than just 1/3rd.

I think we both agree that the Steelers have won mainly because of their great (probably league best) defense those years. All I'm saying is that one guy can make a big difference in NFL too.

[TheFrozenOne]

I made a thread once on multiple forums asking how many Rings Kobe would have won if he played his Career with the exact same rosters Iverson had.

(Both Iverson and Kobe entered the league in 1997).

99% of people said 0-2 and I'd say more like 75%+ said 0-1.

Would Kobe have been a worse player?
No, but he would have won less because of shitty rosters.

This is why Rings are absolutely meaningless in Player Comparisons.


You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..

[KDthunderup]

You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..
Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:

[TheFrozenOne]

Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:


Kobe puts him in check and next thing you know everyone is saying he is a top 5 player in the L (just as they did to Gasol in 08')

[32Dayz]

You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..

KMart was trash back then and Nene was injured.

+ Iverson only had that team for 1... maybe 2 seasons?

Very little chance Kobe wins with them especially without having one of the best PF's or C's in the league like he has always had.

Like I said it's likely he wins 0 rings or at most 2 with those same rosters.

[Collie]

Rings are not the be-all end-all stat in measuring greatness, but it's ABSOLUTELY absurd to think that they shouldn't be a part of what measures greatness.

You have to take each individual circumstance into account, and rings are one of the factors that we have to examine.

Else we'd all be taking Karl Malone over Tim Duncan.

[KDthunderup]

Kobe puts him in check and next thing you know everyone is saying he is a top 5 player in the L (just as they did to Gasol in 08')
Kobe puts him in check? :wtf: :oldlol:

Both will take 30 shots a night on 45% fg for the season.

[TheFrozenOne]

Kobe puts him in check? :wtf: :oldlol:

Both will take 30 shots a night on 45% fg for the season.


they could still win...they have good chemistry...Kobe actually wanted to play with Melo in 09'

besides FG% is stupid....no one ever won because they did FG%....or else Mutumbo would have won every year.

:facepalm @stats

[guy]

You make a good point, but I still think you are underrating the importance of the organization you are a part of, your teammates, and luck. These three things are weighed so heavily in whether or not a player's team wins or loses.

Kevin Garnett played for Minnesota for 12 years, wins MVP, but he wins 0 rings... 1st season in Boston and he wins a ring...

If John Starks pump fakes, drains a three, and the Knicks win a championship... Ewing is looked at as a better player?

If the SAS don't win the draft lottery to get Tim Duncan... David Robinson isn't a strong cornerstone for winning?

:confusedshrug:

I don't think KG's title really did much for his legacy honestly. What I mean by that is its not like it really changed how he's looked at all-time IMO. I still don't consider him better then Barkley or Malone even though he has a ring and they don't. And I don't look at his contribution to the ring the same way I look at Duncan, Shaq, or Hakeem's contribution to theirs. I look at the 08 Celtics much like the 04 Pistons. More like an ensemble cast, although I do think KG was their best player.

I could see Ewing ranked higher, but unless he won more after that, I think people will eventually realize how extremely bad he was in those Finals and he had alot less to do with that title then some of the other greats do for theirs. I don't think he'd be ranked that much higher for that reason.

I don't think David Robinson was ever the main reason for any of the Spurs' titles. It was Duncan.

[Owl]

Rings are not the be-all end-all stat in measuring greatness, but it's ABSOLUTELY absurd to think that they shouldn't be a part of what measures greatness.

You have to take each individual circumstance into account, and rings are one of the factors that we have to examine.

Else we'd all be taking Karl Malone over Tim Duncan.

No we wouldn't. We'd know that Duncan was by far the superior defender, and a significantly better rebounder.

Agree with the main sentiment (bolded) though, although I'd say rings should be fairly minimal and looked at in context, because as noted by others there is so much circumstance involved.

[Owl]

I don't think KG's title really did much for his legacy honestly. What I mean by that is its not like it really changed how he's looked at all-time IMO. I still don't consider him better then Barkley or Malone even though he has a ring and they don't. And I don't look at his contribution to the ring the same way I look at Duncan, Shaq, or Hakeem's contribution to theirs. I look at the 08 Celtics much like the 04 Pistons. More like an ensemble cast, although I do think KG was their best player.

I could see Ewing ranked higher, but unless he won more after that, I think people will eventually realize how extremely bad he was in those Finals and he had alot less to do with that title then some of the other greats do for theirs. I don't think he'd be ranked that much higher for that reason.

I don't think David Robinson was ever the main reason for any of the Spurs' titles. It was Duncan.
For the first title I'd strongly disagree, Robinson was still at least the equal of Duncan. Plus Robinson played a big role in developing Duncan working out with him in the summer etc. I seem to remember reading a lot about Robinson sacrificing his offense and being the defensive anchor on that team.
I think because a number of reasons to do with media narratives and "conventional wisdom" on Robinson, he is denied the credit he deserves as an elite player.

