Rings mean what exactly?

[Mr Exlax]

Derrick Fisher has 5 rings and Jason Kidd has 1, but everybody considers Jason Kidd a better player. Derrick Fisher just happened to be part of a better team right? Same thing with Tim Duncan and Hakeem. Duncan has more rings, but The Dream was way better in every major category. Duncan just happen to be on a better team. Why does the meaning of the rings depend on which players? Is Andrew Bynum better than Dwight Howard only because of the ring? Dwight has better numbers across the board, but Bynum has been on a better team? I don't get the logic.

[blablabla]

:facepalm

[Rake2204]

In a team sport, I don't find it terribly logical either. Every single great player's team success is dependent upon his teammates. There's a reason Kobe Bryant wasn't winning rings in 2006 and it has very little to do with his skill level. In contrast, there's a reason Kobe Bryant was winning rings in the early and late '00's and again it had to do with a lot more than his skill level.

[Legends66NBA7]

Compare superstar rings to other superstars rings.

Compare role player rings to other role player rings.

They all need to be put under context.

Does that answer the logic ?

[Rake2204]

Compare superstar rings to other superstars rings.

Compare role player rings to other role player rings.

They all need to be put under context.

Does that answer the logic ?
I still do operate under such logic (or illogic). Great star players fortunate enough to be a member of great teams are not automatically better players to me than great star players stuck with lame teams.

[swi7ch]

Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless. Carlos Boozer knows the real deal:

“I thought I played well, especially with the kind of season it was,” Boozer said, when asked to assess his second season in Chicago. “We had the best record again in basketball, won our division again, had the top seed again, that’s all that matters, yo.”


Suck it MIA!

[Rake2204]

Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless. Carlos Boozer knows the real deal:

“I thought I played well, especially with the kind of season it was,” Boozer said, when asked to assess his second season in Chicago. “We had the best record again in basketball, won our division again, had the top seed again, that’s all that matters, yo.”


:rockon:

I think those are two different things. I don't want to win so people will think of me individually as then a better player than I was before I won. I want to win because winning's very satisfying. It's the point of playing. However, because the team I play for won doesn't mean I'm an individually greater player than an opponent whose team lost.

As long as my team was winning, would I care if people thought players on other teams were better than me? In truth, probably a little bit, yeah. I'd understand it though. Great players can be stuck with lesser teams than others. For example, just because LeBron James couldn't lead the Cavs to championships in the late '00's didn't make him any less of a player to me. He'd have been an all-time great regardless of whether he was able to be a part of a team that won.

[Mr Exlax]

Compare superstar rings to other superstars rings.

Compare role player rings to other role player rings.

They all need to be put under context.

Does that answer the logic ?

So does that mean Dirk is better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? I look at the player, the team and the opponents.

[swi7ch]

It's like playing video games. Beating/finishing the game is like winning a title. At some point, don't you want to beat your favorite video game instead of playing the same level over and over again for 10 years?

[JellyBean]

Oh Lord :banghead:

[unknowns8]

it means you were part of a championship winning team

:rolleyes:

[Apogee]

So if your not playing for rings..then what are you playing for?
Lets just play basketball for fun and never amount to anything.. Its more for the players a feeling of accomplishment.

[Mr Exlax]

It's like playing video games. Beating/finishing the game is like winning a title. At some point, don't you want to beat your favorite video game instead of playing the same level over and over again for 10 years?

You ever been the best player on the court, but the other team was better than you overall and you lost? Does that mean you aren't as good as the other team's best player or are you still the best, but your team isn't?

[PJR]

They are very overrated. It's all about the team.

LeGawd could have never won a single title and he still is one of the greatest. Happy he got it though.

[Legends66NBA7]

So does that mean Dirk is better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? I look at the player, the team and the opponents.

I mentioned context before... it's a pretty complex assessment.

Rings should play a big factor.

It's not crazy to think Dirk's better than Malone and/or Barkley, at all.

Dirk's done more than enough in his career and as a player to be in conversation with them and over them as well, IMO.

[dude77]

[QUOTE=swi7ch]Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless. Carlos Boozer knows the real deal:

[I]

[pauk]

I still do operate under such logic (or illogic). Great star players fortunate enough to be a member of great teams are not automatically better players to me than great star players stuck with lame teams.

Even there its about context...

[Mr Exlax]

So if your not playing for rings..then what are you playing for?
Lets just play basketball for fun and never amount to anything.. Its more for the players a feeling of accomplishment.

You gotta read more than just the title. Read my first post. I should've put a better thread title lol

[Owl]

In a team sport, I don't find it terribly logical either. Every single great player's team success is dependent upon his teammates. There's a reason Kobe Bryant wasn't winning rings in 2006 and it has very little to do with his skill level. In contrast, there's a reason Kobe Bryant was winning rings in the early and late '00's and again it had to do with a lot more than his skill level.
Absolutely.:applause: :cheers:

Nobody can win a title alone, MJ didn't, Abdul-Jabbar didn't, Chamberlain didn't and those are aguably the three greatest players of all time. Indeed all of them played for below .500 teams in years close to their statistical peaks ('63 Warriors, '75 Bucks, '87 Bulls).

A single superstar individual can influence a teams performance more in basketball than in most other sports (1 of 5 players on a team, one of ten on the court), but they can still only account for a relatively small fraction of what is going on on the court overall. It's extraordinarily difficult to win a title without a superstar (especially since their was a cap placed on individual player salaries), but no superstar can win without a having a whole team at a sufficient level.

[swi7ch]

So does that mean Dirk is better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? I look at the player, the team and the opponents.
No, Dirk wouldn't win a title too if he played in the Jordan years. Luck has something to do with winning titles, too.

[Rake2204]

It's like playing video games. Beating/finishing the game is like winning a title. At some point, don't you want to beat your favorite video game instead of playing the same level over and over again for 10 years?
Again, I think the original post was in regards to a player's skill ranking, not a "Why do players even want to win?" thing.

[Mr Exlax]

I mentioned context before... it's a pretty complex assessment.

Rings should play a big factor.

It's not crazy to think Dirk's better than Malone and/or Barkley, at all.

Dirk's done more than enough in his career and as a player to be in conversation with them and over them as well, IMO.

