The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=keepinitreal]Some of the positions make less of an impact, but quarterback definitely makes a big impact... Look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and then this year without him..

Furthermore, look at all of the teams that have won superbowls since 1967... overwhelming number of those teams had great QBs.

I agree that one player can carry a team easier in basketball than football, but one player can only carry a team so far in both sports.[/QUOTE]

not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.

lol @ 1 player being able to carry a team.

Basketball is 5 on 5.

The weight of 4 players will always far outweigh the weight of 1 player no matter how good he is.

Winning rings is about having the right rosters + luck, nothing else.

the individual greatness of a player can heighten the quality of a roster but not make a roster unless your Peak Jordan/Shaq/Kareem and even then if you face a much better opposing "team" they wont win.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Rings give people an excuse/reason to state the obvious.

KG wasn't any better in 08 than he was in 04; in fact, he wasn't even close to as dominant. He was just put in a better situation. KG was amazing all along. You knew it. I knew it. Everyone knew it. The fact that he won that ring in 08, despite not being nearly as good as he was 4 years earlier just gave the simpletons a reason to finally admit it.

Does anyone honestly believe he was better in 08? Or rather, was it a product of him coming to a much more complete and well coached team (and better organization)? What if KG was never put in that situation? We'd have trolls like plenty of people in this thread claiming he wasn't good enough and shouldn't be compared to ____ because he didn't have a ring when clearly he could have (and did) win won, when he was put in a better situation.

Rings aren't meaningless; they are just overused when discussing the impact of individual players for the reasons I mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.[/QUOTE]

Plenty of players getting respect, all-time, for their rings, had more talent on their respective teams than the 08 Celtics. People are creating this warped view of how rings SHOULD be won when in reality, none of that ever existed. Blame the internet, or the media, I guess.

[QUOTE=32Dayz]Rings are meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Context does matter, but they go together as well.

Kobe's done well in both a 2nd option and a leader.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.[/QUOTE]

Special teams isn't 1/3rd of the game and QBs can help out their defense a lot by putting a lot of points on the board plus time of possession... a bad offense that goes three and out don't give their defense much of a rest. They impact more than just 1/3rd.

I think we both agree that the Steelers have won mainly because of their great (probably league best) defense those years. All I'm saying is that one guy can make a big difference in NFL too.

[QUOTE=32Dayz]I made a thread once on multiple forums asking how many Rings Kobe would have won if he played his Career with the exact same rosters Iverson had.

(Both Iverson and Kobe entered the league in 1997).

99% of people said 0-2 and I'd say more like 75%+ said 0-1.

Would Kobe have been a worse player?
No, but he would have won less because of shitty rosters.

This is why Rings are absolutely meaningless in Player Comparisons.[/QUOTE]


You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..[/QUOTE]
Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE=KDthunderup]Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]


Kobe puts him in check and next thing you know everyone is saying he is a top 5 player in the L (just as they did to Gasol in 08')

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..[/QUOTE]

KMart was trash back then and Nene was injured.

+ Iverson only had that team for 1... maybe 2 seasons?

Very little chance Kobe wins with them especially without having one of the best PF's or C's in the league like he has always had.

Like I said it's likely he wins 0 rings or at most 2 with those same rosters.

Rings are not the be-all end-all stat in measuring greatness, but it's ABSOLUTELY absurd to think that they shouldn't be a part of what measures greatness.

You have to take each individual circumstance into account, and rings are one of the factors that we have to examine.

Else we'd all be taking Karl Malone over Tim Duncan.

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]Kobe puts him in check and next thing you know everyone is saying he is a top 5 player in the L (just as they did to Gasol in 08')[/QUOTE]
Kobe puts him in check? :wtf: :oldlol:

Both will take 30 shots a night on 45% fg for the season.

[QUOTE=KDthunderup]Kobe puts him in check? :wtf: :oldlol:

Both will take 30 shots a night on 45% fg for the season.[/QUOTE]


they could still win...they have good chemistry...Kobe actually wanted to play with Melo in 09'

besides FG% is stupid....no one ever won because they did FG%....or else Mutumbo would have won every year.

:facepalm @stats

[QUOTE=keepinitreal]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]

I don't think KG's title really did much for his legacy honestly. What I mean by that is its not like it really changed how he's looked at all-time IMO. I still don't consider him better then Barkley or Malone even though he has a ring and they don't. And I don't look at his contribution to the ring the same way I look at Duncan, Shaq, or Hakeem's contribution to theirs. I look at the 08 Celtics much like the 04 Pistons. More like an ensemble cast, although I do think KG was their best player.