[LakersReign]

The only people stupid enough to try and say, in context of basketball, that rings supposedly don't matter are bandwagon Lebron fans. Who can't ever explain if that was ever, then why did Lebron leave the Cavs to go try and win not 1, not 2.......in Miami.:rolleyes: Hilarious:lol

[32Dayz]

The only people stupid enought to try and say in context of basketball, that rings supposedly don't matter are bandwagon Lebron fans. Who can't ever explain if that was ever, then why did Lebron leave the Cavs to go try and win not 1, not 2.......in Miami.:rolleyes: Hilarious:lol

Players do want to win Rings.

That doesn't change the fact that winning rings is 99% supporting casts + luck and 1% individual greatness of star players.

In the end individual performances are all that matters not rings which are a team accomplishment.

:applause:

[guy]

Players do want to win Rings.

That doesn't change the fact that winning rings is 99% supporting casts + luck and 1% individual greatness of star players.

In the end individual performances are all that matters not rings which are a team accomplishment.

:applause:

Wow, thats just idiotic. So you're telling me Jordan was only 1% of the reason the Bulls won 6 titles?

[97 bulls]

I think a lot of people make the huge mistake of mixing a players talent with a players rank. Players are ranked based on what they've been able to accomplish during their time in the nba.

Take for instance magic and stockton. Honestly, what did magic do better than stockton as far as talent? The only thing I can think off is rebound. And that's not really fair cuz magic was 6'9 and stockton 6'1. Stockton was the better shooter, defender and just as adepth at running his team. But magic just happened to be on one of the greatest teams ever. Which qualifies him for a lot of the awards that contributes to ranking players.

Its no secret that the mvp is awarded to the best player on the best top 2-3 teams. The dpoy award is awarded based on reputation and politics. Go back and compare scottie pippens defensive role with the bulls and dikembe mutombos role with the nuggets. Pippen was clearly the better defender. But mutombo is a center (politics says centers are more important defensively than any other position), was being touted as the next bill russell (reputation), and there you have it. Mutombo wins the dpoy.

All awards should be taken with a grain of salt.

[97 bulls]

Wow, thats just idiotic. So you're telling me Jordan was only 1% of the reason the Bulls won 6 titles?
Not trying to speak for 32dayz cuz he's more than capable of defending his pov. But I think his point is to show that winning is a team effort. And honestly, all roles are equally important. We already know the bulls couldn't have won without jordan or pippen. Could the bulls still win if paxson and kerr didn't hit those bigs shots repeatedly? Or if grant and rodman didn't play good hard nosed defense and rebounded? Or if krause didn't go out and replace quality players with quality? Or if phil jackson makes bad decisions and is constantly outcoached? What if the 9-12 men weren't there to give breathers to the starters? Ho long could that championship team last through the rigors of a long grimey season before they succumb due to just fatigue?

Which part of your body do you feel you can live without? The brain? lungs? Heart, kidneys? The same holds true for a championship team.

And before you start, there is a difference between being the best player on a team and the importance of acknowledging roles. Jordan was the best player, but he needed the support to get over the the top and get to the pinnacle.

[La Frescobaldi]

I think a lot of people make the huge mistake of mixing a players talent with a players rank. Players are ranked based on what they've been able to accomplish during their time in the nba.

Take for instance magic and stockton. Honestly, what did magic do better than stockton as far as talent? The only thing I can think off is rebound. And that's not really fair cuz magic was 6'9 and stockton 6'1. Stockton was the better shooter, defender and just as adepth at running his team. But magic just happened to be on one of the greatest teams ever. Which qualifies him for a lot of the awards that contributes to ranking players.

Its no secret that the mvp is awarded to the best player on the best top 2-3 teams. The dpoy award is awarded based on reputation and politics. Go back and compare scottie pippens defensive role with the bulls and dikembe mutombos role with the nuggets. Pippen was clearly the better defender. But mutombo is a center (politics says centers are more important defensively than any other position), was being touted as the next bill russell (reputation), and there you have it. Mutombo wins the dpoy.

All awards should be taken with a grain of salt.
*****************

It ain't right to hold it against Magic Johnson that he was 6'9. That ain't right at all.

It's also fact that Magic Johnson was the best player on those teams for many years. Sure he had a big target in the paint, with a skyhook, and he had one of the greatest finishers in the game in James Worthy. So? It ain't like Stockton had no finishers on his teams.

Magic WAS Showtime, he invented it, shaped it, drove it, and there hasn't been a guy close to him since in making the transition happen.

I agree by and large awards are useless as a measuring stick.

[caliman]

If Jordan only won 1 ring he would be still the GOAT.

His abilities cant be questioned over a stupid ring.


No, he wouldn't, not even close.

Because one superstar can swing the tide so much in basketball, winning 1 ring would have not been enough to give him the nod over Magic, Kareem or Wilt. Would he still have been a great player? Of course he would have. But the 6 rings enhanced his legacy to such a level that he is deemed an untouchable.

MJ with 1 ring and 30,00 points would not have been GOAT all time material.

[guy]

Not trying to speak for 32dayz cuz he's more than capable of defending his pov. But I think his point is to show that winning is a team effort. And honestly, all roles are equally important. We already know the bulls couldn't have won without jordan or pippen. Could the bulls still win if paxson and kerr didn't hit those bigs shots repeatedly? Or if grant and rodman didn't play good hard nosed defense and rebounded? Or if krause didn't go out and replace quality players with quality? Or if phil jackson makes bad decisions and is constantly outcoached? What if the 9-12 men weren't there to give breathers to the starters? Ho long could that championship team last through the rigors of a long grimey season before they succumb due to just fatigue?

