The "Ring" Argument

[Figlo]

Is completely stupid.

I see people always comparing players (top players such as Kobe with Lebron, wade, tmac, carter, allen iverson, pierce, etc, etc) based on the amount of rings they've won.

Is it really a reasonable means to carry out a comparison to see who the better player is?

In my opinion: No.
We know Basketball is a TEAM oriented game and thus, TEAMS win championships, not players alone.
yes, some players on a team have a much more impact on a teams success, however, who is to say that if you replace Kobe with Tmac In that early era or even VC, that they wouldn't win.

The Ring argument is the weakest way to point out that player X is better than player Y.

EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.

In my opinion, how the player plays should determine who the better player is:
ex: compare dunking, compare 3 point shooting, compare CLUtch-ness ---> these are better arguments than the typical RING argument.

so im wondering, is it just the casuals who believe in that or do people actually think this way to compare players is a good idea (give reasons).

[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. Cleveland Lebron was a testament to that. T-Mac on the Rockets had a opportunity IMHO.

[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.

[Psileas]

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.

Yes, but..................well, this time nobody mentioned Horry. Isn't this some kind of progress?

[D-Wade316]

[Nash]

Thats what I've been saying all this time. Kobe winning a ring with Shaq or Gasol, Bynum and Odom is equally as impressive as what Lebron did with those Cleveland scrubs.

[Rake2204]

I have seen this discussion a number of times here. As always, I do not believe championship rings are directly correlated to how great a player is. For instance, if LeBron James hypothetically won two championships, it wouldn't be as simple as labeling him three championships less as good than Kobe Bryant.

More than anything else, the team aspects of basketball eliminate the simple matter with which people wish they could rank their favorite players. For instance, as Tenchi Ryu correctly asserted, certain stars play huge roles in their teams winning championships. But not every star plays as big of a role in that ring. There's an impossible number of other factors that contribute to a team winning an NBA championship. Therefore, I also do not subscribe to the idea that ranking role players according to rings doesn't make sense but ranking star players according to rings does.

Every single superstar needs help to win a championship ring. My main example of this is Kobe's inability to come close to winning a ring with Smush Parker and Chris Mihm starting alongside. However, once Andrew Bynum developed a little and once the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in exchange for peanuts, the championship aspirations returned. That's how it works. Would I view Kobe Bryant differently as a player if he had to play with Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Kwame Brown his whole career and therefore never won a ring?

There's a continuum of reasonings as to why particular players don't win championships. It's honestly nearly an infinite list of legitimate reasons a star might not have been able to win a ring, and they don't always correlate to his individual abilities not being good enough. It's certainly not coincidence when teams featuring great players win, it's just not a situation where the #1 player of all time will have the most rings, the #2 player the 2nd most, etc . . .

Thankfully, Karl Malone is considered one of the greatest power forwards of all-time (and John Stockton one of the best point guards) regardless of their championship numbers. I use them as an example because they seemed to be victims of running up against not just two other great players, but a great all-around team in MJ, Scottie and the 90's Bulls. Would it have helped if Karl Malone didn't miss a couple of clutch free throws in Chicago? Yes. You know what else would have helped? If Greg Ostertag, old Antoine Carr, and post-mediocre prime Chris Morris weren't primary performing teammates.

Great players play huge roles, but they're not equal roles and the reasonings teams win championship are too plentiful and differentiated to count. That's why I don't feel championship comparisons make sense.

Thats what I've been saying all this time. Kobe winning a ring with Shaq or Gasol, Bynum and Odom is equally as impressive as what Lebron did with those Cleveland scrubs.

I don't even like to bring LeBron in when making the Kobe statement. To me, Bryant helping his '06 squad win 45 games with Smush Parker as the team's third leading scorer and nearly upsetting the Suns in the first round was just as impressive to me as his being a part of a super talented championship team featuring Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, and Andrew Bynum. Again, if the Gasol deal was never struck, would Kobe be viewed as "less great" if he then never developed a solid enough supporting cast to win any Shaq-less rings? Yes, Kobe would probably be viewed as such. But would it be accurate? No. Would he be any less of a great player? No.

[swi7ch]

There's no I in TEAM, but there is in WIN.

[M.V.W.]

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 [COLOR="Red"]dominant[/COLOR] 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.

This. It's one means of distinguishing elite/superstar players stand out from each other, especially when they are peers and at the same position. Still, a few in here have great arguments against it.

[koBEDABEST]

guy ur just cherry picking qualities, while ignoring the fact that the players you put down are better in some of these categories than the ones you praised, and the ones you praised are worse in some of these categories than the ones you put down. no player is perfect so youre argument is flawed, and very one-sided.

no doubt some players r better "winners" than others, but the number of rings is not a valid way to compare players.

[guy]

I have seen this discussion a number of times here. As always, I do not believe championship rings are directly correlated to how great a player is. For instance, if LeBron James hypothetically won two championships, it wouldn't be as simple as labeling him three championships less as good than Kobe Bryant.

More than anything else, the team aspects of basketball eliminate the simple matter with which people wish they could rank their favorite players. For instance, as Tenchi Ryu correctly asserted, certain stars play huge roles in their teams winning championships. But not every star plays as big of a role in that ring. There's an impossible number of other factors that contribute to a team winning an NBA championship. Therefore, I also do not subscribe to the idea that ranking role players according to rings doesn't make sense but ranking star players according to rings does.