I could see Ewing ranked higher, but unless he won more after that, I think people will eventually realize how extremely bad he was in those Finals and he had alot less to do with that title then some of the other greats do for theirs. I don't think he'd be ranked that much higher for that reason.

I don't think David Robinson was ever the main reason for any of the Spurs' titles. It was Duncan.

[QUOTE=Collie]Rings are not the be-all end-all stat in measuring greatness, but it's ABSOLUTELY absurd to think that they shouldn't be a part of what measures greatness.

[B]You have to take each individual circumstance into account[/B], and rings are one of the factors that we have to examine.

Else we'd all be taking Karl Malone over Tim Duncan.[/QUOTE]

No we wouldn't. We'd know that Duncan was by far the superior defender, and a significantly better rebounder.

Agree with the main sentiment (bolded) though, although I'd say rings should be fairly minimal and looked at in context, because as noted by others there is so much circumstance involved.

[QUOTE=guy]I don't think KG's title really did much for his legacy honestly. What I mean by that is its not like it really changed how he's looked at all-time IMO. I still don't consider him better then Barkley or Malone even though he has a ring and they don't. And I don't look at his contribution to the ring the same way I look at Duncan, Shaq, or Hakeem's contribution to theirs. I look at the 08 Celtics much like the 04 Pistons. More like an ensemble cast, although I do think KG was their best player.

I could see Ewing ranked higher, but unless he won more after that, I think people will eventually realize how extremely bad he was in those Finals and he had alot less to do with that title then some of the other greats do for theirs. I don't think he'd be ranked that much higher for that reason.

[B]I don't think David Robinson was ever the main reason for any of the Spurs' titles. It was Duncan[/B].[/QUOTE]
For the first title I'd strongly disagree, Robinson was still at least the equal of Duncan. Plus Robinson played a big role in developing Duncan working out with him in the summer etc. I seem to remember reading a lot about Robinson sacrificing his offense and being the defensive anchor on that team.
I think because a number of reasons to do with media narratives and "conventional wisdom" on Robinson, he is denied the credit he deserves as an elite player.

The only people stupid enough to try and say, in context of basketball, that rings supposedly don't matter are bandwagon Lebron fans. Who can't ever explain if that was ever, then why did Lebron leave the Cavs to go try and win not 1, not 2.......in Miami.:rolleyes: Hilarious:lol

[QUOTE=LakersReign]The only people stupid enought to try and say in context of basketball, that rings supposedly don't matter are bandwagon Lebron fans. Who can't ever explain if that was ever, then why did Lebron leave the Cavs to go try and win not 1, not 2.......in Miami.:rolleyes: Hilarious:lol[/QUOTE]

Players do want to win Rings.

That doesn't change the fact that winning rings is 99% supporting casts + luck and 1% individual greatness of star players.

In the end individual performances are all that matters not rings which are a team accomplishment.

:applause:

[QUOTE=32Dayz]Players do want to win Rings.

That doesn't change the fact that winning rings is 99% supporting casts + luck and 1% individual greatness of star players.

In the end individual performances are all that matters not rings which are a team accomplishment.

:applause:[/QUOTE]

Wow, thats just idiotic. So you're telling me Jordan was only 1% of the reason the Bulls won 6 titles?

I think a lot of people make the huge mistake of mixing a players talent with a players rank. Players are ranked based on what they've been able to accomplish during their time in the nba.

Take for instance magic and stockton. Honestly, what did magic do better than stockton as far as talent? The only thing I can think off is rebound. And that's not really fair cuz magic was 6'9 and stockton 6'1. Stockton was the better shooter, defender and just as adepth at running his team. But magic just happened to be on one of the greatest teams ever. Which qualifies him for a lot of the awards that contributes to ranking players.

Its no secret that the mvp is awarded to the best player on the best top 2-3 teams. The dpoy award is awarded based on reputation and politics. Go back and compare scottie pippens defensive role with the bulls and dikembe mutombos role with the nuggets. Pippen was clearly the better defender. But mutombo is a center (politics says centers are more important defensively than any other position), was being touted as the next bill russell (reputation), and there you have it. Mutombo wins the dpoy.

All awards should be taken with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=guy]Wow, thats just idiotic. So you're telling me Jordan was only 1% of the reason the Bulls won 6 titles?[/QUOTE]
Not trying to speak for 32dayz cuz he's more than capable of defending his pov. But I think his point is to show that winning is a team effort. And honestly, all roles are equally important. We already know the bulls couldn't have won without jordan or pippen. Could the bulls still win if paxson and kerr didn't hit those bigs shots repeatedly? Or if grant and rodman didn't play good hard nosed defense and rebounded? Or if krause didn't go out and replace quality players with quality? Or if phil jackson makes bad decisions and is constantly outcoached? What if the 9-12 men weren't there to give breathers to the starters? Ho long could that championship team last through the rigors of a long grimey season before they succumb due to just fatigue?

