Why are rings so overvalued in this sport?

[moe94]

Why are they used to compare, evaluate and dictate the individual abilities of players? They are, by inherent nature, absolutely irrelevant in discussing the value of a single player.

Why are certain players elevated because they won rings while others are considered losers?

I mean, is Dirk really a better player than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? Was Duncan substantially better than Garnett, a player who likely had a greater peak, to the point where people laugh off the idea that KG might have been a better player?

[PickernRoller]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Why is OP baffled by such a simple question?

[moe94]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Why is OP baffled by such a simple question?

The Laker fan scoffs at the question. This is truly unexpected.

[HoopsFanNumero1]

What an original topic. How ever did you come up with it?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Rings are more valued in Basketball compared to other team sports because 1 player has a much greater impact on a game than say a sport like Football or Hockey.

[Clyde]

The arguements of better player and better career are two separate things

[moe94]

Rings are more valued in Basketball compared to other team sports because 1 player has a much greater impact on a game than say a sport like Football or Hockey.
Of course, but why is it used to judge players?

Player A = better stats, no rings, lost in finals
Player B = worse stats, 3 rings

Player B > Player A

Am I doing it right?

[PickernRoller]

The Laker fan scoffs at the question. This is truly unexpected.

Well, we have standards :lol

[Fresh Kid]

cuz cowards and quitters with no heart like lebron can "CHEAT" to get some

[PickernRoller]

Of course, but why is it used to judge players?

Player A = better stats, no rings, lost in finals
Player B = worse stats, 3 rings

Player B > Player A

Am I doing it right?

It's actually simple.

Kobe > Lebron
5 > 2.

[moe94]

cuz cowards and quitters with no heart like lebron can "CHEAT" to get some

This guy literally has Carmelo, Jr Smith and Tyson Chandler on his avatar and Amare was supposed to save his garbage franchise. The mecca, right?

[PickernRoller]

This guy literally has Carmelo, Jr Smith and Tyson Chandler on his avatar and Amare was supposed to save his garbage franchise. The mecca, right?

How's that has to do with your topic? Carried away much...:oldlol:

[moe94]

How's that has to do with your topic? Carried away much...:oldlol:

Are you silly? He said something while clearly oblivious to the irony he was spewing. I thought it was a bit comical.

[Meticode]

It depends on the player. Rings help toward a legacy because 1 player can impact the game greater. But just because one player has more rings and bad stats doesn't mean he's a better player. You're not going to sit her and tell me Norris Cole is a great player or Adam Morrison obviously.

[Fresh Kid]

This guy literally has Carmelo, Jr Smith and Tyson Chandler on his avatar and Amare was supposed to save his garbage franchise. The mecca, right?
what tha phuck! dat gotta do wit wat we talkin' bout bruh?:biggums: :wtf: :confusedshrug: :biggums:

[FKAri]

Rings show consistency and an ability to fit into a team framework. Aside from that they don't mean anything when evaluating players on an individual basis.

[PickernRoller]

Are you silly? He said something while clearly oblivious to the irony he was spewing. I thought it was a bit comical.

I'll cut you some slack since I am being too harsh and sarcastic. On a serious note: basketball is a team sport = individuals help teams win. Team wins = result of individuals. Not hard to understand why rings, the ultimate team "prize" is a measurement of a player/s greatness. Last I checked mugs don't win rings, superstars usually do.

If you want to watch a sport where players are totally measured by individual prowess then watch boxing, tennis etc - individual sports. When it comes to baseball, basketball, hockey and football/soccer, team success is a parameter.

[Fresh Kid]

Are you silly? He said something while clearly oblivious to the irony he was spewing. I thought it was a bit comical.
yes its comical but true, even jordan thinks lebron's legacy iz very comical and dat spells out "no respect" and "tainted legacy" for lebum's sake.

[moe94]

yes its comical but true, even jordan thinks lebron's legacy iz very comical and dat spells out "no respect" and "tainted legacy" for lebum's sake.

I think by now Jordan's opinion on talent can be dismissed as utter garbage. :oldlol:

[CelticBaller]

You play to win the game

[moe94]

You play to win the game
You play for your contract.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Rings are more valued in Basketball compared to other team sports because 1 player has a much greater impact on a game than say a sport like Football or Hockey.