I like how you put the IMO at the end. That's perfect actually. Means we can have a logical debate. So IYO, was Tim Duncan better than Hakeem?

[Mr Exlax]

Again, I think the original post was in regards to a player's skill ranking, not a "Why do players even want to win?" thing.

Rake that's 100% correct. I just don't know how to change the thread title lol.

[Sampsonsimpson]

They are subjective. You have to look at the context.

[Punpun]

Rings are everythinf for stars. Everything.

[Mr Exlax]

How do I change the thread title? I worded it wrong.

[Inactive]

They mean your team won the most games, in the playoffs. Their value in regards to an individual's legacy, or reputation is indefinite. It's entirely dependent on the feelings of the observer.

There isn't an easy so way to quantify a player's contribution towards winning a championship. There is no such thing as a superstar, roleplayer, or scrub. They are invented fan concepts, which we use to communicate the perceived contributions of an individual player, without having to think about it very much. Arbitrarily separating players by these subjective classifications, and then ranking them, by counting the number of championships that their team won, is anything but logical. In order for that to even begin to make sense, you'd have to acknowledge that you can quantify their contributions objectively, and then define specific criteria for each tier. However, once you've done that, you no longer need to count rings to determine who contributed more. You just compare them by the metrics you used to separate them into different tiers.

[Mr Exlax]

They mean your team won the most games, in the playoffs. Their value in regards to an individual's legacy, or reputation is indefinite. It's entirely dependent on the feelings of the observer.

There isn't an easy so way to quantify a player's contribution towards winning a championship. There is no such thing as a superstar, roleplayer, or scrub. They are invented fan concepts, which we use to communicate the perceived contributions of an individual player, without having to think about it very much. Arbitrarily separating players by these subjective classifications, and then ranking them, by counting the number of championships that their team won, is anything but logical. In order for that to even begin to make sense, you'd have to acknowledge that you can quantify their contributions objectively, and then define specific criteria for each tier. However, once you've done that, you no longer need to count rings to determine who contributed more. You just compare them by the metrics you used to separate them into different tiers.

Read my very first post. I worded the title wrong.

[Inactive]

Read my very first post. I worded the title wrong.Was my post not relevant to the thread? The question you posed was:


How does a ring make one player better than the other? My response was that they don't, and that the arguments for ring counting are flawed.

[Mr Exlax]

Was my post not relevant to the thread? The question you posed was:

My response was that they don't, and that the arguments for ring counting are flawed.

I honestly didn't read any part of your respsonse lol. It was so long so i just figured you were explaining to me what a championship ring was lol. I just read it. You're 100% on point with my thinking.

[G.O.A.T]

In a team sport, I don't find it terribly logical either. Every single great player's team success is dependent upon his teammates. There's a reason Kobe Bryant wasn't winning rings in 2006 and it has very little to do with his skill level. In contrast, there's a reason Kobe Bryant was winning rings in the early and late '00's and again it had to do with a lot more than his skill level.

Very much true, but in Basketball the superstar can impact his teammates performance a lot more than in any other team sport.

In basketball a player can (doesn't, but could) impact every single play. In baseball that's not the case at best your just over 50% and that's if you make every defensive play in the AL or throw a complete game in the NL. In football, again maybe half the plays at the most if everything worked out. In reality in both sports even the starting pitcher or quarterback your effecting around 40% of the plays in a game. In Hockey, the best players play just over a third of the game and the goalies often spend most of the game out of the action.

In last nights game LeBron James had a direct statistical impact on almost half his teams points. That doesn't factor in all fast breaks his rebounds, blocks or steals started nor does it account for all the points because of late defensive rotations off double teaming him, or the lanes he opened for teammates like Wade to drive through etc. etc. etc.

The star player in basketball (when his talents merit the status) is the most significant individual in all of team sports. Again using this years finals as a reference point. When Durant played better than LeBron in game one, OKC won. When LeBron played better than Durant in the next four, Miami won.

[Inactive]

I honestly didn't read any part of your respsonse lol. It was so long so i just figured you were explaining to me what a championship ring was lol. I just read it. You're 100% on point with my thinking.:cheers:

[Kovach]

"better" is a non-specific, grade-school adjective that only has meaning and use for irrelevant arguments on internet message boards.

As for what rings mean, well there is a reason why barely any ppl give a damn about King, English, Gervin or Ewing (among many others) regardless of what beasts they were in their primes.

History remembers the winners, losers fall into obscurity when their fanboy army either grows up or dies out.

[Rake2204]

Very much true, but in Basketball the superstar can impact his teammates performance a lot more than in any other team sport.

In basketball a player can (doesn't, but could) impact every single play. In baseball that's not the case at best your just over 50% and that's if you make every defensive play in the AL or throw a complete game in the NL. In football, again maybe half the plays at the most if everything worked out. In reality in both sports even the starting pitcher or quarterback your effecting around 40% of the plays in a game. In Hockey, the best players play just over a third of the game and the goalies often spend most of the game out of the action.

In last nights game LeBron James had a direct statistical impact on almost half his teams points. That doesn't factor in all fast breaks his rebounds, blocks or steals started nor does it account for all the points because of late defensive rotations off double teaming him, or the lanes he opened for teammates like Wade to drive through etc. etc. etc.

The star player in basketball (when his talents merit the status) is the most significant individual in all of team sports. Again using this years finals as a reference point. When Durant played better than LeBron in game one, OKC won. When LeBron played better than Durant in the next four, Miami won.
Yes, I'm with you there on many aspects. I do believe stars can seriously affect the game in a positive manner. However, again, it remains my belief that rings remain a poor manner of judging one's true ability.

To use Kobe Bryant as an example once more, I feel his superstar ability played a giant role in pushing those late '00's Lakers teams over the top. He was the difference. It was a pretty good team there. Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, and Kobe himself. Bryant took a talented team and used his stardom to push them over the top.

On the flip side, flashing back three years, Kobe Bryant was incredible. He shot a relatively high percentage, he averaged 35ppg and was just all around legendary. However, his supporting cast at that point consisted of the likes of Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Brian Cook (in addition to Odom). Somehow, Bryant was able to lead his group of upstarts (if that's what we want to call them) to the playoffs, where they lost in 7 games to the Suns. I felt that was a great accomplishment, and quite telling of Bryant's ability. But on that same hand, it wasn't close to being a ring, even thought there's no doubt Bryant was able to influence his team's performance perhaps on a greater scale than any other player in the league that year.

