Printable View
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.