We have a winner!

To be among the best players ever you have to have at least one ring but preferably multiple rings. This doesn't mean that a role player with multiple rings is superior to a superstar player with no rings but when comparing the top tier players, rings loom large. This is not going to change so like Matt Barnes says, get used to it.

[moe94]

We have a winner!

To be among the best players ever you have to have at least one ring but preferably multiple rings. This doesn't mean that a role player with multiple rings is superior to a superstar player with no rings but when comparing the top tier players, rings loom large. This is not going to change so like Matt Barnes says, get used to it.

Can we consider the Duncan/Garnett comparison here? Would you agree they're absolutely comparable players from an impact and statistical standpoint?

Imagine a universe where Duncan was on those piss poor Wolves teams and Garnett was with Pop in SA. Does Duncan find success in what is arguably the worst run franchise in the league? Does Garnett not win with Robinson and then later Manu/Parker? Or do you believe Duncan crafted the latter two, as I've literally witnessed being argued.

If Duncan remained ringless and Garnett got a couple with SA, is Duncan still the better player?

[Fresh Kid]

Can we consider the Duncan/Garnett comparison here? Would you agree they're absolutely comparable players from an impact and statistical standpoint?

Imagine a universe where Duncan was on those piss poor Wolves teams and Garnett was with Pop in SA. Does Duncan find success in what is arguably the worst run franchise in the league? Does Garnett not win with Robinson and then later Manu/Parker? Or do you believe Duncan crafted the latter two, as I've literally witnessed being argued.

If Duncan remained ringless and Garnett got a couple with SA, is Duncan still the better player?
I agree Duncan iz overrated especially in 99 finals and 07 west semis.

[russwest0]

cuz cowards and quitters with no heart like lebron can "CHEAT" to get some

rep

[Fresh Kid]

rep
thank you.

[Magic 32]

I remember these kinds of threads :lol

Most of them disappeared in the summer of 2012.

[Mr. Jabbar]

its good to have an honest discussion on this topic, it's certainly a controversial matter. i'd like to point that most of the confusion comes from the inability to differentiate rings from asterisks

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Can we consider the Duncan/Garnett comparison here? Would you agree they're absolutely comparable players from an impact and statistical standpoint?

Imagine a universe where Duncan was on those piss poor Wolves teams and Garnett was with Pop in SA. Does Duncan find success in what is arguably the worst run franchise in the league? Does Garnett not win with Robinson and then later Manu/Parker? Or do you believe Duncan crafted the latter two, as I've literally witnessed being argued.

If Duncan remained ringless and Garnett got a couple with SA, is Duncan still the better player?

I'm not a big fan of what ifs. In real life there is only what is.

I love KG's game one of the best players ever. However, you can't look at a guy like Duncan and not give him credit for winning like he did. He was a big reason that they got all those chips. Did he have a leg up on KG because of his coach and his supporting cast? Of course he did. Problem is, life's not fair. All things are not equal. Duncan was in a position to win those rings and he got it done. Now if he went to the finals 5 times and was 1 for 4 then we could talk.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Why are they used to compare, evaluate and dictate the individual abilities of players? They are, by inherent nature, absolutely irrelevant in discussing the value of a single player.

Why are certain players elevated because they won rings while others are considered losers?

I mean, is Dirk really a better player than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? Was Duncan substantially better than Garnett, a player who likely had a greater peak, to the point where people laugh off the idea that KG might have been a better player?
bold = huge hyperbole. Believe me, I'm not a supporter of using rings as the primary measurement of greatness. We've discussed how I prefer actual court play to judge any player. But rings do "matter" in the sense that they reflect a player's performance, contribution, etc to some extent. Obviously a lot of factors play in - team mates, coaches, competition, etc. But rings still reflect on a player (at least a great player) in some way. If 2 players had identical godly regular season stats and were both on consistent top-2 seed playoff teams, shouldn't the guy w/ 5 rings be rightfully perceived as a more valuable asset than the guy w/ 0 rings?