So from there, the question I'd have to ask is, would Kobe Bryant (assuming he'd play at a similar level) be any less great of a player if he had spent his entire career playing alongside Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, and Chris Mihm? I believe the answer is no. As such, I do not care for using team championships as a prime definition of individual greatness.

[Mr Exlax]

Yes, I'm with you there on many aspects. I do believe stars can seriously affect the game in a positive manner. However, again, it remains my belief that rings remain a poor manner of judging one's true ability.

To use Kobe Bryant as an example once more, I feel his superstar ability played a giant role in pushing those late '00's Lakers teams over the top. He was the difference. It was a pretty good team there. Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, and Kobe himself. Bryant took a talented team and used his stardom to push them over the top.

However, flashing back three years, Kobe Bryant was incredible. He shot a relatively high percentage, he averaged 35ppg and was just all around legendary. However, his supporting cast at that point consisted of the likes of Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Brian Cook (in addition to Odom). Somehow, Bryant was able to lead his group of upstarts (if that's what we want to call them) to the playoffs, where they lost in 7 games to the Suns. I felt that was a great accomplishment, and quite telling of Bryant's ability. But on that same hand, it wasn't close to being a ring, even thought there's no doubt Bryant was able to influence his team's performance perhaps on a greater scale than any other player in the league that year.

So from there, the question I'd have to ask is, would Kobe Bryant (assuming he'd play at a similar level) be any less great of a player if he had spent his entire career playing alongside Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, and Chris Mihm? I believe the answer is no. As such, I do not care for using team championships as a prime definition of individual greatness.

Rake I love you man!

[ThaRegul8r]

Does no one see the difference between LeBron's performance in last year's Finals versus this year's Finals? And which one did his team win and which did his team lose? There's no relationship there?

[Mr Exlax]

Does no one see the difference between LeBron's performance in last year's Finals versus this year's Finals? And which one did his team win and which did his team lose? There's no relationship there?

The defense he went up in this year's Finals is nowhere near as good as the defense he went up against last year. Do you not see that?

[Foster5k]

:oldlol:

Troll thread. Haters mad cause Lebron got his ring. Now people trying to act like championships don't matter. :roll:

[dunksby]

Leading a team to a ring is different than contributing to a championship team, how the **** do you not see that? :wtf:

[NumberSix]

LeBron and Shaq have the greatest championship runs since prime Michael Jordan.

[Mr Exlax]

:oldlol:

Troll thread. Haters mad cause Lebron got his ring. Now people trying to act like championships don't matter. :roll:

This isn't a troll thread lol. I'm actually a big lebron fan. I just don't see how people can say he's better now that he won a ring. If he had gotten injured in game 5 and missed the rest of the series, he wouldn't be as good as he is right now because he won?

[Mr Exlax]

Leading a team to a ring is different than contributing to a championship team, how the **** do you not see that? :wtf:

Well numbnuts I see it, but I don't see why certain players are judged on rings and others aren't. If the Lakers get a new coach and new PG and let's say they win a ring. Kobe would automatically be a better player than he was this year right? Even though his game didn't improve at all or anything. He just got a better team.

[jlauber]

Basketball is a TEAM game. It involves MULTIPLE factors. Five starters, bench players, key role players, coaching, and OPPOSITION. If it were not a team game, then how come MJ couldn't win a title in '86? And don't give me the fact that he played on a 30-52 team, and was swept by a 67-15 Celtic team with FIVE HOFers.

Of course, Chamberlain faced the SAME situation MANY times in his career. How about his 61-62 season, when in the post-season he single-handedly carried what had been the same basic LAST PLACE roster he joined in '60 (only older and worse) to a first round win over Syracuse, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. Then, as amazing as that was, think about this: His teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Now, how in the hell did ONE player get a TEAM that far?

How about Chamberlain's '64 post-season? He single-handedly carried what had been a 31-49 team the year before, to a 48-32 record. In the first round, he averaged 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and shot .559, and was able to get his team to a game seven win. Then, going up against Russell and his EIGHT other HOF teammates (and HOF coach) in the Finals, he took that trashy team to 4-1 series loss, BUT, the last two games of that series were decided in the last few seconds. How well did Wilt play in that series against Russell? He outscored Russell, per game, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg. He outrebounded Russell, per game, 27.2 rpg to 25.2 rpg. And he outshot Russell by an astonishing .517 to .386 margin.

How about Wilt in his '65 post-season. He single-handedly took his 40-40 Sixers (who had gone 34-46 the year before) to a first round 3-1 romp over the 48-32 Royals. Then, he took that crappy roster to a game seven, one point loss, against the 62-18 Celtics, in the ECF's.

Thanks to Julizaver, we have the seven game H2H's between Wilt and Russell in that series, too...


Game 1 - 04.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 33 points (13-22 FG and 7/12 FT) 31 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 48 min 11 points (5-13 FG and 1/5 FT) 32 rebounds, 6 assists

Game 2 - 06.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-19 FG and 6/9 FT) 39 rebs, 8 assists, 8 blocks
Russell 48 min 12 points (5-12 FG and 2/3 FT) 16 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks

Game 3 - 08.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 24 points (7-21 FG and 10/15 FT) 37 rebs, 1 assist, 1 steal
Russell 48 min 19 points (9-17 FG and 1/4 FT) 26 rebounds, 8 assists, 3 steals

Game 4 - 09.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 53 min 34 points (11-24 FG and 12/20 FT) 34 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 52 min 18 points (8-19 FG and 2/7 FT) 25 rebounds

Game 5 - 11.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals

Game 6 - 13.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (13-22 FG and 4/8 FT) 26 rebs, 4 assists, 6 blocks *at least
Russell 22 points (8-19 FG and 6/10 FT) 21 rebounds, 5 assists

Game 7 - 15.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-15 FG and 6/13 FT) 32 rebs, 2 assists, 1 block
Russell 15 points (7-16 FG and 1/2 FT) 29 rebounds, 8 assists, 6 blocks


The series averages:

W. Chamberlain - 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg 55.48 FG % and 58.33 FT%
B. Russell - 15.6 ppg, 25.3 rpg, 6.5* apg 44.67 FG % and 47.22 FT %

* no data available for Game 4, so averages for 6 games




Now, does ANYONE honestly believe that in those three series, that Russell was the better player?

