When did the "rings don't matter" thing start?

[The Iron Sheik]

i remember it really starting to become a staple in the kobe stans vs. lebron stans argument circa 2009. i want to know if it was around earlier, and for which players did people make the "rings don't matter" argument? i would imagine it was made by some people for michael jordan in the late 80s considering how great he was.

basically, were people saying that in the 70s, 80s and 90s?

[Rake2204]

I'd believe there's always been recognition on some level that championship rings in a team sport only tell part of the story when it comes to ranking one's individual skill or so called legacy. I feel last year's championship results helped illustrate why this is so.

For instance, had Ray Allen missed his miracle three point attempt, would that have made LeBron James any less incredible? Or, to look at it from the other direction, does Ray Allen's famed three pointer make LeBron James any more incredible? The fact that every single championship relies upon so much more than the greatest player for that winning team is a large part as to why it may be deemed shortsighted to gauge an individual player's greatness based only off of how many championship rings his teams have been fortunate enough to attain.

[ThatCoolKid]

I'd believe there's always been recognition on some level that championship rings in a team sport only tell part of the story when it comes to ranking one's individual skill or so called legacy. I feel last year's championship results helped illustrate why this is so.

For instance, had Ray Allen missed his miracle three point attempt, would that have made LeBron James any less incredible? Or, to look at it from the other direction, does Ray Allen's famed three pointer make LeBron James any more incredible? The fact that every single championship relies upon so much more than the greatest player for that winning team is a large part as to why it may be deemed shortsighted to gauge an individual player's greatness based only off of how many championship rings his teams have been fortunate enough to attain.

It doesn't affect how good Lebron is, but it does show that he cannot win a championship without being carried.

#givennotearned
#flowofthegame
#Lebeta

[The Iron Sheik]

I'd believe there's always been recognition on some level that championship rings in a team sport only tell part of the story when it comes to ranking one's individual skill or so called legacy. I feel last year's championship results helped illustrate why this is so.

For instance, had Ray Allen missed his miracle three point attempt, would that have made LeBron James any less incredible? Or, to look at it from the other direction, does Ray Allen's famed three pointer make LeBron James any more incredible? The fact that every single championship relies upon so much more than the greatest player for that winning team is a large part as to why it may be deemed shortsighted to gauge an individual player's greatness based only off of how many championship rings his teams have been fortunate enough to attain.

i agree with your second paragraph, and i wasn't trying to insinuate otherwise (this wasn't even supposed to be a kobe/lebron thread. i just used them as they are the most relevant examples).

i was mainly looking for anecdotes and experiences from people who have seen this argument made in the past decades or who have articles, videos, etc on the subject from those decades i mentioned. i'm just interested in when the whole "well robert horry has 7 rings!" thing became a popular retort.

[DMAVS41]

i remember it really starting to become a staple in the kobe stans vs. lebron stans argument circa 2009. i want to know if it was around earlier, and for which players did people make the "rings don't matter" argument? i would imagine it was made by some people for michael jordan in the late 80s considering how great he was.

basically, were people saying that in the 70s, 80s and 90s?

it became huge for me around the 87 or so season...when people were hating on MJ for not winning and saying he wasn't capable of winning playing his gunner style.

And then it really became more apparent when Kobe stans would use the 00 through 02 rings to historically prop up Kobe...especially the 00 ring.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. Winning rings certainly matters....but so do the circumstances and clearly many players just have far better circumstances.

Just look at Kobe. An all time great...without Shaq...he's got 2 rings in 10 years.

This is why you have to put context to every player and judge everyone on a different scale in terms of winning. You can't compare Lebron on the Cavs his first 7 years to Kobe on the Lakers his first 7 years. That isn't remotely fair in terms of winning rings.

You can, however, compare Lebron on the Heat to MJ on the Bulls, Shaq/Kobe, Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics...etc. How Lebron does in terms of winning with this group is absolutely comparable.

How he did with Mo Williams and Mike Brown...meh...not fair to compare.

Rings matter...but so do the circumstances of players.

[ArbitraryWater]

Dude, people called Jordan the GOAT when he won in 1993... heck, some did after he won his 1st!

You think there were even close as much of the retarded ring counters we have today?

[Jacks3]

As soon as Kobe reeled off back-to-back titles as the clear #1.

People were obsessed with the concept of him winning a championship as the "The Man" or else he wasn't a true all-time great.

Once he won the back-to-back titles it became clear that his detractors had nothing to hold against him, and so came up with the idea that rings mean nothing.

It's pretty funny.

[riseagainst]

when they want to achieve their agenda.

