using ring count to determine how great a player is

[AirBonner]

Is a simpleton way to ignore all other aspects/stats of the game.

[Micku]

White Mamba and Adam Morrison > CP3.

This is known.

[bitedez]

Horry>>>Jordan

[kamil]

Isiah Thomas = LeBron* James

[AirBonner]

White Mamba and Adam Morrison > CP3.

This is known.

Horry>>>Jordan
Well said

[HenryGarfunkle]

It would mean Kobe > Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron, Oscar, etc.... which we all know is insanely untrue

Curry might have 2 rings after this year... but will ANYONE think he's on LeBron/Hakeem level? Of course ****ing not... he's mr. 0/22... :oldlol: :oldlol:

Real basketball fans know, that rings are mostly a team accomplishment. You judge the whole resume and how important someone was to a team/franchise... how consistent they were.... how they performed individually in the playoffs/finals... etc.

Counting up rings without context is what people with agendas do. You lose all credibility once you judge players like that. It's not to be taken seriously.

[LBJFTW]

Using ring count as the 1A/1B best player on your team is a great way to determine how great a player is.

Using ring count as a role player or non 1A/1B best player like Horry to justify greatness of a player is stupid.

Using # of trips to the finals while playing on stacked teams in a weak eastern conference to justify greatness is equally stupid. Anyone who does this has no credibility.

Bran stans already melting down in fear of Curry being 2/2, with tears streaming down their faces once he goes 3/3.

[Poetry]

Horry>>>Jordan

Horry isn't a top 20 player. When you start discussing top 20 players, everything is important, especially rings.

[Lebron23]

Horry isn't a top 20 player. When you start discussing top 20 players, everything is important, especially rings.


Rings as the number one option aka Finals MVP. Have you won a championship in your life time when you played in your inter street league?

[Lebron23]

Horry>>>Jordan


Bill Russell >>>> John Havlicek >>> Horry >>>> Jordan.

[Micku]

Horry isn't a top 20 player. When you start discussing top 20 players, everything is important, especially rings.

Is Bob Cousy better than big O?

[LBJFTW]

Consecutive finals appearances on stacked eastern conference teams when that conference is weak as shit does not equate to greatness. 2/7 is not greatness. Greatness is 6/6, 5/7, 5/6, etc as the best player with other accolades to back it up. Since it's a team based game, there's only so many metrics you can use to judge individual greatness and losing back to back to back finals isn't greatness. Sorry.

[HenryGarfunkle]

Consecutive finals appearances on stacked eastern conference teams when that conference is weak as shit does not equate to greatness.
^ Example of someone with no credibility ^

[Ne 1]

Rings can only be a criteria for elite players. Players who lead their respective teams with their play and put their team mates into position to excel. People often bring up Robert Horrry, who although was an exceptional role player, comparing him to elite players is ridiculous.

I'm not saying rings are the be all end all criteria for ranking players or that it automatically means one player is better than another but the fact of the matter is that they hold a lot of value.

Every top 10 player has multiple titles or at least one ring. The only players that some people will occasionally have in their top 10 that doesn't have multiple championships is Oscar Robertson and Moses Malone, and they both have 1 ring. The best player that never won a championship is probably either Elgin Baylor or Karl Malone, and nobody ever has them ranked in the top 10.

[Prime_Shaq]

Comparing players from different eras also isn't very fair.

[Ne 1]

Using ring count as the 1A/1B best player on your team is a great way to determine how great a player is.

Using ring count as a role player or non 1A/1B best player like Horry to justify greatness of a player is stupid.
I say the best standard is no standard at all. Judge each championship on a case by case basis. What matters is the strength of the team as a whole.

[Lebron23]

^ Example of someone with no credibility ^


The guy is a dumb @$$.

[LBJFTW]

^ Example of someone with no credibility ^

Form a valid argument or continue to post on all your alts. Either way it won't be long now. 2/7 is coming. The fabricated will be exposed yet again.


The guy is a dumb @$$.

You are a sheep that believes in fabricated superstars. It doesn't get any dumber than that. Keep living the dream kid, the rest of us live in the real world.

[fourkicks44]

Is a simpleton way to ignore all other aspects/stats of the game.

Any single stat or number to determine how great a player is incomprehensive.

However ring counts are a good place to start as the ultimate goal of any individual and team is to win the championship.

[livinglegend]

Using ring count as the 1A/1B best player on your team is a great way to determine how great a player is.

Using ring count as a role player or non 1A/1B best player like Horry to justify greatness of a player is stupid.

Using # of trips to the finals while playing on stacked teams in a weak eastern conference to justify greatness is equally stupid. Anyone who does this has no credibility.

Bran stans already melting down in fear of Curry being 2/2, with tears streaming down their faces once he goes 3/3.

So Russell is the GOAT. :applause:

[tmacattack33]

Rings can only be a criteria for elite players. Players who lead their respective teams with their play and put their team mates into position to excel. People often bring up Robert Horrry, who although was an exceptional role player, comparing him to elite players is ridiculous.