[Kobe 4 The Win]

It's a results oriented world we live in. You can be the most talented, best player ever born but if at some point you can't win it all then your reputation is going to suffer. Great players are judged not only by their talent and skill but how they make the players around them better. Can you elevate the play of less talented teammates and take them to the promised land? You must do this in order to be among the best of all time.

If you are a player with amazing talent and you don't win people usually start wondering it there's something about you that explains that. Are you too selfish? Are you more concerned with money and women? Do you not have the will and the determination to be number one? Are you a locker room cancer? Are you a lazy player who doesn't like to practice or work hard in the off season, etc?

It's true that not every player gets drafted by the Lakers or the Celtics. Not every player has a Pippen, a Shaq, or a Wade to play with. Rings are over-rated to an extent. But to truly be considered one of the best of all time you better get at least one to two rings. It isn't always fair but at the end of the day that's just the way it is.

[andgar923]

[QUOTE=swi7ch]Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless. Carlos Boozer knows the real deal:

[I]

[DonDadda59]

I'll just put it like this- if Karl Malone was sitting on 2 or 3 championships when he retired, he'd be considered a bonafide top 10 player all time by most people. There would also be heated debates about who was the greater PF, he or Duncan. Right now, Malone as talented as he was and as much as he accomplished, is in neither of those discussions because he retired with 0 rings.

Leading your team to a championship does not enhance your skill/ability (but it is reliant on those things) but it most definitely affects your legacy and the perception of your greatness.

[longtime lurker]

Does no one see the difference between LeBron's performance in last year's Finals versus this year's Finals? And which one did his team win and which did his team lose? There's no relationship there?

LOL no it's all just luck. I have a theory that this rings doesn't matter line of thinking was created from the fact that people dislike Kobe. First it was that he needed Shaq to win, then when he proved that wrong the argument became "rings as the man". I can't think of any other player who's rings get diminished despite playing with multiple all star/hall of fame teammates. I have a hard time believing that before all these advanced stats metrics people really believed that rings don't matter.

[97 bulls]

The problem is people rank players differently. Far too often people mix accomplishments with talent. Roles are often penalized. Too much of a premium is put on scoring. And a players situation is rarely taken into account.

For these reasons, I try to stay away from "ranking" players.

Saying that, all awards are predicated on two major things. WINNING and POLITICS. You dont win MVPs, DPOYs, etc without being on the best teams. And most of the time players are "built" up to be the face of the league.

[guy]

Such a dumb argument thats always brought up. Do some of you think its just a coincidence that the consensus greatest players of all time have won multiple rings as the best player (i.e. Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe)? Or do some of you just greatly disagree with that consensus? Do you not think that those players were a huge reason, and usually the biggest reason, for their rings? Most of the time, the players that don't have rings don't have rings because there was a considerable flaw to their game/personality that the consensus didn't have whether its playing style, leadership, attitude, work ethic, durability, size, athleticism, and just overall dominance. It makes it harder to build around these players as opposed to that consensus I have mentioned. And don't give me that crap that Jordan or whoever stopped them from getting rings. Cause there's great players in every era that stop players from getting rings. So yes, rings do matter. Its not the end all be all, but its definitely important and says alot about one's legacy, and rightfully so.

And by the way, I can't recall that many great players that never had a supporting cast around him that was good enough to win a title unless there career was shortened due to injuries.

[Bigsmoke]

before LeBron won a ring= haha what a ringless king

after = u know what... rings are soooo overrated

[PJR]

The problem is people rank players differently. Far too often people mix accomplishments with talent. Roles are often penalized. Too much of a premium is put on scoring. And a players situation is rarely taken into account.

For these reasons, I try to stay away from "ranking" players.

Saying that, all awards are predicated on two major things. WINNING and POLITICS. You dont win MVPs, DPOYs, etc without being on the best teams. And most of the time players are "built" up to be the face of the league.

Good post.

[Mr Exlax]

I just don't see the logic of saying a player is better after he wins a ring. His career accomplishments get better for sure, but his skill level doesn't change. Did KG get better after he won the ring in Boston? How exactly is Tim Duncan better than him? Like in what facet of the game of basketball is Duncan better than KG? Yet, people still say Timmy D is the best PF ever. What are they basing that on?

[lilgodfather1]

Some rings mean different things than others do. For example LeBron's one ring means more than Kobe's first three.

[guy]

I just don't see the logic of saying a player is better after he wins a ring. His career accomplishments get better for sure, but his skill level doesn't change. Did KG get better after he won the ring in Boston? How exactly is Tim Duncan better than him? Like in what facet of the game of basketball is Duncan better than KG? Yet, people still say Timmy D is the best PF ever. What are they basing that on?

Duncan's a better big game performer and much better at his decision-making as far as deciding when to take over and when to defer. Thats the biggest difference between the two. The difference between the two is basically KG lets his unselfishness dictate his decision-making. Duncan does not.

[jlauber]

Why didn't MJ win a ring in the late 80's, and in some of his most brilliant seasons? Hell, he didn't win a ring in NINE of his 15 seasons (and played on FIVE losing teams, as well.)

Bird, playing alongside 3-4 more HOFers every season in his 13 years, played on teams that did not win a title in 10 of them.

Duncan, who has never played on a team that did not win at least 50 games (except in a strike season in which his team went 37-13), has played on 11 teams that did not win a ring.

Jerry "Mr. Clutch" West played on 12 teams that did not win a title, including a Finals in which he averaged 38 ppg and won the FMVP. BTW, in the one year in which he did win a ring, he shot .376 in his 15 post-season games, and .325 in the Finals.

Baylor never even won a ring, and overall, played on 13 teams that did not win a title.

Kareem has six rings. He also played on 14 teams that did not win a title.

Shaq has four rings, but, he played on 15 teams that did not win a ring.

And Hakeem, who played 18 seasons, played on 16 teams that did not win a title, three of which did not make the playoffs, and then on eight that were eliminated in the first round.