Which part of your body do you feel you can live without? The brain? lungs? Heart, kidneys? The same holds true for a championship team.

And before you start, there is a difference between being the best player on a team and the importance of acknowledging roles. Jordan was the best player, but he needed the support to get over the the top and get to the pinnacle.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I think a lot of people make the huge mistake of mixing a players talent with a players rank. Players are ranked based on what they've been able to accomplish during their time in the nba.

Take for instance magic and stockton. Honestly, what did magic do better than stockton as far as talent? The only thing I can think off is rebound. And that's not really fair cuz magic was 6'9 and stockton 6'1. Stockton was the better shooter, defender and just as adepth at running his team. But magic just happened to be on one of the greatest teams ever. Which qualifies him for a lot of the awards that contributes to ranking players.

Its no secret that the mvp is awarded to the best player on the best top 2-3 teams. The dpoy award is awarded based on reputation and politics. Go back and compare scottie pippens defensive role with the bulls and dikembe mutombos role with the nuggets. Pippen was clearly the better defender. But mutombo is a center (politics says centers are more important defensively than any other position), was being touted as the next bill russell (reputation), and there you have it. Mutombo wins the dpoy.

All awards should be taken with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
*****************

It ain't right to hold it against Magic Johnson that he was 6'9. That ain't right at all.

It's also fact that Magic Johnson was the best player on those teams for many years. Sure he had a big target in the paint, with a skyhook, and he had one of the greatest finishers in the game in James Worthy. So? It ain't like Stockton had no finishers on his teams.

Magic WAS Showtime, he invented it, shaped it, drove it, and there hasn't been a guy close to him since in making the transition happen.

I agree by and large awards are useless as a measuring stick.

[QUOTE=KDthunderup]If Jordan only won 1 ring he would be still the GOAT.

His abilities cant be questioned over a stupid ring.[/QUOTE]


No, he wouldn't, not even close.

Because one superstar can swing the tide so much in basketball, winning 1 ring would have not been enough to give him the nod over Magic, Kareem or Wilt. Would he still have been a great player? Of course he would have. But the 6 rings enhanced his legacy to such a level that he is deemed an untouchable.

MJ with 1 ring and 30,00 points would not have been GOAT all time material.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Not trying to speak for 32dayz cuz he's more than capable of defending his pov. But I think his point is to show that winning is a team effort. And honestly, all roles are equally important. We already know the bulls couldn't have won without jordan or pippen. Could the bulls still win if paxson and kerr didn't hit those bigs shots repeatedly? Or if grant and rodman didn't play good hard nosed defense and rebounded? Or if krause didn't go out and replace quality players with quality? Or if phil jackson makes bad decisions and is constantly outcoached? What if the 9-12 men weren't there to give breathers to the starters? Ho long could that championship team last through the rigors of a long grimey season before they succumb due to just fatigue?

Which part of your body do you feel you can live without? The brain? lungs? Heart, kidneys? The same holds true for a championship team.

And before you start, there is a difference between being the best player on a team and the importance of acknowledging roles. Jordan was the best player, but he needed the support to get over the the top and get to the pinnacle.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I've heard this before. 32dayz is saying what he's saying to excuse Lebron. Thats it. 1% is ridiculous. The centerpiece of a championship is the biggest reason for most championship teams. Teams don't build around a group of role players by trying to find superstars that complement them. They build around a superstar(s) by trying to find a group of role players that complement them. That is why they are the biggest reason. Its funny to me how people think that the quality of teammates a superstar has throughout his career has nothing to do with that superstar and is not somewhat of a reflection of how great that superstar is.

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

It ain't right to hold it against Magic Johnson that he was 6'9. That ain't right at all.

It's also fact that Magic Johnson was the best player on those teams for many years. Sure he had a big target in the paint, with a skyhook, and he had one of the greatest finishers in the game in James Worthy. So? It ain't like Stockton had no finishers on his teams.

Magic WAS Showtime, he invented it, shaped it, drove it, and there hasn't been a guy close to him since in making the transition happen.

I agree by and large awards are useless as a measuring stick.[/QUOTE]
I'm not holding magics height against him. I am however saying that for those that would say magic is a better rebounder than stockton, id say that id expect him to be a better due to him being a good 7-8 inches taller.

But ialso don't think it fair to say magic is a better basketball player than stockton due to rings. Maagic had much better teams throughout his career.

