The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Statistically jordan didn't struggle. But his teams weren't talented enough to be competitive.

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

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

Its just amazing[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Really? The heat went from being a joke, gutting their whole team for james and bosh, to being a contender. How bout the clippers? How much better has just adding chris paul made them? They've been a laughing stock for almost 30 years.[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Not at all. Dirk was easily the most valuable player on the Mavs. I can't believe anyone would freaking dispute that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sticky this thread.

This is a real discussion

[QUOTE=kennethgriffin][B]if rings didnt count

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

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

rings just come with greatness

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

[B][I]kennethgriffin? Hello...... he's not a stat padder anymore.... right? kennethgriffin !! [/I][/B]

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

Great quote by Jeremiah Tax, from SI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]
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].[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok, let's see if your theory is correct, the mavs got rid of chandler and stevenson. And replaced them with odom and vince carter. Let's see if the mavs can repeat as champs. According to you, the mavs should since role players are easily replaceable.

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

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

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

I saw that I never responded to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=rmt]Kobe did not win 5 championships as the premier player in the NBA.

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

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

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

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

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

[B][I]kennethgriffin? Hello...... he's not a stat padder anymore.... right? kennethgriffin !! [/I][/B][/QUOTE]


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

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

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

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