Meanwhile, Russell's HOF-laden faced Wilt's teams eight times in the playoffs. Chamberlain, saddled with pathetic rosters in the first half of his career, and in those, his teammates were even worse in the post-season, took the Celtic Dynasty to FOUR game seven's, and even though they lost all four, the margins were 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. So, Chamberlain came within nine points, in four games, of having a 5-3 edge against Russell in H2H battles.

Not only that, but how about this? In the '66 ECF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 to Russell's Celtics going into game five. In that clinching game five loss, all Wilt did was score 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, to go along with 34 rebounds (Russell played well with an 18-31 game.)

Ok, a year later, and now it was Russell who was facing the exact same scenario. His 60-21 Celtics were down 3-1 (having barely avoided a sweep in game four.) How did Russell respond when he was faced with the same situation as Chamberlain dealt with the year before? He quietly went like a lamb to slaught. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Wilt scored 29 points (22 coming in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocked shots. Now, if Russell were truly a greater player than Wilt, how could he allow this to happen? How could he only score FOUR points, when it was obvious that his teammates, who were finally equalled by Wilt's, depended on him to do more?


Another example: In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, in which he was saddled with arguably the worst roster in NBA history (FIFTEEN players, several of whom would only play a couple of years) went 31-49. How bad was that roster? The very next season, the Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum, ran a scimmage, sans Wilt, in which his Warriors faced a team of draft picks and scrubs. Guess which team won?

Anyway, Wilt played 47.6 mpg that season. And, while that team only went 31-49, they had a point differential of only -2.1 ppg. In fact, they lost 35 games by single digits, and only played in eight games that were decided by 20+ points (going 4-4.) Chamberlain played his heart out, though. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had there been offensive rebounding, defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, blocked shots, etc., he would have led in more.) He not only averaged 44.8 ppg, but he won the scoring title by +10.8 ppg. He easily won the rebounding title, at 24.3 rpg. He set a then-record FG% mark of .528 (BTW, his teammates collectively shot .412...and the worst team in the league shot .427.) He even had the highest WIN SHARES in the league (and by a large margin.) In fact, his was directly responsible for nearly 70% of his team's wins. And his PER of 31.8 is the all-time record.

Ok, a few years later, in his 65-66 season, Wilt again LED the NBA in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and sets a then-record FG% mark of .540, in a league that shot .433. He even handed out 5.2 apg. Overall, he LED the league in 13 statistical categories. Oh, and BTW, his TEAM went 55-25 and had the BEST RECORD in the league.

What changed?

How about this example? In Kareem's 71-72 season, and playing on a team that went 63-19, he logged a career high in minutes played, at 44.2 mpg. This, on a team that had a +11.1 ppg point differential. In the process, he led the league in scoring, at 34.8 ppg, and was among the leaders in FG% at .574. He also grabbed 16.6 rpg. Once again, on a 63-19 team that had that +11.1 ppg differential.

A few years later he was traded to a Laker team that had gone 30-52 the year before. Ok, now here was his opportunity to REALLY carry a team, and show the world that he could put up Chamberlain-type numbers. How did he respond? He could only play 41.2 mpg. His scoring dropped to 27.7 ppg. And he shot .529 from the floor (which was the third worst mark of his first 18 seasons in the league.) He did lead the league in rebounding, though, at 16.9 rpg. And, not conincidently, his team only went 40-42, and didn't make the playoffs.

Oh, and then think about this: Kareem won the MVP award in that 75-76 season, too. The only time a player on a losing team won the award. Meanwhile, where did Chamberlain finish in the MVP balloting on his 62-63 team? He came in SEVENTH. In fact, Red Kerr beat him out in the voting...which was comical. Why? Because in their 8 H2H's, Chamberlain only outscored Kerr by an average margin of 43-19 ppg...which included games in which he outscored Kerr by 61-21, and get this, 70-14. Hell, Wilt, playing on a 31-49 team, received less first place votes than Terry Dischinger (who?), who played on a 25-55 team!

And yet, Chamberlain playing essentially the same exact way a few years later, plays on a team that has the best record in the league, and he easily won the MVP (the first of three in row.)

[greymatter]

Somewhere between everything and nothing is the only thing everyone can agree on.

If Pip had torn his ACL before he came into his own, Jordan probably never wins a title and he'd be ranked somewhere outside of the top 7-8 all time. If Richard Dumas hadn't become a coke-head, he could very well have developed into an all-star caliber player and Barkley would probably then have at least 1 title.

Rings are a team accomplishment. There are a myriad of factors that superstars have no control over that determine whether or not they come away with a title. Lebron was a Bosh injury away from coming up short this season and needed huge lifts from Battier and Chalmers to get his. The Bulls were a Rose injury away from competing for one. Durant probably would have gotten his this year if Harden hadn't gone totally cold in the finals.

[97 bulls]

Such a dumb argument thats always brought up. Do some of you think its just a coincidence that the consensus greatest players of all time have won multiple rings as the best player (i.e. Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe)? Or do some of you just greatly disagree with that consensus? Do you not think that those players were a huge reason, and usually the biggest reason, for their rings? Most of the time, the players that don't have rings don't have rings because there was a considerable flaw to their game/personality that the consensus didn't have whether its playing style, leadership, attitude, work ethic, durability, size, athleticism, and just overall dominance. It makes it harder to build around these players as opposed to that consensus I have mentioned. And don't give me that crap that Jordan or whoever stopped them from getting rings. Cause there's great players in every era that stop players from getting rings. So yes, rings do matter. Its not the end all be all, but its definitely important and says alot about one's legacy, and rightfully so.

And by the way, I can't recall that many great players that never had a supporting cast around him that was good enough to win a title unless there career was shortened due to injuries.
But let's be honest all of those great all time top ten players did have the best teams of their era for a significant amount of time. Not to mention we have a template for these types of situations. Do you think that its a coincidense that jabaar, jordan, chamberlain, and james didn't start winning until they had the absolute best team in the league? Jabaar was considered a loser until magic and worthy came along. Jordan was a ball hog until pippen and grant matured. And chamberlain is still penalized to this day for losing to the celtics all those years. Shaq was in the league almost ten years before he started winning.