Which part of your body do you feel you can live without? The brain? lungs? Heart, kidneys? The same holds true for a championship team.

And before you start, there is a difference between being the best player on a team and the importance of acknowledging roles. Jordan was the best player, but he needed the support to get over the the top and get to the pinnacle.

Okay, I've heard this before. 32dayz is saying what he's saying to excuse Lebron. Thats it. 1% is ridiculous. The centerpiece of a championship is the biggest reason for most championship teams. Teams don't build around a group of role players by trying to find superstars that complement them. They build around a superstar(s) by trying to find a group of role players that complement them. That is why they are the biggest reason. Its funny to me how people think that the quality of teammates a superstar has throughout his career has nothing to do with that superstar and is not somewhat of a reflection of how great that superstar is.

[97 bulls]

*****************

It ain't right to hold it against Magic Johnson that he was 6'9. That ain't right at all.

It's also fact that Magic Johnson was the best player on those teams for many years. Sure he had a big target in the paint, with a skyhook, and he had one of the greatest finishers in the game in James Worthy. So? It ain't like Stockton had no finishers on his teams.

Magic WAS Showtime, he invented it, shaped it, drove it, and there hasn't been a guy close to him since in making the transition happen.

I agree by and large awards are useless as a measuring stick.
I'm not holding magics height against him. I am however saying that for those that would say magic is a better rebounder than stockton, id say that id expect him to be a better due to him being a good 7-8 inches taller.

But ialso don't think it fair to say magic is a better basketball player than stockton due to rings. Maagic had much better teams throughout his career.

[97 bulls]

Okay, I've heard this before. 32dayz is saying what he's saying to excuse Lebron. Thats it. 1% is ridiculous. The centerpiece of a championship is the biggest reason for most championship teams. Teams don't build around a group of role players by trying to find superstars that complement them. They build around a superstar(s) by trying to find a group of role players that complement them. That is why they are the biggest reason. Its funny to me how people think that the quality of teammates a superstar has throughout his career has nothing to do with that superstar and is not somewhat of a reflection of how great that superstar is.
Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?

[guy]

Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I never said nothing else matters. 1% is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[rule1223]

Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?
shaqs made the finals with 3 different teams and won with 2 different teams, kobes made the finals with 2 different rosters and won the championship with both, if you're good, its not hard to get the right players around you, that's why championships when comparing top tier players is a large aspect when determining the better player

[Mr. Jabbar]

Yet Lebron failed to win a ring with a very stacked team. The ring argument is valid when in context.

[97 bulls]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I never said nothing else matters. 1% is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
That's true. Saying jordans worth was 1% is a gross exageration

[guy]

That's true. Saying jordans worth was 1% is a gross exageration

Not just Jordan. Even saying someone like Chauncey Billups was only 1% of the reason for the Pistons' 04 title is ridiculous.

[kennethgriffin]

if rings didnt count

guys like duncan, hakeem, russell, magic, bird etc.. wouldnt even be in the top 10

and instead.. iverson, baylor, dominique type players would be

rings just come with greatness

guys like iverson,malone, barkley, lebron are all ring chasing stat padders that failed in the finals because someone else played better than them... simple as that

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not just Jordan. Even saying someone like Chauncey Billups was only 1% of the reason for the Pistons' 04 title is ridiculous.

Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?

[Legends66NBA7]

Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?

I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm not holding magics height against him. I am however saying that for those that would say magic is a better rebounder than stockton, id say that id expect him to be a better due to him being a good 7-8 inches taller.

But ialso don't think it fair to say magic is a better basketball player than stockton due to rings. Maagic had much better teams throughout his career.

yeah.

Guys like Kevin Johnson get smacked around because they never won a ring. The most skilled NBA player ever was Pete Maravich.... no rings, so no talk.
*********************

To me, Chamberlain is still the greatest player to ever be in the NBA, I saw a lot of those games when the 76ers made their great run and he took over games like nobody else ever has.

Only 2 rings, people bash him for that but they flat do not know what injuries were like in those days. A hamstring could have a player sitting for 2 or 3 months, & there was no answer at all for an ACL.

When Chamberlain wrecked his knee in the 69 Finals, they actually sprayed freon on it. When it gave way altogether the next season they drilled a hole in his kneecap and pulled the tendons through.
Or this: people call Chamberlain choker for not "winning with Baylor & West" but they both drew DNP in the 71 playoffs, and Baylor retired after only playing 3 or 4 games in '72. Baylor was never a factor on those Lakers teams from the 69 Finals when the Celtics ignored him because he couldn't make a basket.

The '68 Sixers are to my mind the greatest NBA team of all time - better than the '67 ring-winner - but they lost their 6th man to a broken arm in the playoffs, had 2 starters pull hamstrings in the EDF, Chamberlain had a calf tear on one leg and strained tendon on the other, and only suited 9 players.


Those kinds of things are either forgot or not known on these boards but they make the "Ring" argument pretty absurd.

[guy]

Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?