[DMAVS41]

As soon as Kobe reeled off back-to-back titles as the clear #1.

People were obsessed with the concept of him winning a championship as the "The Man" or else he wasn't a true all-time great.

Once he won the back-to-back titles it became clear that his detractors had nothing to hold against him, and so came up with the idea that rings mean nothing.

It's pretty funny.

I'm sure some did, but not reasonable posters said they don't matter at all. Just have to take into account the circumstances...as with any player.

To me the better example with Kobe is the 00 ring. In which he wasn't an elite player yet and basically was a net negative in the finals and he still won the title easily.

Obviously it matters that he came through in certain clutch moments, but it also matters that his margin of error was huge.

Again...it's all about context and circumstances.

What I find funny....is that certain players get no criticism. Like Durant for example...his team has been loaded since 11. If he loses this series...he'll have 0 titles and only 1 finals appearance...with elite level help in relation to the league.

[VIntageNOvel]

nah i remember this clearly,

back then, when kobe had 3, their argument "kobe was carried by shaq, the rings dont count"

after kobe winning his 2 rings as a man, their argument change to " rings dont matter, 3 MVP > 1" :roll: :roll:

and after bron won his, rings started to matter :rolleyes:

[DCL]

when they want to achieve their agenda.


simple as that.

[AlphaWolf24]

I'm sure some did, but not reasonable posters said they don't matter at all. Just have to take into account the circumstances...as with any player.

To me the better example with Kobe is the 00 ring. In which he wasn't an elite player yet and basically was a net negative in the finals and he still won the title easily.

Obviously it matters that he came through in certain clutch moments, but it also matters that his margin of error was huge.

Again...it's all about context and circumstances.

What I find funny....is that certain players get no criticism. Like Durant for example...his team has been loaded since 11. If he loses this series...he'll have 0 titles and only 1 finals appearance...with elite level help in relation to the league.


:lol like always....GawdBE rusttling yo jimmies.

- He was an elite player...all defensive 1rst team and allstar top 10 player in the League.

- He was the Lakers primary facilitator of the triangle...he was the go to guy in the 4th quarters....he was the best defensive player and stopper.....

you are blaming the guy who has to do everything for making mistakes????...of course he is going to make mistakes....He has to do everything

he was also the guy who fueled the Game 7 comeback Vs Portland...without Kobe taking over....LA doesn't win Game 7.

- Context?......he severely sprains his ankle In the Finals....and still plays..

even with a Busted ankle...he didn't hide in the corner like Lebron in 2011....or Fizzle out Like Dirk did in countless Playoff appearances.

He still played and still won ...:confusedshrug:

- could he dominate a Euro in the Paint like Shaq did in the Finals??...no....but he still did everything for the Lakers....

[Straight_Ballin]

This is why you have to put context to every player and judge everyone on a different scale in terms of winning. You can't compare Lebron on the Cavs his first 7 years to Kobe on the Lakers his first 7 years. That isn't remotely fair in terms of winning rings.

You can, however, compare Lebron on the Heat to MJ on the Bulls, Shaq/Kobe, Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics...etc. How Lebron does in terms of winning with this group is absolutely comparable.

How he did with Mo Williams and Mike Brown...meh...not fair to compare.

Rings matter...but so do the circumstances of players.

This is ISH man. Sound reasoning for comparing players is not used.

[Jlamb47]

ring dont matter started with Lebron fans and everyone knows it
People argued Lebron > Kobe even when he had no rings
now that he got a ring people use that to discredit Durant
Its just people here who dont know what there saying

[AlphaWolf24]

This is ISH man. Sound reasoning for comparing players is not used.


- that's right you can't compare Lebrons 7 years on the Cavs to Kobe's first 7 on the Lakers....

- Lakers had to go against great teams in the Western Conference.....

...meanwhile in the East :lol

[Straight_Ballin]

ring dont matter started with Lebron fans and everyone knows it
People argued Lebron > Kobe even when he had no rings
now that he got a ring people use that to discredit Durant
Its just people here who dont know what there saying

Yep, the same Stans saying the same nonsense.

[Jlamb47]

- that's right you can't compare Lebrons 7 years on the Cavs to Kobe's first 7 on the Lakers....

- Lakers had to go against great teams in the Western Conference.....

...meanwhile in the East :lol

you also forgot that Kobe won whie Leseven.....

[DMAVS41]

:lol like always....GawdBE rusttling yo jimmies.

- He was an elite player...all defensive 1rst team and allstar top 10 player in the League.