I mean, I think TMac at his peak had better overall skills than Kobe. But replace Kobe w/ TMac on those title-winning LAL teams, and you can't guarantee TMac gets 5 rings. The team dynamic, on the court, may change for the worse, you just don't know. Rings reflect something, though i'm not quite sure what it is definitively.

Btw, isn't this almost ironic? You, who thinks stats are the only measurement of a player's skill, thinks the stat of titles is irrelevant?


Rings are more valued in Basketball compared to other team sports because 1 player has a much greater impact on a game than say a sport like Football or Hockey.

It depends on the player. Rings help toward a legacy because 1 player can impact the game greater. But just because one player has more rings and bad stats doesn't mean he's a better player. You're not going to sit her and tell me Norris Cole is a great player or Adam Morrison obviously.
qft. Team sport rings only "matter" if you're a basketball player or QB. It's all about the disproportionate effect on the game.

Pluse as meticode said, it's more about the legacy, than actual skill/ability, fair or not.


If you want to watch a sport where players are totally measured by individual prowess then watch boxing, tennis etc - individual sports. When it comes to baseball, basketball, hockey and football/soccer, team success is a parameter.
not completely true. I'm almost certain baseball players aren't judged by team success at all, in regards to their historical greatness/legacy. It really only matters when voting for season MVP. Baseball only care about stats...

Soccer judges almost exclusively by the eye test - or on-field performance - which I love. It truly is about how you perform on the pitch. So many players get like 30 domestic goals a year but aren't considered to be great compared to another player who gets like 15 or 20. Formation, technique, team mates, etc are all completely understood by fans and analysts to effect stats and hardware. It's why if Messi or Ronaldo never won any hardware, they'd still be considered the 2 best players in the world. B/c they simply are based on their skill, ability, and technique.

[moe94]

its good to have an honest discussion on this topic, it's certainly a controversial matter. i'd like to point that most of the confusion comes from the inability to differentiate rings from asterisks

You're a mystery. It's almost like you cannot stop trolling even when you want to be sincere.

[russwest0]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTCxcNICYAArJv9.jpg

Nah but forreal do lets see LeFlop win anything without Wade before we get impressed.

Wade won without LeFlop and Kobe won without Shaq yet Bron hasn't won shit without his batman

[moe94]

It's why if Messi or Ronaldo never won any hardware, they'd still be considered the 2 best players in the world. B/c they simply are based on their skill, ability, and technique.

Considering they're far and away the best from a statistical standpoint, bad example. Zidane is a better one.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Considering they're far and away the best from a statistical standpoint, bad example. Zidane is a better one.
agreed, but I was using contemporary examples. I don't trust ISH posters to know anything about sports as recent as just 5 years ago. :oldlol:

[PickernRoller]

not completely true. I'm almost certain baseball players aren't judged by team success at all, in regards to their historical greatness/legacy. It really only matters when voting for season MVP. Baseball only care about stats...


It was an interesting read until the bold :facepalm

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

It was an interesting read until the bold :facepalm
How many rings does Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Ken Griffey Jr, Andre Dawson, Juan Marichal, Rod Carew, Mike Piazza, Don Mattingly, Gaylord Perry, Ron Santo, Carlton Fisk, Robin Yount, Harmon Killebrew, Tony Gwynn, Carl Yastrzemski, Willie McCovey, and Ty Cobb have? All are HoFers (or at least should be) and some considered the best at their positions in history, as well as considered in some top lists overall. But no one docks them for not winning the WS. Seriously, who the hell docks Ted Williams, Harmon Killebrew, Ty Cobb, or even Bonds (roids withstanding) for being ring-less? :facepalm

[francesco totti]

Rings is not a measure I go by. There are alot of variables, like who has better team..and who went against tougher opposition etc etc.

In football/soccer, its not the measure.Someone mentioned here.... Messi gets player of the year award, everyone acknolwedges him as the best...and he never won world cup. No one taking zidane over messi...

[Jameerthefear]

idk man. op is right. why does winning at the highest level of basketball in the world even matter? all about the stats!!!

[moe94]

idk man. op is right. why does winning at the highest level of basketball in the world even matter? all about the stats!!!