Considering he was the team's best player, leader, and centerpiece that the team was built around, I'd probably say at least 50%. There's no way to really quantify it, but thats what I would go with.

[NumberSix]

if rings didnt count

guys like duncan, hakeem, russell, magic, bird etc.. wouldnt even be in the top 10

and instead.. iverson, baylor, dominique type players would be

rings just come with greatness

guys like iverson,malone, barkley, lebron are all ring chasing stat padders that failed in the finals because someone else played better than them... simple as that
Put it like this. Iverson played Kobe in the finals. Kobe got a ring, but did he really play better than Iverson?

Michael Jordan can be bar far the best player on the court and still lose the series to the Celtics or Pistons. Does that mean Bird or Thomas were better than him at the time?

You can be a big factor of why your team won, and still be outplayed by someone who's team lost. You can lead your team to the win and still not be as good as the guy whose team lost.

[97 bulls]

Considering he was the team's best player, leader, and centerpiece that the team was built around, I'd probably say at least 50%. There's no way to really quantify it, but thats what I would go with.
Lol 50%? Come on. That's almost as much of an exaggeration as saying his contributions were 1%.

[DMAVS41]

Lol 50%? Come on. That's almost as much of an exaggeration as saying his contributions were 1%.

No its not. What player could you have replaced MJ with and still won titles? Very few if any. I'd say 50% is low.

[97 bulls]

I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?
Ok. So what about pippen? He ran the offense and defense. Jackson had to coach against jerry sloan, pat riley. Rodman defended the league mvp and was the teams leading rebounder. Tex winter created the offense. Kukoc kept the team competitive and gave jordan and pippen breathers. The bulls don't win without any of them.

[Derka]

Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that.

100% agree with this.

The Ring matters.

[97 bulls]

No its not. What player could you have replaced MJ with and still won titles? Very few if any. I'd say 50% is low.
We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.

[DMAVS41]

We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.

I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....

[97 bulls]

I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....
Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.

[guy]

Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.

Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.

[97 bulls]

Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.
I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.

[iDefend5]

If or when Lebron ever does win a ring, they'll stop saying how pointless rings are.

[guy]

I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.

The thought of an immature hothead like Sprewell meshing well with the Bulls, specifically being able to command the respect of someone like Rodman,sounds far-fetched.

[DMAVS41]

Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.

Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.

[guy]

There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.

Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?

35-40% sounds fair. I'd up the ante and go 50% (like guy). That's just me though. Pippen and Jackson get something like forty percent while the rest of the Bulls makeup the remaining ten.

Teams win championships, but its asinine to think someone like Jordan only had 1% of his teams doing. Totally absurd :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.
There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.

[97 bulls]

Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.
Really? The heat went from being a joke, gutting their whole team for james and bosh, to being a contender. How bout the clippers? How much better has just adding chris paul made them? They've been a laughing stock for almost 30 years.

[DMAVS41]

There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.

Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.

[97 bulls]

Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.
Statistically jordan didn't struggle. But his teams weren't talented enough to be competitive.

Here's your problem. You mistake the best player as being the most valuable. Yes dirk was the best player on the mavs there no disputing that. But chandler manning the paint, along with marion and stevensons defense, and the mavs timely shooting was just as important to the mavs winning.

What's ironic is the very same people that tout these silly excuse for dirk, james, wade etc . The excuse that. They didn't have a good enough team when they lose, are the same one that want to give minimal credit to the "role" players when they do win.

Its just amazing

[DMAVS41]

Statistically jordan didn't struggle. But his teams weren't talented enough to be competitive.

Here's your problem. You mistake the best player as being the most valuable. Yes dirk was the best player on the mavs there no disputing that. But chandler manning the paint, along with marion and stevensons defense, and the mavs timely shooting was just as important to the mavs winning.

What's ironic is the very same people that tout these silly excuse for dirk, james, wade etc . The excuse that. They didn't have a good enough team when they lose, are the same one that want to give minimal credit to the "role" players when they do win.

Its just amazing

Not at all. Dirk was easily the most valuable player on the Mavs. I can't believe anyone would freaking dispute that.

Its not about minimal credit. Its that other players can do what those guys do. Marion and Stevenson can be replaced. Chandler can be replaced. Kidd can be replaced.

You aren't replacing what Dirk did. You aren't replacing what Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem...etc.

You just aren't replacing those guys realistically. Manu? Parker? Pippen? Kenny and Horry?

Those guys just aren't even close to as valuable as the the guys above.

You are confusing yourself. Nobody is saying role players aren't important. They are. You can't win without a team. Nobody is saying otherwise....but you can find role players more easily than stars. Almost every title in NBA history has been one with at least 1 elite star player. The 04 Pistons are really the only team I can think of in the last 30 years that won the title without a superstar player.

Why do you think that is? Without a guy like Dirk last year on the Mavs....and say....Amare instead. Or Bosh. Or Aldridge.....they just aren't winning. In fact, they probably aren't getting out of the 2nd round.

Its fragile. There is a fine line. You can't ignore all the truly special things a guy like Dirk or Duncan or MJ or Bird or Magic do en route to leading a team to the title. Its simply easily the most valuable part of a championship team.