Bill Russel and Magic Johnson never had bad teams. Ever. We don't know how they would fair if they were to be put in a similar situation to the players above. In fact, if you were to replace magic with stockton, there's no doubt in my mind the lakers are better. Why? Cuz stockton was a much better defender, and shooter. And still had all the qualiies that made magic great.

Larry Bird played with four hall of famers. And is a classic case of politics. He had no business being voted to the all defense teams he was on. How can you be considered one of the best defenders in the league when your coach tries to hide you on defense.


I could go on and on.

[97 bulls]

Somewhere between everything and nothing is the only thing everyone can agree on.

If Pip had torn his ACL before he came into his own, Jordan probably never wins a title and he'd be ranked somewhere outside of the top 7-8 all time. If Richard Dumas hadn't become a coke-head, he could very well have developed into an all-star caliber player and Barkley would probably then have at least 1 title.

Rings are a team accomplishment. There are a myriad of factors that superstars have no control over that determine whether or not they come away with a title. Lebron was a Bosh injury away from coming up short this season and needed huge lifts from Battier and Chalmers to get his. The Bulls were a Rose injury away from competing for one. Durant probably would have gotten his this year if Harden hadn't gone totally cold in the finals.
Great post

[guy]

Bill Russel and Magic Johnson never had bad teams. Ever. We don't know how they would fair if they were to be put in a similar situation to the players above. In fact, if you were to replace magic with stockton, there's no doubt in my mind the lakers are better. Why? Cuz stockton was a much better defender, and shooter. And still had all the qualiies that made magic great.



:oldlol: WOW. No response needed.

[DonDadda59]

before LeBron won a ring= haha what a ringless king

after = u know what... rings are soooo overrated

you have a point. I remember after bron won his third mvp there was a thread questioning the worth of the award. Some people claimed it was meaningless, but it seemed like they only took that stance since they wanted to mitigate the historical significance of a player winning 3.

i jumped off the lebron bandwagon after the decision but damn, give the man his just dues. it takes a very special talent to rack up mvps and lead his team to championships. guy is clearly the best player of his generation and he just had one of the best seasons of any player ever. his work this past season definitely moved him up the all time rankings.

[Batchoy]

Great postNo, it wasn't a "great post". He is dealing with what if's and assumptions. It's like saying Kobe would have just been another Allen Iverson if he wasn't traded to The Lakers and stayed with Charlotte. You can assume just about anything because it never happened.

[livingby3's]

its simply being capable to win, and being capable and in the right position to win.

of course, more often than not a true great is able to will his team to a ring.
but in the end its still about team success, achieving heights together as a unit. the point to highlight is that you can't just take away points from a player's overall talent just because of him being in an entirely bad position to win.

Ranking players should really be more specific because always it's still ranking players based on overall career's achievements rather than their raw talents/abilities.

the earlier post using Kobe as an example was perfect for this thread.
Winning a ring with Gasol and Bynum, or a first round exit with a Smush or Kwame. Being in the right place to win doesn't not make you any more capable as a player, neither should being in the wrong place takes anything from you.

[guy]

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe

Thats the consensus top 10 in no order. They have led their teams to multiple rings as well, which I don't think is a coincidence, but lets just ignore that fact. Can someone come up with a good argument that doesn't take rings into account that would put any ringless player, one ring player, or player that was never the best player on any championship team over any of the above? Lets not include players who's careers are far from over. Cause if you can't, or if its not that many players, then you will see that the greatest players leading teams to multiple rings is not a coincidence and more of a cause and effect.

[jlauber]

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe

Thats the consensus top 10 in no order. They have led their teams to multiple rings as well, which I don't think is a coincidence, but lets just ignore that fact. Can someone come up with a good argument that doesn't take rings into account that would put any ringless player, one ring player, or player that was never the best player on any championship team over any of the above? Lets not include players who's careers are far from over. Cause if you can't, or if its not that many players, then you will see that the greatest players leading teams to multiple rings is not a coincidence and more of a cause and effect.

Well said.

One more time, though. There is just no way to determine a "greatest" player by TEAM success. Now, if every "great" started out the season with the same roster, and a fully healthy one, as the next "great"...then, yes, you would have a good indication as to who the greatest player ever was.

But, as I have pointed out, many of the "greats" were saddled with poor rosters for at least portions of their careers, and some had incompetent coaching, too. Not only that, but you also have to take their competition into account. Oscar played with Lucas (and loaded rosters); and West and Baylor, with a plethora of quality teammates...and those groups didn't win ONE ring (yes, Oscar and West each won one later, ...Oscar as a secondary player, and West being carried by Chamberlain in the post-season.) Why" Because they played in the era of the "Celtic Dynasty" with teams that had between FIVE to NINE HOFers.

My god, the '72 Knicks had FIVE HOFers and the '73 Knicks had SIX.

[ihoopallday]

This thread just validates what most LeBron haters failed to realize. LeBron had a shitty team in Cleveland and still took them to the finals. That wasn't team basketball being played. That was a guy carrying a team. Now that he's won, it makes even his biggest stans realize that only a team can win it. Not one person. I still think the ring argument is a bad way to compare players.

[jlauber]

This thread just validates what most LeBron haters failed to realize. LeBron had a shitty team in Cleveland and still took them to the finals. That wasn't team basketball being played. That was a guy carrying a team. Now that he's won, it makes even his biggest stans realize that only a team can win it. Not one person. I still think the ring argument is a bad way to compare players.

True. Still, as Guy pointed out...no one would have ever ranked Lebron in the Top-10 without a ring at some point...especially given the fact that he was playing with a solid supporting cast in Miami.

Garnett is a great example. He languished on pathetic teams for much of his career. When he was finally paired up with Allen, Pierce, and Rondo...they went 66-16 and won a title. Granted, they have been riddled by injuries since (including Garnett, himself), and are past their primes, but one can only wonder how many rings Garnett would have won with that group earlier in his career (well, obviously without Rondo)?

[Rake2204]

True. Still, as Guy pointed out...no one would have ever ranked Lebron in the Top-10 without a ring at some point...especially given the fact that he was playing with a solid supporting cast in Miami.
Not to split hairs, but I believe LeBron James would have ended up as one of my ten best NBA players of all-time regardless or whether he'd won an NBA Championship. His historic skill and ability is quite stark and clear to me. The levels at which he's been able to raise the teams he's played for has also spoken volumes. It's not as if he's spent his career putting up big stats but offering no positive effect on the court. He's vastly improved every team he's played on, it's just many times even a giant improvement wasn't enough for a ring. I understand that, and I understand it doesn't mean he's any less of a player than he is.