I'm not saying rings are the be all end all criteria for ranking players or that it automatically means one player is better than another but the fact of the matter is that they hold a lot of value.

Every top 10 player has multiple titles or at least one ring. The only players that some people will occasionally have in their top 10 that doesn't have multiple championships is Oscar Robertson and Moses Malone, and they both have 1 ring. The best player that never won a championship is probably either Elgin Baylor or Karl Malone, and nobody ever has them ranked in the top 10.

Yes, because if they didn't have a ring, nobody would consider them top 10.

You are getting the cause mixed up with the effect and are looking at it backwards.

If Malone had 2 rings, he'd be considered top 10.

If Hakeem didn't win those two rings in Houston, many may not even have him in their top 20.

[Spurs m8]

When you're actually talking about GOAT then yes...it is relevant

[Old Man River]

only rings matter.

i never said life was fair

spurs fan here.

[Old Man River]

kobe vs pippen is a good comparison. pippen with the slight edge

[hold this L]

If you're going to suck off Lebron every single time you post, can you at least stop pretending to be a Celtics fans? :lol

[bizil]

When u look at GOAT status, your team success is CERTAINLY a factor. Because after all your TOTAL RESUME as a player is what could earn HOF status:

Team accolades
Solo accolades
Numbers
Peak status
Longevity being great
Impact on the league (redefining a position, creating the need for rules changes, etc.)

So when it comes to rings, some guys WEREN'T lucky enough to have a team capable of winning rings. Bill Russell has 11 rings. But PEAK WISE, I would take guys like Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Dream, Admiral, etc. over him. But due to Russ's OVERALL resume, he doesn't take a backseat to any of them.

So it's more about the context you are talking about players AS OPPOSED to ring count. When it comes to peak status, rings aren't really a big deal. When it comes to HOF status, rings ARE A BIG DEAL.

[DaHeezy]

The ring argument really started to form from the insecurities of Kobe and Jordan stans towards Lebron and really took off from there. I'm not actually saying LeBron is better than Kobe or Jordan, but the whole 6/6 or 5/7 was a direct result from those insecurities. Those stats never mattered as much or were ever relevant pre LeBron.

Funny how rings is only a factor in individual accolades in NBA and not really in other sports. Many consider Jim Brown or Wayne Gretzky the greatest yet they're team accolades weren't all time.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Depends on a number of things obviously.

LeBron's been to several NBA finals and had ample opportunities in grabbing a few extra rings. Ditto with other ATGs.

You don't measure a players worth and greatness solely off his rings, but its still a factor depending on the context.

[SouBeachTalents]

The ring argument really started to form from the insecurities of Kobe and Jordan stans towards Lebron and really took off from there. I'm not actually saying LeBron is better than Kobe or Jordan, but the whole 6/6 or 5/7 was a direct result from those insecurities. Those stats never mattered as much or were ever relevant pre LeBron.

Funny how rings is only a factor in individual accolades in NBA and not really in other sports. Many consider Jim Brown or Wayne Gretzky the greatest yet they're team accolades weren't all time.

Gretzky won 4 rings :biggums:

[branslowski]

Posters bringing up Horry and Adam Morrison..Talk about no context:yaohappy:

The damage control is real.:oldlol:

[Poetry]

The ring argument really started to form from the insecurities of Kobe and Jordan stans towards Lebron and really took off from there.

The ring argument has been a factor since Mikan. It's nothing new.

[bigkingsfan]

The ring argument has been a factor since Mikan. It's nothing new.
You're still alive?

[Young X]

Question: Who do y'all rank higher, John Stockton or Tony Parker?

[Poetry]

You're still alive?

I am. :D

Did someone slay me when I wasn't looking? :(

[DaHeezy]

Gretzky won 4 rings :biggums:
There are 20 players who won 6 or more. Messier won 6. Maurice Richard won 9. Henri won 11. For a player of Gretzky's calibre should have at least 6.

[Nilocon165]

You can use ring count only when they are the first option and they played good/great in the finals

Why is this so hard for people to understand

[knicksman]

Clearly these bran stans dont know about basketball. Stats and rings dont go together. If you want rings, youve got to sacrifice stats. Thats why we go for rings first before stats. The goal of the game is to win so its unfair for them to be compared to bran when theyve sacrificed stats. I guess wilt and oscar>>> jordan when we all knew jordan could avg triple doubles if he wanted to. You guys are stupid. No wonder you all are bran stans.

[livinglegend]

You can use ring count only when they are the first option and they played good/great in the finals

Why is this so hard for people to understand

it's hard because with that formula Russell is the GOAT and MJ stans refuse to acknowledge that.

[livinglegend]

Clearly these bran stans dont know about basketball. Stats and rings dont go together. If you want rings, youve got to sacrifice stats. Thats why we go for rings first before stats. The goal of the game is to win so its unfair for them to be compared to bran when theyve sacrificed stats. I guess wilt and oscar>>> jordan when we all knew jordan could avg triple doubles if he wanted to. You guys are stupid. No wonder you all are bran stans.

