-
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
2nd Greatest Player
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by HenryGarfunkle
^ Example of someone with no credibility ^
The guy is a dumb @$$.
-
Local High School Star
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by HenryGarfunkle
^ Example of someone with no credibility ^
Form a valid argument or continue to post on all your alts. Either way it won't be long now. 2/7 is coming. The fabricated will be exposed yet again.
Originally Posted by Lebron23
The guy is a dumb @$$.
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.
-
Long Live The Process
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by AirBonner
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.
-
NBA lottery pick
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by 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.
So Russell is the GOAT.
-
Very good NBA starter
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
RENT FREE
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
When you're actually talking about GOAT then yes...it is relevant
-
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
only rings matter.
i never said life was fair
spurs fan here.
-
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
kobe vs pippen is a good comparison. pippen with the slight edge
-
Top 10.
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
If you're going to suck off Lebron every single time you post, can you at least stop pretending to be a Celtics fans?
-
NBA lottery pick
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
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.
-
NBA sixth man of the year
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
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.
-
NBA Legend
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
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.
-
Embiid > Jokic
Re: using ring count to determine how great a player is
Originally Posted by 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.
Gretzky won 4 rings
-
5/7=71%>>3/9=33%
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|