The "Ring" Argument

Is completely stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IMG]http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/82056/horry7.jpg[/IMG]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[B]You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a [B][COLOR="Red"]dominant[/COLOR][/B] force to GET the ring.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Rake2204]I have seen this discussion a number of times here. As always, I do not believe championship rings are directly correlated to how great a player is. For instance, if LeBron James hypothetically won two championships, it wouldn't be as simple as labeling him three championships less as good than Kobe Bryant.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[QUOTE=Figlo]Is completely stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[B][SIZE="7"]so im wondering, is it just the casuals who believe in that or do people actually think this way to compare players is a good idea[/SIZE][/B] (give reasons).[/QUOTE]



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

[B][SIZE="4"]example:[/SIZE][/B] If you [B]watched[/B] Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

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


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

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

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

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

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

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

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

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

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably [I]every[/I] season.

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

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

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

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

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

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

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

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

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

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

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

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably [I]every[/I] season.

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

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

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

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

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

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

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

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.[/QUOTE]


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

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

to the winner goes the spoils.....






duh.

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]Combination of Watching/following players career, casual fans vote,hardcore fans vote, basketball players peer vote, media vote.

[B][SIZE="4"]example:[/SIZE][/B] If you [B]watched[/B] Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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





deal wit it.

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

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

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]5 confused me. you can't build a team around david robinson?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/if5y06.jpg[/IMG]

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

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

to the winner goes the spoils.....





duh.[/QUOTE]

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

Totally wrong, sorry.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=pauk]wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Figlo]EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
[B]Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.[/B][/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:facepalm

Things I'd say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Smak

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]**************

Totally wrong, sorry.

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

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

Couldn't disagree with a post more than yours, sorry.[/QUOTE]


sorry but you are 100% wrong.

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

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

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

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


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


nuff said.

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]sorry but you are 100% wrong.

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

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

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

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


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


nuff said.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

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

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

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

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

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

[B]I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

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

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

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]**************************
Absolutely. We agree on all that.

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

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

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

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

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

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

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

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

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Yeah thats because you're a Barkley-stan[/QUOTE]

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

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...[/B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]:no: Basketball Fan that is not biased by the media and the ring crap.

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...[/B][/QUOTE]
yes even jlauber admits it

4 rings f@ggot