[guy]

Really? The heat went from being a joke, gutting their whole team for james and bosh, to being a contender. How bout the clippers? How much better has just adding chris paul made them? They've been a laughing stock for almost 30 years.

I was talking about upgrading with the likes of Latrell Sprewell and Mitch Richmond not the likes of Lebron James and Chris Paul, 2 top players in the league. And either way, your example doesn't make sense. The Heat and the Clippers added more then just Lebron and CP3.

[Rocker09]

In basketball, the performance of one player can determine the outcome of games so IMO, the number of rings a player has is a good indication of his performance throughout his career.....It's stupid to compare fisher w/ iverson because fisher was never a star in those championships(he's a roleplayer)....

[97 bulls]

Not at all. Dirk was easily the most valuable player on the Mavs. I can't believe anyone would freaking dispute that.

Its not about minimal credit. Its that other players can do what those guys do. Marion and Stevenson can be replaced. Chandler can be replaced. Kidd can be replaced.

You aren't replacing what Dirk did. You aren't replacing what Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem...etc.

You just aren't replacing those guys realistically. Manu? Parker? Pippen? Kenny and Horry?

Those guys just aren't even close to as valuable as the the guys above.

You are confusing yourself. Nobody is saying role players aren't important. They are. You can't win without a team. Nobody is saying otherwise....but you can find role players more easily than stars. Almost every title in NBA history has been one with at least 1 elite star player. The 04 Pistons are really the only team I can think of in the last 30 years that won the title without a superstar player.

Why do you think that is? Without a guy like Dirk last year on the Mavs....and say....Amare instead. Or Bosh. Or Aldridge.....they just aren't winning. In fact, they probably aren't getting out of the 2nd round.

Its fragile. There is a fine line. You can't ignore all the truly special things a guy like Dirk or Duncan or MJ or Bird or Magic do en route to leading a team to the title. Its simply easily the most valuable part of a championship team.
Ok, let's see if your theory is correct, the mavs got rid of chandler and stevenson. And replaced them with odom and vince carter. Let's see if the mavs can repeat as champs. According to you, the mavs should since role players are easily replaceable.

And seeing as how they got more offensive firepower, according to you they should easily repeat. Seeing as how offense is more important than defense.

Its also amazing how you can contradict yourself. How is it that in one hand, constructing a championship winning team is fragile and delicate. Then in the other, as easy as replacing role players.

And let's set another thing straight, what dirk did is nowhere near on the lines of some of the runs of jordan, magic and duncan etc. 23 pts on 42% in the championship? Come on. He feasted on the thunder but overall, it wasn't world beating or anything.

[Figlo]

Sticky this thread.

This is a real discussion

[La Frescobaldi]

if rings didnt count

guys like duncan, hakeem, russell, magic, bird etc.. wouldnt even be in the top 10

and instead.. iverson, baylor, dominique type players would be

rings just come with greatness

guys like iverson,malone, barkley, lebron are all ring chasing stat padders that failed in the finals because someone else played better than them... simple as that
But now that James has won a ring.... He's suddenly one of the all-time greats, right, kennethgriffin?

kennethgriffin? Hello...... he's not a stat padder anymore.... right? kennethgriffin !!

[fpliii]

Over a long season, a team's record reflects the strengths and weaknesses of all its players. But in just a few games, the inspired play of one man may often bring victory to an inferior team.

Great quote by Jeremiah Tax, from SI.

[EllEffEll]

Highly unlikely to have a unanimous consensus for the GOAT, or which player is better than another, because different people value different things to determine GOAT status, not to mention personal bias. The whole concept of a GOAT is subjective to say the least.

If you can't get consensus on who is better than who, it's likely because your criteria is different. Not necessarily wrong, just different.

Lay out your argument, and let it stand on it's own perceived merit. It's not like world peace will be achieved if we all agree on player rankings.

[Ne 1]

Winning can only be a criteria for elite players, players who lead their respective teams with their play and put their teammates into position to excel. Derek Fisher, although a solid role player, cannot be compared to the elite, he could not carry his team on his back, all he could do was excel when another guy put him into position. Which guys put him into position? How about Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal?

Bottom line is you play to win the game, that's just how it works in any sport. In any sport everybody always remembers the winner, not who lost. Unless your the Bills who lost 4 consecutive Superbowls.

Think about it.... every player the the majority of people have in their top 10 have won multiple championships. The only exception being a few people will sometimes have either Oscar, Dr. J or West over Hakeem at the bottom half of the top 10 and they at least have 1 ring.

Think about it Elgin Baylor and Karl Malone are the best best players to never win a championship and how many people have them in their top 10? Face it winning changes everything.

[rmt]

example:3 nearly everyone has followed Kobe's whole career, his peers call him the best , media call's him a top 5 - 7 alltime player, he has won 5 Championships as the premiere player in the NBA.

Kobe did not win 5 championships as the premier player in the NBA.

MVP voting
2000 #12
2001 #9
2002 #5
2009 #2 - Lebron had almost twice as many votes as Kobe
2010 #3 - Lebron had more than twice as many votes as Kobe

[DMAVS41]

Ok, let's see if your theory is correct, the mavs got rid of chandler and stevenson. And replaced them with odom and vince carter. Let's see if the mavs can repeat as champs. According to you, the mavs should since role players are easily replaceable.