Michael Jordan is just a bald headed Nique, if he won no rings.

T-Mac was never, at any point, a top 5 player in the NBA.

[bdreason]

You play... to win... the game.


Players should not be praised for posting huge stats in losing efforts. That's why I was a bit dissapointed in last years All-Stars selections. It was the first time in a long time that the coaches seemed to ignore team success in favor of individual statistics.

[R.I.P.]

I mean, is Dirk really a better player than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? Was Duncan substantially better than Garnett, a player who likely had a greater peak, to the point where people laugh off the idea that KG might have been a better player?

Yes and Yes, Yes, No, Yes.

[bdreason]

I mean, is Dirk really a better player than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? Was Duncan substantially better than Garnett, a player who likely had a greater peak, to the point where people laugh off the idea that KG might have been a better player?


All of these guys are widely considered top 5 PF's... so I'm not sure why you are pretending people place a huge gap between them as far as rankings.

[longtime lurker]

What's the point of even playing without valuing rings? We should just have a regular season with a reward being absolutely nothing.

[Cone]

Yes and Yes, Yes, No, Yes.

this

[Nuff Said]

What's the point of even playing without valuing rings? We should just have a regular season with a reward being absolutely nothing.

Rings do matter, they're just overvalued like the op states. No one will argue that rings don't mean shit but they are not the single factor in ranking Omar's legacy. It's a team effort. There literally is no arguing against that. There is no difference in putting up huge monstrous stats in a losing game than putting the same exact stats in a winning effort. Your teammates were either playing better or the other team played worse. Just think about it, the consensus best player of all time doesn't even have the most rings. That should say enough right there.

[bdreason]

Just think about it, the consensus best player of all time doesn't even have the most rings. That should say enough right there.


If the consensus best player of all-time doesn't have the most rings... how are rings overrated?

If rings were overrated, then Bill Russell would be the undisputed GOAT, and guys like Steve Kerr and Robert Horry would be top 10 players.


The truth there are TONS of guys in the NBA that can put up huge stats if allowed to chuck at will... but there is a lot more that goes into winning basketball games then just scoring buckets.

[Legends66NBA7]

Rings with context is the key. Just gauge individual numbers of each ring, basically the entire playoff run. The tough part comes in as how gauge the competition and individual matchups. It's doable, but it needs a lot of analyzing.

[SpanishACB]

Why are they used to compare, evaluate and dictate the individual abilities of players?
Because the NBA has marketed the league that way.

They're equally responsible for creating the image of franchise player and glory hunting fan.

And this is the result of it.

[Nuff Said]

If the consensus best player of all-time doesn't have the most rings... how are rings overrated?

If rings were overrated, then Bill Russell would be the undisputed GOAT, and guys like Steve Kerr and Robert Horry would be top 10 players.


The truth there are TONS of guys in the NBA that can put up huge stats if allowed to chuck at will... but there is a lot more that goes into winning basketball games then just scoring buckets.

because outside of bill russel, rings count too heavily in judging one's legacy...going to miami was the smartest thing lebron ever did because if he would've stuck with the horrific cavs and never won a ring he'd be another malone or barkley...someone who just didn't have "it."

[JellyBean]

I dont think that rings are overvalued in basketball or any other sport. I think that rings are just another way to measure a career. Sports fans are pretty savvy enough to look at the players total body of work in order to say who is better or not. I mean look at Dan Marino in football. Is Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer better than Marino? So to me, rings are not overvalued in the NBA or any other sport. They are just another way to look at a players career.

[AussieG]

It's just a way to win arguements.

For someone like Jordan, Kobe or Shaq it's relevant.

For someone like Sasha Vujacic or Derek Fisher or Robert Horry.. less so.

It means something, but in arguments people always cling to whatever favours their side. And if there is one thing that fanboys love doing, it's arguing about their fave players.

[CelticBaller]

You play... to win... the game.


Players should not be praised for posting huge stats in losing efforts. That's why I was a bit dissapointed in last years All-Stars selections. It was the first time in a long time that the coaches seemed to ignore team success in favor of individual statistics.
Seriously, the goal of the game is to win it, it's not for X player scores Z amount of points. Those who put up the best stats while WINNING are usually considered to be top tier.