[jlauber]

Not to split hairs, but I believe LeBron James would have ended up as one of my ten best NBA players of all-time regardless or whether he'd won an NBA Championship. His historic skill and ability is quite stark and clear to me. The levels at which he's been able to raise the teams he's played for has also spoken volumes. It's not as if he's spent his career putting up big stats but offering no positive effect on the court. He's vastly improved every team he's played on, it's just many times even a giant improvement wasn't enough for a ring. I understand that, and I understand it doesn't mean he's any less of a player than he is.

I think the single ring has validated his career. Now, if he wins even one more, along with a FMVP, and he is Top-10...and past Hakeem, Moses, and Bird.

[ihoopallday]

I think the single ring has validated his career. Now, if he wins even one more, along with a FMVP, and he is Top-10...and past Hakeem, Moses, and Bird.

Agree

[Anaximandro1]

Derrick Fisher has 5 rings and Jason Kidd has 1, but everybody considers Jason Kidd a better player. Derrick Fisher just happened to be part of a better team right? Same thing with Tim Duncan and Hakeem. Duncan has more rings, but The Dream was way better in every major category. Duncan just happen to be on a better team. Why does the meaning of the rings depend on which players? Is Andrew Bynum better than Dwight Howard only because of the ring? Dwight has better numbers across the board, but Bynum has been on a better team? I don't get the logic.
Seems reasonable to a certain extent.Olajuwon is better than Duncan (I'm a Spurs fan btw),but what you said here is completely false.

Playoffs

Duncan (190 games) - 22.3 pt (50.1%),12.1 rb,3.4 as,2.53 blk; 8.0 fta, 5.4 ft

Olajuwon (145 games) - 25.9 pt (52.8%),11.2 rb,3.2 as,3.25 blk,7.1 fta,5.1 ft

Olajuwon is the better shotblocker.He also is the better scorer due to his incredible ability to create and make tough shots.He was completely unguardable.That's the only advantages he has.


Did KG get better after he won the ring in Boston? How exactly is Tim Duncan better than him? Like in what facet of the game of basketball is Duncan better than KG? Yet, people still say Timmy D is the best PF ever. What are they basing that on?

On the offensive side Duncan's back-to-the-basket game and dominance in the paint enables him to score more,grab more rebounds,draw more fouls (watch Game 7 vs Pistons) and double teams and create more space for the perimeter players.Come playoff time,the young Duncan was an offensive juggernaut.


Playoff career (large enough sample size)

Duncan vs Shaq - Games 30 (15 - 15)
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=onealsh01)

Duncan 25.6 pt (48.5%),3.8 as,3.8 orb,9.7 fta

Shaq 22.4 pt (52.6%),2.2 as,4.3 orb,10.5 fta

Duncan vs Dirk- Games 26 (14 - 12 )
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=nowitdi01)

Duncan 26.0 pt (53.9%),3.6 as,3.5 ofr,9.5 fta

Dirk 24.5 pt (49.8%),2.3 as,1.2 ofr,8.5 fta

Duncan vs Amare - Games 25 (15 -10)
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=stoudam01)
Duncan 23.8 pt (53.4%),3.0 as,4.7 ofr,8.6 fta

Amare 24.0 pt (51.1%).0.9 as,3.4 ofr,7.5 fta


To put it simple,Duncan is a much better offensive player than Garnett.

Playoff career

Duncan (190 games) 22.3 pt (50.1%),3.4 as,3.3 orb,8.0 fta

Garnett (125 games) 19.5 pt (47.6%),3.5 as,2.3 orb,4.4 fta



Somewhere between everything and nothing is the only thing everyone can agree on.
Yeah,but Lebron and Kobe were the best players over the last few years and their teams won three of the last four championships

Duncan and Shaq had the greatest individual playoff performances between 1999 - 2007 and their teams combined for 8 championships in 9 years

More of the same with Jordan and Olajuwon in the 90s and Magic and Bird in the 80s...

I can't comment on the NBA in the 60s and 70s. I don't know what happened to Wilt and Kareem (only three championships combined)


what's going on? Maybe superstars have a huge impact.Perhaps
it's easier to build a team around them because they make life easier for their teammates,they attract better players...

[Round Mound]

I mentioned context before... it's a pretty complex assessment.

Rings should play a big factor.

It's not crazy to think Dirk's better than Malone and/or Barkley, at all.

Dirk's done more than enough in his career and as a player to be in conversation with them and over them as well, IMO.

:roll: :oldlol: :facepalm :rolleyes: :no:

[Mr Exlax]

you have a point. I remember after bron won his third mvp there was a thread questioning the worth of the award. Some people claimed it was meaningless, but it seemed like they only took that stance since they wanted to mitigate the historical significance of a player winning 3.

i jumped off the lebron bandwagon after the decision but damn, give the man his just dues. it takes a very special talent to rack up mvps and lead his team to championships. guy is clearly the best player of his generation and he just had one of the best seasons of any player ever. his work this past season definitely moved him up the all time rankings.

You should read everything before you go flying off the handle. I'm not taking anything away from Lebron. He's my second favorite player. Has been for years. I'm saying I don't get how before Thursday people had him outside of the top 10 all time then after Thursday he's in their top 10. I base my rankings off of player's skills and not on team success. Again, I go back to being the best player on the court, but having the worst team. Like when people say Bill Russell is better than Wilt. I'm like WTF?

[Mr Exlax]

Seems reasonable to a certain extent.Olajuwon is better than Duncan (I'm a Spurs fan btw),but what you said here is completely false.

Playoffs


Olajuwon is the better shotblocker.He also is the better scorer due to his incredible ability to create and make tough shots.He was completely unguardable.That's the only advantages he has.



On the offensive side Duncan's back-to-the-basket game and dominance in the paint enables him to score more,grab more rebounds,draw more fouls (watch Game 7 vs Pistons) and double teams and create more space for the perimeter players.Come playoff time,the young Duncan was an offensive juggernaut.


