The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=NumberSix]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.

[B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]


This

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.

[B]I've repeatedly said you have to have a quality team to win.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
No, you have to have the best team to win. This isn't baseball or football. Its not enough to just be a quality team. Basketball is the one sport where the best team usually wins the title.

You can have a "quality" team all you want, but if there happens to be a better team in the league at that time, you're probably not winning.

Would the Mavs have won in 2011 if the heat came together 1 year earlier? Probably not? Would the Thunder have won in 2012 if the heat came together 1 year later? Yeah, they probably would have. Timing is very important and timing is mostly just luck.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]No, you have to have the best team to win. This isn't baseball or football. Its not enough to just be a quality team. Basketball is the one sport where the best team usually wins the title.

You can have a "quality" team all you want, but if there happens to be a better team in the league at that time, you're probably not winning.

Would the Mavs have won in 2011 if the heat came together 1 year earlier? Probably not? Would the Thunder have won in 2012 if the heat came together 1 year later? Yeah, they probably would have. Timing is very important and timing is mostly just luck.[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood me. I was speaking from the standpoint of the star player. You do not have to have the most help to win. Although it certainly helps...

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You misunderstood me. I was speaking from the standpoint of the star player. You do not have to have the most help to win. Although it certainly helps...[/QUOTE]
A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)

[QUOTE=NumberSix]A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)[/QUOTE]


players aren't lego pieces dude, you don't just stack them together and measure them like lil boys in the lockerroom.

supporting players have to fit with the star player and there are players that are easier to build around than others. you can't just separate the supporting cast from the star, because they maximize each other's abilities.

[QUOTE=STATUTORY]players aren't lego pieces dude, you don't just stack them together and measure them like lil boys in the lockerroom.

supporting players have to fit with the star player and there are players that are easier to build around than others. you can't just separate the supporting cast from the star, because they maximize each other's abilities.[/QUOTE]
Its almost as if...... That was....... The entire point...... I..... Was...... Making...... :hammerhead:

[QUOTE=Lebron23]This[/QUOTE]

:roll: LeBron joins 2 of the top 15 players in the league wins, same shit doesn't mean shit

[QUOTE=NumberSix]A superstar doesn't have to have the MOST help, but the sum of the teams parts has to be better than the sum of the other teams' parts.

Both LeBron and Derrick rose are "superstars". Rose can have a slightly better supporting cast, but difference in "help" has to be greater than the difference between LeBron and rose.

LeBron+help > Rose+slightly better help.

The sum of LeBron's teams parts is still greater than rose with a slighter better supporting cast.


(Hypothetical of course as LeBron indeed does have the better supporting cast)[/QUOTE]

that is just stating the obvious. the best team wins...you could always say that.

don't really get the point.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Its almost as if...... That was....... The entire point...... I..... Was...... Making...... :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying people often judge supporting cast based on the totality of their "talent", or how they would do in a NBA season without the star player.

BUt that's a flawed way of evaluating supporting cast. It sounded to me like that's what you were suggesting.

[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]

I think in general this is a fantastic post, but I do have my problems with it.

Take this how you want (and it will most likely be met with ridicule), but I think winning a championship in the NBA is so nebulous a series of chances that just because you don't win one doesn't mean you couldn't have.

This isn't to say that it's more luck than skill and execution, because it's obviously not, but, at the highest level, so little separates the teams that win from the ones that don't that it's ridiculous to say that someone like Nash couldn't win a title as the main guy. Ditto for Barkely or KG or Ewing or Robinson.

I love the distinctions you made and I think agree with even the ones that I've argued against my entire time as a serious basketball fan (the KG one is causing me a lot of heartache right now. I'm still going back and forth with it.), but at a certain point, I think the way we think about players and basketball itself is just so governed by little things that it makes no sense to make such sweeping claims.

It was thought that teams couldn't win without a dominant big, to the point where people made serious predictions based on that piece of conventional wisdom, but the Bulls came along and disproved that 6 times. And now Miami, as well. Chuck says you die by the three (something I still tend to agree with), but Dallas certainly lived by it. Maybe they got really hot when it mattered, maybe not. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Same with the Bulls. Maybe they captured lighting in a bottle and really stuck with it. Maybe that lighting was Michael Jordan.

As much as I love stats (specifically APBR metrics), basketball, nor any sport (even baseball), is a science. So, repeated events can't be used to create any sort of law that can be then used to make flawless predictions. Can you win with Kwame Brown as your starting center? Yes, if everyone else fits amazingly well around him. Will it likely happen, probably not. But that doesn't mean it can't. (I think we know enough to say you can't win with him as your first option, though, obviously haha. There are clearly things we can know.)

Again, I'm not saying the Bulls got lucky. Or the Mavs. Or anyone that won. But if you really think that something fundamental prevented Nash from winning, as opposed to something trivial, then you're just subscribing to the BS that ESPN and the like perpetrate.

I know you said it's harder to build around these players, and not that they can never win titles, so I doubt you think that way (the ESPN, Lebron just doesn't have "it", whatever the f*ck "it" happens to be this week). Just giving my two cents.

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]:roll: LeBron joins 2 of the top 15 players in the league wins, same shit doesn't mean shit[/QUOTE]


LeBron is the best player of the Miami Heat. Bosh is not a top 20 player this year.

