The "Ring" Argument

[TheFrozenOne]

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

Totally wrong, sorry.

No team is a reflection of its superstar except in the NBA, which has largely abandoned great basketball teamwork in favor of individual glory.

Fans increase that anomaly because they seem to think the superstar is supposed to drag a bunch of scrubs along behind him, making him seem more heroic.

Couldn't disagree with a post more than yours, sorry.

sorry but you are 100% wrong.

Basketball more so then any other team sport where the individual player can affect his team .

there are only 4 other players compared to other team sports who have many. the playing field/court is very small in comparison to any other team sport.

you have to learn how to bring everything you have as a player/person and incorporate into a team....basketball has this magnified because of the reasons I showed.

this is exactly why especially in Basketball , stars are judged on how they can effect thier team in the "winning aspect"....


imagine Micahel Jordan never won 1 championship, and failed every year in the palyoff's to win.....do you think his legacy would be anywhere near what it is?


nuff said.

[La Frescobaldi]

sorry but you are 100% wrong.

Basketball more so then any other team sport where the individual player can affect his team .

there are only 4 other players compared to other team sports who have many. the playing field/court is very small in comparison to any other team sport.

you have to learn how to bring everything you have as a player/person and incorporate into a team....basketball has this magnified because of the reasons I showed.

this is exactly why especially in Basketball , stars are judged on how they can effect thier team in the "winning aspect"....


imagine Micahel Jordan never won 1 championship, and failed every year in the palyoff's to win.....do you think his legacy would be anywhere near what it is?


nuff said.

**************************
Absolutely. We agree on all that.

The point is, saying Jordan for example is greater than Kobe Bryant simply because he has 6 rings instead of 5 is an absurdity.

Now MJ may be greater than KB, but it's not because of an extra ring.

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

Did the Bulls have talent?
Did the Bulls lose starters to DNP in Finals?
Did the Bulls have a great system/coaching?

For example - and I do not mean to take away from the 91 Bulls at all - the Lakers' Worthy & Scott going down to injury & DNP was sure a big factor in that Finals.

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

A great dynasty run is every bit as much a testament to the team's GM, coaches, and physical trainers as it is to the superstar.

If that Bulls dynasty did not have all 3 factors working in their favor, Michael Jordan would not be looked at the same way today.

[Round Mound]

I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

There Has Been Many Great Players ...Better than Others Who Won Rings or Won More Rings.

Broken Down Stats is More Clear to a Player`s Efficiency and If You Watch them Play then You Got Reality of How Good a Player Was.

[guy]

**************************
Absolutely. We agree on all that.

The point is, saying Jordan for example is greater than Kobe Bryant simply because he has 6 rings instead of 5 is an absurdity.

Now MJ may be greater than KB, but it's not because of an extra ring.

But the 3 leg analogy is still correct:

Did the Bulls have talent?
Did the Bulls lose starters to DNP in Finals?
Did the Bulls have a great system/coaching?

For example - and I do not mean to take away from the 91 Bulls at all - the Lakers' Worthy & Scott going down to injury & DNP was sure a big factor in that Finals.

Injury free teams win rings, plain and simple.

A great dynasty run is every bit as much a testament to the team's GM, coaches, and physical trainers as it is to the superstar.

If that Bulls dynasty did not have all 3 factors working in their favor, Michael Jordan would not be looked at the same way today.

Bulls were up 2-1 and the Lakers were already losing by alot in game 4 when Scott and Worthy went down. It would've been 3-1 regardless. And then even if Scott and Worthy were healthy for game 5, they would've had to win 3 games in a row, 2 of which would've been in Chicago. So their injuries really weren't a big factor.

[Duncan21formvp]

You gotta remember that it depends on the organization you go to. Lakers have already been in half the NBA Finals so obviously going to them top players will win titles guaranteed. But if those same players that went to the Lakers actually went to franchises like the Nuggets or Pacers teams that never won anything they may still put those teams on the map, but they wouldn't win nearly as much with them. IMO Shaq winning 1 ring with the Magic would have held more weight than 3 rings with the Lakers. Which is why I value Hakeem's 2 rings more so than Shaq's since Hakeem went to an organization that never won anything prior to him arriving.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I Never go by Rings to Categorize a Player.

There Has Been Many Great Players ...Better than Others Who Won Rings or Won More Rings.

Broken Down Stats is More Clear to a Player`s Efficiency and If You Watch them Play then You Got Reality of How Good a Player Was.

Yeah thats because you're a Barkley-stan

[Round Mound]

Yeah thats because you're a Barkley-stan

Basketball Fan that is not biased by the media and the ring crap.

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...

[keepinitreal]

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.

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 John Starks pump fakes, drains a three, and the Knicks win a championship... Ewing is looked at as a better player?

If the SAS don't win the draft lottery to get Tim Duncan... David Robinson isn't a strong cornerstone for winning?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Basketball Fan that is not biased by the media and the ring crap.

Bill Russell was Better than Wilt? Not Even Close dude...

yes even jlauber admits it

[MooseJuiceBowen]

4 rings f@ggot

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Some people just have no idea how hard it is to win and win consistently. Guys like Jordan, Kobe, Shaq and Duncan have made it look easy; always competing for or winning titles almost every year. The amount of effort and ability it takes to lead a team to a title is starting to become really underrated on ISH.

In the internet age with stats readily available, along with kids who haven't had the chance to watch a lot of the greats play as well as understand what they were watching, winning titles is underrated.

[longtime lurker]

I thought the whole point of playing the game is for rings. Since "winning" is all a product of luck then why bother playing, just have a lottery to see who the NBA champion is.

[DirtySanchez]

CHarles Barkely....Karl Malone...are they better then Tim Duncan? Did they have better careers?

I would pick Timmy any day of the week over them...you know why?

The rings.....

END THREAD

[SlayerEnraged]

Rings matter. Nope, Fisher isn't better than Lebron but when you compare 2 players who are about equal as far as ability goes, the one with more rings should and always does get the nod.

[DirtySanchez]

Rings matter. Nope, Fisher isn't better than Lebron but when you compare 2 players who are about equal as far as ability goes, the one with more rings should and always does get the nod.

YUP....

/Thread