[nashwade]

Robert Horry



Rings do not mean everything

[gts]

Robert Horry



context does not mean a thing to me

fixed

edit:btw the OP has to be Starface/OldSkoolball#52... he's the only one who brings up this argument once every 6 months

[bukowski81]

Of course, but why is it used to judge players?

Player A = better stats, no rings, lost in finals
Player B = worse stats, 3 rings

Player B > Player A

Am I doing it right?

You think stats alone is what defines what player is better?? :facepalm

[bukowski81]

Michael Jordan is just a bald headed Nique, if he won no rings.

T-Mac was never, at any point, a top 5 player in the NBA.

But he did win rings, thats the point, he was able to elevate his game and his team game to a level that allowed them to win it all.

If you switch Jordan and Nique the Bulls dont win 6 titles and Nique isnt the GOAT.

[atljonesbro]

I sort of agree with OP. People don't just MAGICALLY get better with a ring. Like, "OH HEY THIS GUY IS THIS GOOD WITH 1 SEC LEFT IN THE 4TH QUARTER IN GAME 7. OH HIS TEAMMATE HIT A GAME WINNER HE WON A RING IT'S MAGiC HE'S A BETTER PLAYER."

Players are the exact same player ring or not. Yeah they're cool to add on a resume to compare players but they literally have zero affect on how good the player actually is.

[BoutPractice]

Impact on winning counts, but you can't compare players just by saying that one has more rings than the other.

For instance, Duncan has 4 rings and Kobe has 5. But if Ray Allen misses that 3 (something completely independent of Duncan's play), Duncan has 5 rings as well, along with a 4th FMVP. And Kobe could have only 4, independent of his play, if you remove the ref fix in 2002. So by the same standard you would have the exact same player either superior or inferior than the other.

[senelcoolidge]

Basketball is still a team game. One player will not win a team a championship. So I think rings are over valued here. It looks great on the resume, but it doesn't say that so and so player is a better basketball player. Some guys unfortunately are never on stacked teams, play for small market teams with little resources, or just have terrible luck (like playing during a dynasty..celtics/bulls). This doesn't mean that they are hall of fame great players.

[LAZERUSS]

Basketball is still a team game. One player will not win a team a championship. So I think rings are over valued here. It looks great on the resume, but it doesn't say that so and so player is a better basketball player. Some guys unfortunately are never on stacked teams, play for small market teams with little resources, or just have terrible luck (like playing during a dynasty..celtics/bulls). This doesn't mean that they are hall of fame great players.

Exactly.

MJ didn't play on a winning team in his first three seasons, went 1-9 in his first three playoff series, and didn't win a title until his seventh year. The reality was, he didn't win a title until he played with teammates that could go 55-27 without him (and who lost a close game seven to a NY team that would go on to lose a close game seven in the Finals.)

Shaq played on four title teams in his 19 seasons. He also played on .500teams, team's that did not make the playoffs, and SIX teams that were swept in the playoffs.

Bird played with HOF-laden rosters his entire career. Yes, he has three rings, but he also played on team's that lost with home court advantage SEVEN times.

KAJ could only win ONE ring in his prime, and that came in a year in which his Bucks faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without both West and Baylor, and a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals. He also played on two losing teams in that span, and two teams that didn't make the playoffs. Hell, he played on stacked teams that lost in the early rounds of the playoffs to teams with far less talent. And even in the 80's, and playing with players like Magic, Nixon, Wilkes, and Cooper...he had playoff losses against a 40-42 team.

Hakeem couldn't even get past the first round of the playoffs in over half of his post-season career, and in those his team's were generally wiped out. He didn't win a title until MJ took the year off, and then needed his teammates to step up huge the next year to win his second ring.

You can go right down the list. Even Duncan has "only" four rings in 16 seasons (going on 17 now.) KG languished on losing teams, and didn't win a ring until he finally had help. Kobe has five rings in 17 seasons, and in three he was a second banana, and in another one, he needed Gasol to have a huge playoff run. In fact, Kobe has had some awful playoff performances, and his shooting in the Finals has generally been horrific.