And seeing as how they got more offensive firepower, according to you they should easily repeat. Seeing as how offense is more important than defense.

Its also amazing how you can contradict yourself. How is it that in one hand, constructing a championship winning team is fragile and delicate. Then in the other, as easy as replacing role players.

And let's set another thing straight, what dirk did is nowhere near on the lines of some of the runs of jordan, magic and duncan etc. 23 pts on 42% in the championship? Come on. He feasted on the thunder but overall, it wasn't world beating or anything.

I saw that I never responded to this.

This post is full of the black and white nonsense that you always spew. I never said it was easy to win a title. I said it was easier to replace role players than it is a start player.

There have been roughly 20 players in the history of the NBA as good or better than Dirk. There have been thousands of players as good or better than some of the role players you speak of.

I've repeatedly said you have to have a quality team to win. But you take it way too far when you start claiming that Chandler was the MVP of the Mavs. A guy that played good defense, but couldn't even average a ****ing double double. It's a joke...

And I'd turn it around on you...if those guys like Kidd and Chandler were so valuable and Dirk isn't all that great. Why aren't the Knicks racking up titles with those guys. Why not? They have Carmelo...who I assume you think is just as good as Dirk. You've got JR Smith playing the Terry role. You've got good role players like Amare, Shumpert, Novak, Chandler...etc.

Why aren't they winning in the playoffs? Using your absurd logic they should be.

You can't let your crazy notions about Pippen and his value leak into every post you make.

[Mr Exlax]

There's no real way to say who's the GOAT. Different people value different things. This is like arguing which color is the best. I thought Lebron was one of the best players of all time, before he got a ring. Did Kevin Garnett get better once he went to Boston or did his team get better? Did Kobe become a lesser player when they were the Smush Parker Lakers and then he got better once Bynum developed and they traded for Gasol?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe did not win 5 championships as the premier player in the NBA.

MVP voting
2000 #12
2001 #9
2002 #5
2009 #2 - Lebron had almost twice as many votes as Kobe
2010 #3 - Lebron had more than twice as many votes as Kobe
Are you kidding me?

2006 MVP
Nash 2x more votes than Kobe. Therefore Kobe was not a "premier" player in the NBA.

2007 MVP
Dirk and Nash had 2x more MVP votes than Kobe. Therefore Mobe was not a premier player in the NBA.

Spurs fans need to go to regular season MVP voting because Kobe cooked their franchise in the playoffs.

[Lebron23]

But now that James has won a ring.... He's suddenly one of the all-time greats, right, kennethgriffin?

kennethgriffin? Hello...... he's not a stat padder anymore.... right? kennethgriffin !!


The guy is an idiot. If LeBron wins another Finals MVP, he's automatically a top 7-8 player of all time.

[NumberSix]

Most problems come up with Kobe. The reason is, he's had a pretty unique career. There aren't a lot of examples of a player winning rings as a member of a team lead by another superstar, then becoming the superstar to lead a team to rings. It's pretty unusual.

As far as legacy goes though, you have to take the blinders off. Kobe's first 3 rings aren't as valuable to his legacy as his last 2. They just aren't. A ring is a ring. If your a member of the winning team, your a champion, but were talking about legacy here. Scottie Pippen doesn't have the same 6 ring legacy as Jordan does.

Kobe's 3 sidekick rings mean less to his legacy than his 2 team leader rings.

[Lebron23]

Most problems come up with Kobe. The reason is, he's had a pretty unique career. There aren't a lot of examples of a player winning rings as a member of a team lead by another superstar, then becoming the superstar to lead a team to rings. It's pretty unusual.

As far as legacy goes though, you have to take the blinders off. Kobe's first 3 rings aren't as valuable to his legacy as his last 2. They just aren't. A ring is a ring. If your a member of the winning team, your a champion, but were talking about legacy here. Scottie Pippen doesn't have the same 6 ring legacy as Jordan does.

Kobe's 3 sidekick rings mean less to his legacy than his 2 team leader rings.


This

[NumberSix]

I saw that I never responded to this.

This post is full of the black and white nonsense that you always spew. I never said it was easy to win a title. I said it was easier to replace role players than it is a start player.

There have been roughly 20 players in the history of the NBA as good or better than Dirk. There have been thousands of players as good or better than some of the role players you speak of.

I've repeatedly said you have to have a quality team to win. But you take it way too far when you start claiming that Chandler was the MVP of the Mavs. A guy that played good defense, but couldn't even average a ****ing double double. It's a joke...

And I'd turn it around on you...if those guys like Kidd and Chandler were so valuable and Dirk isn't all that great. Why aren't the Knicks racking up titles with those guys. Why not? They have Carmelo...who I assume you think is just as good as Dirk. You've got JR Smith playing the Terry role. You've got good role players like Amare, Shumpert, Novak, Chandler...etc.

Why aren't they winning in the playoffs? Using your absurd logic they should be.

You can't let your crazy notions about Pippen and his value leak into every post you make.
No, you have to have the best team to win. This isn't baseball or football. Its not enough to just be a quality team. Basketball is the one sport where the best team usually wins the title.