Russell >>> MJ
He has 5 more rings than Jordan while playing 2 less seasons... GOAT

[fourkicks44]

Russell >>> MJ
He has 5 more rings than Jordan while playing 2 less seasons... GOAT

It is a valid argument, but 30.1 ppg and 33.4 ppg in the playoffs say otherwise.

[livinglegend]

It is a valid argument, but 30.1 ppg and 33.4 ppg in the playoffs say otherwise.

Well, this is the problem.
When it doesn't fit your agenda, you change the criteria.
When it's Lebron, it's all about rings as the man ( and sacrificing stats, and all that crap) and when it's russell, it's about stats. :lol
Cherry picking narratives :oldlol:
This is why nobody takes MJ/Kobe stans seriously. They flip flop all the time. They can stay consistent.

[knicksman]

Russell >>> MJ
He has 5 more rings than Jordan while playing 2 less seasons... GOAT


Different era. In this era, russell type of players cant win anymore dipshit

[sportjames23]

Well, this is the problem.
When it doesn't fit your agenda, you change the criteria.
When it's Lebron, it's all about rings as the man ( and sacrificing stats, and all that crap) and when it's russell, it's about stats. :lol
Cherry picking narratives :oldlol:
This is why nobody takes MJ/Kobe stans seriously. They flip flop all the time. They can stay consistent.


stopitgetsomehelp.gif

[livinglegend]

Different era. In this era, russell type of players cant win anymore dipshit

Good thing that you are not lawyer:roll: :roll: :roll:
It would be hilarious seeing you trying to convince a judge with these type of arguments :roll: :roll: :roll:

[livinglegend]

stopitgetsomehelp.gif

1-9.gif

[bigkingsfan]

Different era. In this era, russell type of players cant win anymore dipshit
That's like saying two points shooting can no longer win today's game...

[fourkicks44]

Well, this is the problem.
When it doesn't fit your agenda, you change the criteria.
When it's Lebron, it's all about rings as the man ( and sacrificing stats, and all that crap) and when it's russell, it's about stats. :lol
Cherry picking narratives :oldlol:
This is why nobody takes MJ/Kobe stans seriously. They flip flop all the time. They can stay consistent.

How the F()CK did I change the criteria.


Any single stat or number to determine how great a player is incomprehensive.

However ring counts are a good place to start as the ultimate goal of any individual and team is to win the championship.

Go back through the thread and find it your self if you want.

[knicksman]

In the end, it comes down to playing lebron ball or winning ball aka off ball. Lebron ball lets you accumulate stats but eventually leads to an L. Thats why only idiots fall for triple double players.

[Disaprine]

:cry:

2/7

:cry:

[LBJFTW]

LeGMtard essentially left his stans raw with no Vaseline. Literally backed them into a corner with no way to even defend him and here's why:

1. Anything he's done post season wise is tainted by the fact that he was only able to do it by joining on the most stacked team, in the eastern conference. Look at the reg season win loss ratio of the teams he was on every time he made it to the finals.

2. His finals record is laughable. 2/7 even though he selected his own teammates by playing LeGM? How the fvck do you lose when the front office lets you make all the decisions on who to surround yourself with?

3. He has zero argument against kobe. No one gives a fvck about Kobe's best finals numbers vs lebrons best finals numbers. The bottom line is that Kobe won 2 rings after battling through the more difficult west conference with less help than what bron had when he won his 2 rings battling through the weak east. There is no comparison really.

4. The whole "love and kyrie were injured in 2015" argument means nothing because here they are healthy as can be, and if not for Draymond being suspended they would have lost the series 4-1. This makes bron's loss in 2015 a legit loss because he would have lost regardless.

There is zero argument against any of this and that's why everything these lebron stans believe in is a complete utter joke not even worthy of discussion. They just hear the facts, meltdown, and the cycle repeats itself again, and again, and again, and again.....

[beastee]

nobody takes MJ/Kobe stans seriously. They flip flop all the time. They can stay consistent.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55727281.jpg

[West-Side]

Different era. In this era, russell type of players cant win anymore dipshit

Russell/MJ is a perfect comparison to Kobe/LeBron.
Russell competed on a STACKED ass team in a league consisting of 8/10 teams. Won 11 titles in 2 less seasons. Jordan was 6 for 6 in a much tougher era.

Same logic applies to LeBron, the difference?
He only won 2 titles and lost a chance at a ring FIVE times.
That's pathetic. The only reason he has 7 appearances is because he essentially had what Russell had. A stacked team and weak competition.

[Sakkreth]

Winning rings as the man is first criteria, not the only one but very important one. So let's see:

LeBron: 2
Kobe: 1
Curry: 0

[GoSpursGo1984]

Winning rings as the man is first criteria, not the only one but very important one. So let's see:

LeBron: 2
Kobe: 1
Curry: 0

Dates gone on with actual girls not blow up dolls

Lebron tons
Kobe tons
Curry tons
Sakkreth none