Championships are only meaningful.... to teams/players/fans, its a team game, its a team sport, championship is what it is all about.... but to measure a players greatness based on the number of rings is impossible...

This is not tennis, this is not 1 on 1........ hell even technically a player doesnt get the Championship trophy, the team gets the Championship trophy, the player gets a RING... as in: "Here, you were a part of this team accomplishment, this tiny piece is the proof / to remind you".... and not: "Here is the trophy, YOU won the championship"....

You cant measure a single players greatness based on rings, its completely about the context, its about the ROAD towards that championship, you can still be a winner even if you didnt end up getting that championship.... did you know that?

Ask yourself this, what individual was greater here?

Player A - Averaged 35-10-10, is the best player in the game, takes the worst team in the NBA to the Finals and loses....

Player B - Averaged 25-10-3, is not the best player in the game, takes the most stacked team in the NBA to the Finals and wins......

Player A was greater
Player B was "the winner"

If we didnt know about the context here then all we would see is:

Player A = 0 rings, "Choked/Loser"
Player B = 1 ring, "Amazing/Winner"

Fans know this, they aint stupid, i truly believe they arent.... but they have to, because rings might be the only way of trying to catapult a LESSER player over a GREATER player.......

Take Russell for example, "The greatest winner of all time" they say... Well you are out of your god damn mind if you think Russell would win more championships than Wilt if they had the exact same supporting casts.......... why? Because Wilt was a GREATER player..............

The [B][U]ONLY[/U][/B] way for you to logically & factually figure out who was greater based on rings is if ALL players had to work with clones of supporting casts.......... then YES, you can surgically, microscopically figure out exactly how impactful the player was compared to anybody else, how greater he made his teammates, his leadership and so on....

[QUOTE=Djahjaga]I think in general this is a fantastic post, but I do have my problems with it.

Take this how you want (and it will most likely be met with ridicule), but I think winning a championship in the NBA is so nebulous a series of chances that just because you don't win one doesn't mean you couldn't have.

This isn't to say that it's more luck than skill and execution, because it's obviously not, but, at the highest level, so little separates the teams that win from the ones that don't that it's ridiculous to say that someone like Nash couldn't win a title as the main guy. Ditto for Barkely or KG or Ewing or Robinson.

I love the distinctions you made and I think agree with even the ones that I've argued against my entire time as a serious basketball fan (the KG one is causing me a lot of heartache right now. I'm still going back and forth with it.), but at a certain point, I think the way we think about players and basketball itself is just so governed by little things that it makes no sense to make such sweeping claims.

It was thought that teams couldn't win without a dominant big, to the point where people made serious predictions based on that piece of conventional wisdom, but the Bulls came along and disproved that 6 times. And now Miami, as well. Chuck says you die by the three (something I still tend to agree with), but Dallas certainly lived by it. Maybe they got really hot when it mattered, maybe not. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Same with the Bulls. Maybe they captured lighting in a bottle and really stuck with it. Maybe that lighting was Michael Jordan.

As much as I love stats (specifically APBR metrics), basketball, nor any sport (even baseball), is a science. So, repeated events can't be used to create any sort of law that can be then used to make flawless predictions. Can you win with Kwame Brown as your starting center? Yes, if everyone else fits amazingly well around him. Will it likely happen, probably not. But that doesn't mean it can't. (I think we know enough to say you can't win with him as your first option, though, obviously haha. There are clearly things we can know.)

Again, I'm not saying the Bulls got lucky. Or the Mavs. Or anyone that won. But if you really think that something fundamental prevented Nash from winning, as opposed to something trivial, then you're just subscribing to the BS that ESPN and the like perpetrate.

I know you said it's harder to build around these players, and not that they can never win titles, so I doubt you think that way (the ESPN, Lebron just doesn't have "it", whatever the f*ck "it" happens to be this week). Just giving my two cents.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that generally the best players of all time have had the great fortune of playing with great help. Was Shaq hard to build around for his first 7 years? Or Lebron...who is probably the most versatile player ever...was he hard to build around before Miami?

It is a slippery slope when you start to credit and blame players for the front office moves a franchise makes. Surrounding a player...doesn't matter who that player is...with all nba players is on a team.

The problem I have with some of the posts is that they just disregard the simple fact that the location and prestige of a franchise determines far more than the star player. Lebron is a perfect example of this.

Does anyone actually think that if the Knicks drafted Lebron that they would have struggled as much as the Cavs did to surround him with help? I hope not.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]that is just stating the obvious. the best team wins...you could always say that.

don't really get the point.[/QUOTE]
Here's the point...

The whole "he had a good enough team to win" argument is fundamentally flawed.

People always say "why couldn't player A win with that cast? Player B won with less". Unless you're talking about the exact same season, that holds no water.

You could say dirk won with less than Durant lost with. The difference is that the 2012 heat was a much tougher opponent than the 2011 heat. It's not an equal comparison.

There's no "good enough". If a player isn't a member of the best team, there's no reason to expect them to win and there's no reason to penalize them if they don't.

Even with superstars, rings doesn't automatically beat no-rings. Some guys go their whole career without ever being a member of the best team. There's no reason why they should have a ring. A guy like Kobe has been on the best team in the league plenty of times. More times than he's won championships. He probably should have more than 5 rings.

[QUOTE=Lebron23]LeBron is the best player of the Miami Heat. Bosh is not a top 20 player this year.[/QUOTE]

He was when they first signed.