- He was the Lakers primary facilitator of the triangle...he was the go to guy in the 4th quarters....he was the best defensive player and stopper.....

you are blaming the guy who has to do everything for making mistakes????...of course he is going to make mistakes....He has to do everything

he was also the guy who fueled the Game 7 comeback Vs Portland...without Kobe taking over....LA doesn't win Game 7.

- Context?......he severely sprains his ankle In the Finals....and still plays..

even with a Busted ankle...he didn't hide in the corner like Lebron in 2011....or Fizzle out Like Dirk did in countless Playoff appearances.

He still played and still won ...:confusedshrug:

- could he dominate a Euro in the Paint like Shaq did in the Finals??...no....but he still did everything for the Lakers....


16/5/4 41% TS...and his team still easily wins the title.

Sorry...huge margin of error and that ring for Kobe just means demonstrably less than his others and others won by players as real championship first options without a huge margin of error like Kobe had.

Also, you should read my post again in which I talked about Kobe coming up big in certain moments and that should matter.

[tmacattack33]

i remember it really starting to become a staple in the kobe stans vs. lebron stans argument circa 2009. i want to know if it was around earlier, and for which players did people make the "rings don't matter" argument? i would imagine it was made by some people for michael jordan in the late 80s considering how great he was.

basically, were people saying that in the 70s, 80s and 90s?

A better question is when the "team rings = a barometer for how good an individual player is" idea started.

When professional sports in general started, I doubt anyone rated an individual player by how many championships his team got.

A championship in those days meant that the city celebrated the team's success. The city took pride in having the champions in its home town.

It had to have happened like 20 years after, when some people in the media started making GOAT lists and started using championships as their evidence for why one player should rank above another.

[kamil]

You think there were even close as much of the retarded ring counters we have today?

Not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7....

[AlphaWolf24]

16/5/4 41% TS...and his team still easily wins the title.

Sorry...huge margin of error and that ring for Kobe just means demonstrably less than his others and others won by players as real championship first options without a huge margin of error like Kobe had.

Also, you should read my post again in which I talked about Kobe coming up big in certain moments and that should matter.


So you discredit what Kobe did all season....all playoff's.....because he got hurt in 1 series...( a series vs a lesser team to add to the fact)

makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:


- He was a better version of current Paul George....and Kobe had more responsibility....If PG won a Title this year...( even with Kobe's 00' finals stats while injured)...I'm sure it would matter alot


- again..we ( you and I) are posting in thread about " Rings Matter".....you're argument is about context?....

Kobe put in the work that year and was a top 10 player ....he led his team in the most important Game of the year to a 15 point comeback....

He was an elite player who won at the highest Level.


using context ...it matters....alot


next

[ArbitraryWater]

Not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7....

And? LeBron himself has said you rings dont define players...

You don't seem to grasp the difference between WANTING to win rings (team achievement in a team sport), and evaluating players based on rings... baldie.

[AlphaWolf24]

And? LeBron himself has said you rings dont define players...

You don't seem to grasp the difference between WANTING to win rings (team achievement in a team sport), and evaluating players based on rings... baldie.


WTF?...he said that when his teams were losing....

then he left for the sole purpose to make it easier to win Rings.

Actions speak far louder then Words...Words are cheap.

[kshutts1]

I don't see a time and place for ever considering team titles in an individual's legacy.

If Lebron goes for 30/15/10 with elite D and his team loses.... did he have a bad game? No.
So clearly winning is a team endeavor. The end.

[kamil]

And? LeBron himself has said you rings dont define players...

You don't seem to grasp the difference between WANTING to win rings (team achievement in a team sport), and evaluating players based on rings... baldie.

Insecure LeBron* d!ckrider.

[moe94]

Using team accomplishments to define individual players is nonsense.

[Solefade]

when people said MJ > Bill Russell?

when people said Robert Horry > Kobe?

rings is such a stupid measure on how good individuals are..MVPs are better

[BoutPractice]

I'm pretty sure people used it a whole lot for Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor, and Kareem.

[hateraid]

Rings are accomplishments that are goals for individual players. It should have no bearing comparing player x vs player y.
Some players were just blessed to be in the perfect storm with the perfect combination of teammates, coaching, and organization.

I have never judged a player by his ring.

[kshutts1]

when people said MJ > Bill Russell?

when people said Robert Horry > Kobe?

rings is such a stupid measure on how good individuals are..MVPs are better
Man, with how MVP voting is done, even MVPs are a team accomplishment.

The sooner the league implements a "Best Player Award", and makes it separate from "MVP", the better.