[QUOTE=guy]Okay, I've heard this before. 32dayz is saying what he's saying to excuse Lebron. Thats it. 1% is ridiculous. The centerpiece of a championship is the biggest reason for most championship teams. Teams don't build around a group of role players by trying to find superstars that complement them. They build around a superstar(s) by trying to find a group of role players that complement them. That is why they are the biggest reason. Its funny to me how people think that the quality of teammates a superstar has throughout his career has nothing to do with that superstar and is not somewhat of a reflection of how great that superstar is.[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I never said nothing else matters. 1% is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok, let's use your example, sure jordan, magic, russell, etc were the foundation, but without the roof, nails, cement etc., you don't have a house. Which is why rings should be taken into context.

Were talking about champions here Guy. You tell me what part of any championship team is not important. The Owner? Bench? Superstars? Shooters? Rebounders? Closers? GM? Coach?[/QUOTE]
shaqs made the finals with 3 different teams and won with 2 different teams, kobes made the finals with 2 different rosters and won the championship with both, if you're good, its not hard to get the right players around you, that's why championships when comparing top tier players is a large aspect when determining the better player

Yet Lebron failed to win a ring with a very stacked team. The ring argument is valid when in context.

[QUOTE=guy]I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I never said nothing else matters. 1% is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
That's true. Saying jordans worth was 1% is a gross exageration

[QUOTE=97 bulls]That's true. Saying jordans worth was 1% is a gross exageration[/QUOTE]

Not just Jordan. Even saying someone like Chauncey Billups was only 1% of the reason for the Pistons' 04 title is ridiculous.

[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=guy]Not just Jordan. Even saying someone like Chauncey Billups was only 1% of the reason for the Pistons' 04 title is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?[/QUOTE]

I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I'm not holding magics height against him. I am however saying that for those that would say magic is a better rebounder than stockton, id say that id expect him to be a better due to him being a good 7-8 inches taller.

But ialso don't think it fair to say magic is a better basketball player than stockton due to rings. Maagic had much better teams throughout his career.[/QUOTE]

yeah.

Guys like Kevin Johnson get smacked around because they never won a ring. The most skilled NBA player ever was Pete Maravich.... no rings, so no talk.
*********************

To me, Chamberlain is still the greatest player to ever be in the NBA, I saw a lot of those games when the 76ers made their great run and he took over games like nobody else ever has.

Only 2 rings, people bash him for that but they flat do not know what injuries were like in those days. A hamstring could have a player sitting for 2 or 3 months, & there was no answer at all for an ACL.

When Chamberlain wrecked his knee in the 69 Finals, they actually sprayed freon on it. When it gave way altogether the next season they drilled a hole in his kneecap and pulled the tendons through.
Or this: people call Chamberlain choker for not "winning with Baylor & West" but they both drew DNP in the 71 playoffs, and Baylor retired after only playing 3 or 4 games in '72. Baylor was never a factor on those Lakers teams from the 69 Finals when the Celtics ignored him because he couldn't make a basket.

The '68 Sixers are to my mind the greatest NBA team of all time - better than the '67 ring-winner - but they lost their 6th man to a broken arm in the playoffs, had 2 starters pull hamstrings in the EDF, Chamberlain had a calf tear on one leg and strained tendon on the other, and only suited 9 players.


Those kinds of things are either forgot or not known on these boards but they make the "Ring" argument pretty absurd.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Hypothetically speaking, what would be Jordan's % though?[/QUOTE]

Considering he was the team's best player, leader, and centerpiece that the team was built around, I'd probably say at least 50%. There's no way to really quantify it, but thats what I would go with.

[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]
Put it like this. Iverson played Kobe in the finals. Kobe got a ring, but did he really play better than Iverson?

Michael Jordan can be bar far the best player on the court and still lose the series to the Celtics or Pistons. Does that mean Bird or Thomas were better than him at the time?

You can be a big factor of why your team won, and still be outplayed by someone who's team lost. You can lead your team to the win and still not be as good as the guy whose team lost.

[QUOTE=guy]Considering he was the team's best player, leader, and centerpiece that the team was built around, I'd probably say at least 50%. There's no way to really quantify it, but thats what I would go with.[/QUOTE]
Lol 50%? Come on. That's almost as much of an exaggeration as saying his contributions were 1%.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol 50%? Come on. That's almost as much of an exaggeration as saying his contributions were 1%.[/QUOTE]

No its not. What player could you have replaced MJ with and still won titles? Very few if any. I'd say 50% is low.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?[/QUOTE]
Ok. So what about pippen? He ran the offense and defense. Jackson had to coach against jerry sloan, pat riley. Rodman defended the league mvp and was the teams leading rebounder. Tex winter created the offense. Kukoc kept the team competitive and gave jordan and pippen breathers. The bulls don't win without any of them.