You can have a "quality" team all you want, but if there happens to be a better team in the league at that time, you're probably not winning.

Would the Mavs have won in 2011 if the heat came together 1 year earlier? Probably not? Would the Thunder have won in 2012 if the heat came together 1 year later? Yeah, they probably would have. Timing is very important and timing is mostly just luck.

[DMAVS41]

No, you have to have the best team to win. This isn't baseball or football. Its not enough to just be a quality team. Basketball is the one sport where the best team usually wins the title.

You can have a "quality" team all you want, but if there happens to be a better team in the league at that time, you're probably not winning.

Would the Mavs have won in 2011 if the heat came together 1 year earlier? Probably not? Would the Thunder have won in 2012 if the heat came together 1 year later? Yeah, they probably would have. Timing is very important and timing is mostly just luck.

You misunderstood me. I was speaking from the standpoint of the star player. You do not have to have the most help to win. Although it certainly helps...

[NumberSix]

You misunderstood me. I was speaking from the standpoint of the star player. You do not have to have the most help to win. Although it certainly helps...
A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)

[STATUTORY]

A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)


players aren't lego pieces dude, you don't just stack them together and measure them like lil boys in the lockerroom.

supporting players have to fit with the star player and there are players that are easier to build around than others. you can't just separate the supporting cast from the star, because they maximize each other's abilities.

[NumberSix]

players aren't lego pieces dude, you don't just stack them together and measure them like lil boys in the lockerroom.

supporting players have to fit with the star player and there are players that are easier to build around than others. you can't just separate the supporting cast from the star, because they maximize each other's abilities.
Its almost as if...... That was....... The entire point...... I..... Was...... Making...... :hammerhead:

[brandonislegend]

This

:roll: LeBron joins 2 of the top 15 players in the league wins, same shit doesn't mean shit

[DMAVS41]

A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)

that is just stating the obvious. the best team wins...you could always say that.

don't really get the point.

[STATUTORY]

Its almost as if...... That was....... The entire point...... I..... Was...... Making...... :hammerhead:

I'm just saying people often judge supporting cast based on the totality of their "talent", or how they would do in a NBA season without the star player.

BUt that's a flawed way of evaluating supporting cast. It sounded to me like that's what you were suggesting.

[Djahjaga]

This counter-argument is so tired and misleading. Rings do mean alot because the players that lead them there have alot to do with them getting there and the whole make up of that team in general and how good they are. Certain players are easier to build around because of how dominant and versatile they are and/or because of how their skillset is easier to surround complementary pieces with. I wrote the following in a post a long time ago about this same subject:

My point is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it.

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade.
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

Bottom line is championships validate how strong of a cornerstone for winning certain players are. And winning is the whole point.

I think in general this is a fantastic post, but I do have my problems with it.

Take this how you want (and it will most likely be met with ridicule), but I think winning a championship in the NBA is so nebulous a series of chances that just because you don't win one doesn't mean you couldn't have.

This isn't to say that it's more luck than skill and execution, because it's obviously not, but, at the highest level, so little separates the teams that win from the ones that don't that it's ridiculous to say that someone like Nash couldn't win a title as the main guy. Ditto for Barkely or KG or Ewing or Robinson.

I love the distinctions you made and I think agree with even the ones that I've argued against my entire time as a serious basketball fan (the KG one is causing me a lot of heartache right now. I'm still going back and forth with it.), but at a certain point, I think the way we think about players and basketball itself is just so governed by little things that it makes no sense to make such sweeping claims.

It was thought that teams couldn't win without a dominant big, to the point where people made serious predictions based on that piece of conventional wisdom, but the Bulls came along and disproved that 6 times. And now Miami, as well. Chuck says you die by the three (something I still tend to agree with), but Dallas certainly lived by it. Maybe they got really hot when it mattered, maybe not. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Same with the Bulls. Maybe they captured lighting in a bottle and really stuck with it. Maybe that lighting was Michael Jordan.

As much as I love stats (specifically APBR metrics), basketball, nor any sport (even baseball), is a science. So, repeated events can't be used to create any sort of law that can be then used to make flawless predictions. Can you win with Kwame Brown as your starting center? Yes, if everyone else fits amazingly well around him. Will it likely happen, probably not. But that doesn't mean it can't. (I think we know enough to say you can't win with him as your first option, though, obviously haha. There are clearly things we can know.)

Again, I'm not saying the Bulls got lucky. Or the Mavs. Or anyone that won. But if you really think that something fundamental prevented Nash from winning, as opposed to something trivial, then you're just subscribing to the BS that ESPN and the like perpetrate.

I know you said it's harder to build around these players, and not that they can never win titles, so I doubt you think that way (the ESPN, Lebron just doesn't have "it", whatever the f*ck "it" happens to be this week). Just giving my two cents.

[Lebron23]

:roll: LeBron joins 2 of the top 15 players in the league wins, same shit doesn't mean shit


LeBron is the best player of the Miami Heat. Bosh is not a top 20 player this year.

[pauk]

Championships are only meaningful.... to teams/players/fans, its a team game, its a team sport, championship is what it is all about.... but to measure a players greatness based on the number of rings is impossible...