Every single superstar needs help to win a championship ring. My main example of this is Kobe's inability to come close to winning a ring with Smush Parker and Chris Mihm starting alongside. However, once Andrew Bynum developed a little and once the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in exchange for peanuts, the championship aspirations returned. That's how it works. Would I view Kobe Bryant differently as a player if he had to play with Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Kwame Brown his whole career and therefore never won a ring?

There's a continuum of reasonings as to why particular players don't win championships. It's honestly nearly an infinite list of legitimate reasons a star might not have been able to win a ring, and they don't always correlate to his individual abilities not being good enough. It's certainly not coincidence when teams featuring great players win, it's just not a situation where the #1 player of all time will have the most rings, the #2 player the 2nd most, etc . . .

Thankfully, Karl Malone is considered one of the greatest power forwards of all-time (and John Stockton one of the best point guards) regardless of their championship numbers. I use them as an example because they seemed to be victims of running up against not just two other great players, but a great all-around team in MJ, Scottie and the 90's Bulls. Would it have helped if Karl Malone didn't miss a couple of clutch free throws in Chicago? Yes. You know what else would have helped? If Greg Ostertag, old Antoine Carr, and post-mediocre prime Chris Morris weren't primary performing teammates.

Great players play huge roles, but they're not equal roles and the reasonings teams win championship are too plentiful and differentiated to count. That's why I don't feel championship comparisons make sense.


I don't even like to bring LeBron in when making the Kobe statement. To me, Bryant helping his '06 squad win 45 games with Smush Parker as the team's third leading scorer and nearly upsetting the Suns in the first round was just as impressive to me as his being a part of a super talented championship team featuring Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, and Andrew Bynum. Again, if the Gasol deal was never struck, would Kobe be viewed as "less great" if he then never developed a solid enough supporting cast to win any Shaq-less rings? Yes, Kobe would probably be viewed as such. But would it be accurate? No. Would he be any less of a great player? No.

Almost all great players get several good enough chances to win championships. If a player is that great, the only reason he wouldn't get enough chances is because his career gets cut short by injuries or his management are incredibly dumb. I'm a huge AI and T-Mac fan. But I can easily see that its incredibly wrong to suggest that the only reason they didn't win a title is cause of the teams around them. Sure they haven't had the greatest luck, but AI's biggest problem was his style of play and work ethic/leadership, while T-Mac's was work ethic, injuries, and mentality. Your Kobe example is misleading cause he's had great teams around him for the vast majority of his career. Like I said, if a player is that great its incredibly hard to not be able to at some point or another surround that player with the right pieces for a significant amount of years.

The Malone example is bad. He played for 19 years, not 2. He's always had good enough talent around him (at least for the simple fact that he had Stockton). But he was always a horrible closer and shrunk in big moments. The 97 and 98 series against the Bulls were definitely winnable for the Jazz, especially the 98 series when Pippen's back just killed him after game 4. He's still pretty high up on an all-time list anyway, but the players that are ahead of him deserve to be.

[TheFrozenOne]

Is completely stupid.

I see people always comparing players (top players such as Kobe with Lebron, wade, tmac, carter, allen iverson, pierce, etc, etc) based on the amount of rings they've won.

Is it really a reasonable means to carry out a comparison to see who the better player is?

In my opinion: No.
We know Basketball is a TEAM oriented game and thus, TEAMS win championships, not players alone.
yes, some players on a team have a much more impact on a teams success, however, who is to say that if you replace Kobe with Tmac In that early era or even VC, that they wouldn't win.

The Ring argument is the weakest way to point out that player X is better than player Y.

EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.

In my opinion, how the player plays should determine who the better player is:
ex: compare dunking, compare 3 point shooting, compare CLUtch-ness ---> these are better arguments than the typical RING argument.

so im wondering, is it just the casuals who believe in that or do people actually think this way to compare players is a good idea (give reasons).

Combination of Watching/following players career, casual fans vote,hardcore fans vote, basketball players peer vote, media vote.

example: If you watched Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

casual fans, hard core fans , media etc. understand this.


example:2 If you followed Lebron's whole career you would understand he Quit on a 65 win team, something happened last year that is still unexplainable,he is maybe the greatest physical player ever but mentally has made some really weird decisions, and since winning is the ultimate goal he has never shown that he can win it all...everyone understands this and this is his weakness and that is why everyone harps him to fix it.

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, he has won 5 Championships as the premiere player in the NBA.

people say Rings> because it basically sums up everything (criteria I stated) all in one. (assuming you watch basketball and understand Horry/Kerr was not nearly the allaround player as NBA Superstars were)

[La Frescobaldi]

Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably every season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.

[ralph_i_el]

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.

5 confused me. you can't build a team around david robinson?

[guy]

guy ur just cherry picking qualities, while ignoring the fact that the players you put down are better in some of these categories than the ones you praised, and the ones you praised are worse in some of these categories than the ones you put down. no player is perfect so youre argument is flawed, and very one-sided.

no doubt some players r better "winners" than others, but the number of rings is not a valid way to compare players.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm pointing out examples as to why they're easier to build around. Sure, Barkley's probably a better rebounder and scorer then Duncan. But he's nowhere near the defender and at the PF and C position, its usually important to have at least 1 defensive anchor down there. Barkley is already taking up one of those slots, so then his teams are limited to only 1 slot where they can fill that role i.e. making it harder to build around him. On the other hand, while Duncan isn't as good of a rebounder or scorer, he's still elite in that area while filling up the defensive anchor role. This means he really didn't need much of a center alongside him, which was the case for his last 3 titles.