Was it MJ's fault that his 85-86 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics, in a series in which he averaged 44 ppg on .505 shooting? Was it McAdoo's fault his team lost a seven-game series to the 60-22 Bullets, in a series in which he averaged 37 ppg? Was it West's fault that his team lost a seven game Finals in a series in which he averaged 39 ppg? Was it King's fault that his team lost a seven game series against a 62-20 Celtic team in a series in which he averaged 29ppg on .550 shooting? Was it Chamberlain's fault that his 40-40 Sixer team lost a game seven, by one point, to a HOF-laden 62-18 Celtic team, and in a series in which he averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555 from the field?

[gts]

I dont think that rings are overvalued in basketball or any other sport. I think that rings are just another way to measure a career.

This...

Rings do have a high value if used in the proper context of the player's role and career.

When you take a player like Duncan, Jordan or Magic who's been with one team as a team leader for his entire career and has won multiple titles across a large span of time with multiple roster changes and keeps winning you have to take his rings into consideration... They aren't a fluke, they're real tangible assets in his ranking.

[TimmyDuncan]

Because stats are not enough to judge a player.

It's way more diificult to have great numbers in a championship caliber team
Look at Bosh and Wade numbers before and after the big 3.

[gts]

I'll add when using rings as a separator in rankings you're also talking about a handful of players in the history of the game that it actually applies to. You're not going to use Horry's 7 rings to put him into the discussion of all time greats.

[moe94]

I'll add when using rings as a separator in rankings you're also talking about a handful of players in the history of the game that it actually applies to. You're not going to use Horry's 7 rings to put him into the discussion of all time greats.

That's even worse. All the credit of the championships are thrust onto the best player as if he's solely responsible.

[gts]

That's even worse. All the credit of the championships are thrust onto the best player as if he's solely responsible.
In most cases he is...

Do the Spurs win those titles without Duncan? nope
Do the Heat win without Lebron? no even close.
Do the Bulls have 6 titles without Jordan? not on your life

Despite great coaches, despite being solid teams they don't win titles without those players leading them. That's why the rings do count.

[The Iron Fist]

I remember these kinds of threads :lol

Most of them disappeared in the summer of 2012.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[The Iron Fist]

You play... to win... the game.


Players should not be praised for posting huge stats in losing efforts. That's why I was a bit dissapointed in last years All-Stars selections. It was the first time in a long time that the coaches seemed to ignore team success in favor of individual statistics.
Exactly. To be called "CHAMPION". Does this new generation even know what it means anymore? Hard to tell since everyone in pee wee leagues is given a trophy or medal these days. Sissified generation.

[moe94]

Exactly. To be called "CHAMPION". Does this new generation even know what it means anymore? Hard to tell since everyone in pee wee leagues is given a trophy or medal these days. Sissified generation.

Such edgy social commentary. So ahead of your time.

[fpliii]

Rings in a vacuum perhaps, but if you look at level of contributions when evaluating, you won't have those problems.

The point of the game is to win championships, and if your play style isn't suited to succeeding in a team game, you need to change it up. Context is important which is why we don't go by raw ring count, but that ring is the goal each year.

[LilEddyCurry]

Because all the players in the GOAT list all have multiple rings. Without rings you cannot be considered one of the best players.

[riseagainst]

Can we consider the Duncan/Garnett comparison here? Would you agree they're absolutely comparable players from an impact and statistical standpoint?

Imagine a universe where Duncan was on those piss poor Wolves teams and Garnett was with Pop in SA. Does Duncan find success in what is arguably the worst run franchise in the league? Does Garnett not win with Robinson and then later Manu/Parker? Or do you believe Duncan crafted the latter two, as I've literally witnessed being argued.

If Duncan remained ringless and Garnett got a couple with SA, is Duncan still the better player?

that's the problem with assumptions like these. You'll never know for sure.

[LAZERUSS]

Because all the players in the GOAT list all have multiple rings. Without rings you cannot be considered one of the best players.

Actually, the GOAT players have generally won multiple rings. Not the other way around. They didn't become GOAT players by winning multiple rings. They were GOAT players who managed to win multiple rings.

[iamgine]

Rings should be valued in team context, not player context.