This is not tennis, this is not 1 on 1........ hell even technically a player doesnt get the Championship trophy, the team gets the Championship trophy, the player gets a RING... as in: "Here, you were a part of this team accomplishment, this tiny piece is the proof / to remind you".... and not: "Here is the trophy, YOU won the championship"....

You cant measure a single players greatness based on rings, its completely about the context, its about the ROAD towards that championship, you can still be a winner even if you didnt end up getting that championship.... did you know that?

Ask yourself this, what individual was greater here?

Player A - Averaged 35-10-10, is the best player in the game, takes the worst team in the NBA to the Finals and loses....

Player B - Averaged 25-10-3, is not the best player in the game, takes the most stacked team in the NBA to the Finals and wins......

Player A was greater
Player B was "the winner"

If we didnt know about the context here then all we would see is:

Player A = 0 rings, "Choked/Loser"
Player B = 1 ring, "Amazing/Winner"

Fans know this, they aint stupid, i truly believe they arent.... but they have to, because rings might be the only way of trying to catapult a LESSER player over a GREATER player.......

Take Russell for example, "The greatest winner of all time" they say... Well you are out of your god damn mind if you think Russell would win more championships than Wilt if they had the exact same supporting casts.......... why? Because Wilt was a GREATER player..............

The ONLY way for you to logically & factually figure out who was greater based on rings is if ALL players had to work with clones of supporting casts.......... then YES, you can surgically, microscopically figure out exactly how impactful the player was compared to anybody else, how greater he made his teammates, his leadership and so on....

[DMAVS41]

I think in general this is a fantastic post, but I do have my problems with it.

Take this how you want (and it will most likely be met with ridicule), but I think winning a championship in the NBA is so nebulous a series of chances that just because you don't win one doesn't mean you couldn't have.

This isn't to say that it's more luck than skill and execution, because it's obviously not, but, at the highest level, so little separates the teams that win from the ones that don't that it's ridiculous to say that someone like Nash couldn't win a title as the main guy. Ditto for Barkely or KG or Ewing or Robinson.

I love the distinctions you made and I think agree with even the ones that I've argued against my entire time as a serious basketball fan (the KG one is causing me a lot of heartache right now. I'm still going back and forth with it.), but at a certain point, I think the way we think about players and basketball itself is just so governed by little things that it makes no sense to make such sweeping claims.

It was thought that teams couldn't win without a dominant big, to the point where people made serious predictions based on that piece of conventional wisdom, but the Bulls came along and disproved that 6 times. And now Miami, as well. Chuck says you die by the three (something I still tend to agree with), but Dallas certainly lived by it. Maybe they got really hot when it mattered, maybe not. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Same with the Bulls. Maybe they captured lighting in a bottle and really stuck with it. Maybe that lighting was Michael Jordan.

As much as I love stats (specifically APBR metrics), basketball, nor any sport (even baseball), is a science. So, repeated events can't be used to create any sort of law that can be then used to make flawless predictions. Can you win with Kwame Brown as your starting center? Yes, if everyone else fits amazingly well around him. Will it likely happen, probably not. But that doesn't mean it can't. (I think we know enough to say you can't win with him as your first option, though, obviously haha. There are clearly things we can know.)

Again, I'm not saying the Bulls got lucky. Or the Mavs. Or anyone that won. But if you really think that something fundamental prevented Nash from winning, as opposed to something trivial, then you're just subscribing to the BS that ESPN and the like perpetrate.

I know you said it's harder to build around these players, and not that they can never win titles, so I doubt you think that way (the ESPN, Lebron just doesn't have "it", whatever the f*ck "it" happens to be this week). Just giving my two cents.

The problem is that generally the best players of all time have had the great fortune of playing with great help. Was Shaq hard to build around for his first 7 years? Or Lebron...who is probably the most versatile player ever...was he hard to build around before Miami?

It is a slippery slope when you start to credit and blame players for the front office moves a franchise makes. Surrounding a player...doesn't matter who that player is...with all nba players is on a team.

The problem I have with some of the posts is that they just disregard the simple fact that the location and prestige of a franchise determines far more than the star player. Lebron is a perfect example of this.

Does anyone actually think that if the Knicks drafted Lebron that they would have struggled as much as the Cavs did to surround him with help? I hope not.

[NumberSix]

that is just stating the obvious. the best team wins...you could always say that.

don't really get the point.
Here's the point...

The whole "he had a good enough team to win" argument is fundamentally flawed.

People always say "why couldn't player A win with that cast? Player B won with less". Unless you're talking about the exact same season, that holds no water.

You could say dirk won with less than Durant lost with. The difference is that the 2012 heat was a much tougher opponent than the 2011 heat. It's not an equal comparison.

There's no "good enough". If a player isn't a member of the best team, there's no reason to expect them to win and there's no reason to penalize them if they don't.

Even with superstars, rings doesn't automatically beat no-rings. Some guys go their whole career without ever being a member of the best team. There's no reason why they should have a ring. A guy like Kobe has been on the best team in the league plenty of times. More times than he's won championships. He probably should have more than 5 rings.

[brandonislegend]

LeBron is the best player of the Miami Heat. Bosh is not a top 20 player this year.

He was when they first signed.