The "Ring" Argument

[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.