[AlphaWolf24]

when people said MJ > Bill Russell?

when people said Robert Horry > Kobe?

rings is such a stupid measure on how good individuals are..MVPs are better


nope...team accomplishment.....If yo team doesn't win = NO MVP

[jzek]

Fans of Melo, DRose, CP3, etc. :oldlol:

[jzek]

when people said MJ > Bill Russell?

when people said Robert Horry > Kobe?

rings is such a stupid measure on how good individuals are..MVPs are better

Actually, FMVPs > MVPs

Remember: the season ends after the championship and FMVP have been awarded... not after the MVP presentation.

[AlphaWolf24]

Rings are accomplishments that are goals for individual players. It should have no bearing comparing player x vs player y.
Some players were just blessed to be in the perfect storm with the perfect combination of teammates, coaching, and organization.

I have never judged a player by his ring.


so lets get this straight.....

the only thing that actually matters is individual scoring/defense....( 1 on 1 iso scenarios)

- because that is the only thing that is in Players X or Y's control...everything else is Team/coaching plays/organization's accomplishments.

- example: I drive and pass to Ray Allen and he makes it....or I drive and pass it to Lance Stevenson and he misses it....well obviously my assist is because I have a better shooter on my team ( Ray Allen....) My assists is a team accomplishment.

- the only actual evidence of pure greatness is iso situations on defense and offense.



I think it all makes sense now.....we now look at the greatest 1 on 1 scorers/ defenders...who scored the most points.....and who made the most all defensive teams.

after all...those are Iso situations that take away from " just having a perfect storm"

[kshutts1]

so lets get this straight.....

the only thing that actually matters is individual scoring/defense....( 1 on 1 iso scenarios)

- because that is the only thing that is in Players X or Y's control...everything else is Team/coaching plays/organization's accomplishments.

- example: I drive and pass to Ray Allen and he makes it....or I drive and pass it to Lance Stevenson and he misses it....well obviously my assist is because I have a better shooter on my team ( Ray Allen....) My assists is a team accomplishment.

- the only actual evidence of pure greatness is iso situations on defense and offense.



I think it all makes sense now.....we now look at the greatest 1 on 1 scorers/ defenders...who scored the most points.....and who made the most all defensive teams.

after all...those are Iso situations that take away from " just having a perfect storm"
That is one way to take this to an extreme. The other is to say Horry > Jordan.

A more level-headed approach would be to watch games, and to see which players make the correct basketball decisions on offense and defense. Using your assist example, I'd credit that player with a "generated assist" or some other metric to show that the correct play/pass was made, and the receiving player just failed to make the shot. Regardless of the outcome of the play, it was (in this hypothetical example) the best play to make.

[Solefade]

Actually, FMVPs > MVPs

Remember: the season ends after the championship and FMVP have been awarded... not after the MVP presentation.


i agree FMVPs are better

[ThunderKat]

If Lebron were still in Cleveland does he have any rings assuming he has the same group around him??? I doubt it. That wouldn't make him less of a player. It takes a very talented team to win a championship. I get annoyed when Bron gets all the credit Wade, M. Miller, Ray Allen, Bosch etc got him there and hit clutch shots themselves to get the rings.

So how can you say a player is great or not just by the cast of players he has to help him or not help him? You can't!! Rings aren't about just one player.

[riseagainst]

if rings are "team accomplishments" and shouldnt be considered into comparing players, then MVPs and FMVPs should not as well. Especially MVP since it depends on team record aka team accomplishment.

the things least dependent on team record are: DPOY, all-nba honors, christmas MVP (jk).

[AlphaWolf24]

That is one way to take this to an extreme. The other is to say Horry > Jordan.

A more level-headed approach would be to watch games, and to see which players make the correct basketball decisions on offense and defense. Using your assist example, I'd credit that player with a "generated assist" or some other metric to show that the correct play/pass was made, and the receiving player just failed to make the shot. Regardless of the outcome of the play, it was (in this hypothetical example) the best play to make.


not really....because the player that scored more points in an Iso scenario and was viewed as a better iso defender will score higher using this criteria ( a criteria that doesn't use "team accomplishment")

- Horry never scored alot of points from Iso....MJ did!...Horry was never a 1rst team all NBA defender...MJ was

- so it points to MJ as bieng a much better player....It actually works quite well.

[AlphaWolf24]

i agree FMVPs are better


Team acomplishment

[kshutts1]

not really....because the player that scored more points in an Iso scenario and was viewed as a better iso defender will score higher using this criteria ( a criteria that doesn't use "team accomplishment")

- Horry never scored alot of points from Iso....MJ did!...Horry was never a 1rst team all NBA defender...MJ was

- so it points to MJ as bieng a much better player....It actually works quite well.
There was definite miscommunication between us.. dunno on which side.

