The "Ring" Argument

[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.[/QUOTE]

100% agree with this.

The Ring matters.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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]
We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....[/QUOTE]
Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.[/QUOTE]

Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.

[QUOTE=guy]Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.[/QUOTE]
I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.

If or when Lebron ever does win a ring, they'll stop saying how pointless rings are.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.[/QUOTE]

The thought of an immature hothead like Sprewell meshing well with the Bulls, specifically being able to command the respect of someone like Rodman,sounds far-fetched.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.[/QUOTE]

Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41] There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.[/QUOTE]

Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.

[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]

35-40% sounds fair. I'd up the ante and go 50% (like guy). That's just me though. Pippen and Jackson get something like forty percent while the rest of the Bulls makeup the remaining ten.

Teams win championships, but its asinine to think someone like Jordan only had 1% of his teams doing. Totally absurd :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.

[QUOTE=guy]Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.[/QUOTE]
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=97 bulls]There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.[/QUOTE]

Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.[/QUOTE]
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=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.

[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.