Playoff career (large enough sample size)

Duncan vs Shaq - Games 30 (15 - 15)
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=onealsh01)

Duncan vs Dirk- Games 26 (14 - 12 )
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=nowitdi01)

Duncan vs Amare - Games 25 (15 -10)
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=stoudam01)


To put it simple,Duncan is a much better offensive player than Garnett.

Playoff career




Yeah,but Lebron and Kobe were the best players over the last few years and their teams won three of the last four championships

Duncan and Shaq had the greatest individual playoff performances between 1999 - 2007 and their teams combined for 8 championships in 9 years

More of the same with Jordan and Olajuwon in the 90s and Magic and Bird in the 80s...

I can't comment on the NBA in the 60s and 70s. I don't know what happened to Wilt and Kareem (only three championships combined)


what's going on? Maybe superstars have a huge impact.Perhaps
it's easier to build a team around them because they make life easier for their teammates,they attract better players...


As far as Hakeem and Tim's stats, I'm looking at career averages. Just during the playoffs doesn't tell me enough.

[madmax17]

So does that mean Dirk is better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? I look at the player, the team and the opponents.It's close, you could say Malone and Barkley were the better season players but none of them upped their game like Nowitzki did in the finals, quite the opposite Malone was a let-down, Dirk earned his ring by going into beast mode.

[97 bulls]

You should read everything before you go flying off the handle. I'm not taking anything away from Lebron. He's my second favorite player. Has been for years. I'm saying I don't get how before Thursday people had him outside of the top 10 all time then after Thursday he's in their top 10. I base my rankings off of player's skills and not on team success. Again, I go back to being the best player on the court, but having the worst team. Like when people say Bill Russell is better than Wilt. I'm like WTF?
So based off of skill, whos in your top 10?

[talkingconch]

its pretty significant

[97 bulls]

No, it wasn't a "great post". He is dealing with what if's and assumptions. It's like saying Kobe would have just been another Allen Iverson if he wasn't traded to The Lakers and stayed with Charlotte. You can assume just about anything because it never happened.
All of our discussions are based on "what ifs?". When you eliminate that term. Then you penalize alot of players.

Lets face it. There is no set system to determine whos greater. In another post I stated that I feel John Stockton wouldve won just as many championships as magic had he been put in Magics role. Steve Nash too.

[Mr Exlax]

If Ray Allen missed that 3 and Miami lost, I wouldn't rank LeBron any higher or lower than I do right now. Rings don't determine the skill level or impact that a player has. Did LeBron become an even better player instantly once they won game 7? Better player, Lebron at the start of game 7 or Lebron at the end of game 7? Lebron at the start has 1 ring. Lebron at the end has 2.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Rings are overrated in general. LeBron could have retired with no rings and you still couldn't convince me players like Kobe, Dr. J, West, Moses Malone, etc were better players. Now that he has got some? Great. But its his MVPs and impact on team basketball that fascinate me the most.

[Mr Exlax]

Rings are overrated in general. LeBron could have retired with no rings and you still couldn't convince me players like Kobe, Dr. J, West, Moses Malone, etc were better players. Now that he has got some? Great. But its his MVPs and impact on team basketball that fascinate me the most.

I totally agree with you. I don't see how these people on this board say Dirk is better than Charles Barkley because he won a ring and got Finals MVP. Rings matter that much to some folks I guess.

[SilkkTheShocker]

its pretty significant


When comparing achievements? Sure. Most people tell you LeBron James was a better player than Kobe Bryant was, even with his 3 extra sidekick rings. A lot of it circumstance. Some players get drafted to the Lakers, Spurs, etc. And some get drafted to Cleveland, Toronto, etc.

[AintNoSunshine]

it's only part of the resume

[kshutts1]

Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless.


Taking the rest out of the quote, cuz it's a stupid quote by Boozer...

But judging individual players by TEAM wins/rings has always seemed illogical to me. Players can play exceptionally well and their team can still lose. Doesn't mean that player played poorly.

[kshutts1]

Compare superstar rings to other superstars rings.

Compare role player rings to other role player rings.

They all need to be put under context.

Does that answer the logic ?

A superstar still needs the roleplayers and coaches to do their jobs well.

Roleplayers need their coaches and superstars to do their jobs well.

A coach needs his role players and superstars to do their jobs well.

So again... what's this context you speak of? Team wins should not greatly influence individual's rankings/greatness.

[SilkkTheShocker]

I totally agree with you. I don't see how these people on this board say Dirk is better than Charles Barkley because he won a ring and got Finals MVP. Rings matter that much to some folks I guess.

I had Dirk pretty high on my all-time list even before he won a ring. His Finals teams were nothing to write home about. Especially the 06 team. Undefeated in game 7s, great playoff runs, Mavs won at least 50 games for over a decade, etc.

[Mr Exlax]

I had Dirk pretty high on my all-time list even before he won a ring. His Finals teams were nothing to write home about. Especially the 06 team. Undefeated in game 7s, great playoff runs, Mavs won at least 50 games for over a decade, etc.

Do you have Dirk higher than Barkley? When I think of all-time lists though I'm not thinking career accomplishments. I think skill.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Do you have Dirk higher than Barkley? When I think of all-time lists though I'm not thinking career accomplishments. I think skill.


I have all 3 somewhere from 12-17. I need to take the time and make a top 25 one day.

[Flamboyant]

I will try to give a simple answer:

Rings don't make players/coaches better. But they do make them greater.

And while I don't think they should be irrelevant when rating a player, I believe that rings are overrated. For example to me Jason Kidd and Kevin Garnett are easily top 10 best, but sadly their greatness won't be a true reflection of how good they actually were. And to me it's not simply just a matter of winning or not. It's a matter of how much you want it, and these two were willing to leave their all on the court. To me that counts just as much as some of the rings won by other players, if not more. But in future these things will be forgotten, and only those who won will be remembered. Sadly this is how it works.

[DKLaker]

Compare superstar rings to other superstars rings.

Compare role player rings to other role player rings.

They all need to be put under context.

Does that answer the logic ?

:sleeping :sleeping :sleeping :sleeping :sleeping

[sc19]

Finals MVP is all that counts. Having rings means that you're a Certified Roleplayer who passed the Finals exam.