"Iso rankings" is taking the "rings don't matter" argument to an extreme, whilst "Horry > Jordan" is taking the "rings matter" argument to an extreme.

[tpols]

All started when kobe was winning with shaq especially 01 and 02 rings..


Before that I guess the only example of a top 10 all time talent playing with another top 10 talent was Kareem with Magic.. but Kareem had already garnered respect from previous decade with his 5 MVPs so when he won while being a sidekick it wasnt really that big a deal because he was proven.

Kobe started winning with nothing of note before it so everyone took that as him being carried, sidekick, pippen etc, despite being a 28/6/6 player for two of the rings.. and then showing he could do it as first option to the same degree a few years later.

[AlphaWolf24]

There was definite miscommunication between us.. dunno on which side.

"Iso rankings" is taking the "rings don't matter" argument to an extreme, whilst "Horry > Jordan" is taking the "rings matter" argument to an extreme.


No...

Iso scenarios take the " rings don't matter because they are team / organization accomplishments" and replace them with actual factual evidence of a players skill level and that effect on the game.

does Michael Jordan's extreme Iso skill effect the game more then Horry's clutch 3's?....using iso scenario ...Mj would score many more points.....also while on dfense MJ would slow down his opponents....

Thus showing that MJ was in fact the better player...despite Horry winning more titles as a amazing crunchtime player.

It works quite well.....actually.









___________________________

people who use Horry>MJ because of 7 titles are not using it as a extreme...they are showing there basketball illiteracy....

Horry actually played amazing in key moments....In Houston he played Great interior defense and made some Amazing shots.....as well as in LA>

In San Antonio he played prolly the best 2 minutes of all around basketball I ever seen...seriously..Spurs don't win Game 5 if not for Horry.

they think saying Horry > MJ totally makes Rings useless....when we all know MJ was prolly the best ever....and Horry is not even a similar player to MJ...so they can't be compared.....

what they need to say is.....MJ>>>>>>Drexler...both similar players in the same era....even though Glide won 1 ring.....MJ is still 6times better.....Drexlers ring don't matter....

never understood that arguement...only shows lack of BBAll IQ IMO

[GimmeThat]

In the early 80s, there were about 23 teams

and by about mid 90s, there were 30 teams



the NBA 50/50 may had been there to recognize how far the league had come along. as well as recognizing the "rings don't matter" situation down the road as more teams came along.

[jstern]

I'm sure there has always been the debate, because there are people who will look at the whole picture of a player, his abilities and the circumstances that he was put it. For such people rings are not as important as how the players got the rings or didn't get the rings.

I must say though that it this internet era the more simple minded people have simplified the way they rate players by how many championship teams they were in. It requires the least amount of mental work for those who want to talk basketball on the internet but have very simplistic logic.

[sdot_thadon]

Although I wasn't around to witness it, I'd probably guess the rings don't matter viewpoint started with West, Baylor, Wilt, and Oscar. All time greats with the misfortune of having to beat Russell's Celtics to win chips.

And rings do matter imho, just not as much as people try to make it seem. They are a sort of validation to greatness, much like winning Mvps. Just something you expect the best players ever to accomplish along the way. But circumstances win the day, some were more blessed than others with timing, teammates, coaches, etc.

[Marchesk]

Makes me wonder if Wade is going to go down ahead of Barkley all-time. Which is BS, because Barkley didn't get to play with the best player in the game for multiple chips.

Kind of like how Worthy gets rated higher than Dominique.

[Jlamb47]

Makes me wonder if Wade is going to go down ahead of Barkley all-time. Which is BS, because Barkley didn't get to play with the best player in the game for multiple chips.

Kind of like how Worthy gets rated higher than Dominique.

Wade won a chip in 06 damn near by himself
if you watched the games he was crazzzyy dominate that series. He was doing whateve rhe wanted

[sdot_thadon]

Makes me wonder if Wade is going to go down ahead of Barkley all-time. Which is BS, because Barkley didn't get to play with the best player in the game for multiple chips.

Kind of like how Worthy gets rated higher than Dominique.
I actually feel chuck and wade are somewhat comparable all time. But I get where you're coming from. If Chuck got to play with Mj for 4 years or Kareem for a couple I'm sure he would have won some.

[kamil]

Makes me wonder if Wade is going to go down ahead of Barkley all-time. Which is BS, because Barkley didn't get to play with the best player in the game for multiple chips.

Kind of like how Worthy gets rated higher than Dominique.

CB had his chances with Hakeem and Pippen.