Why do people base how good/GOAT a player is by the amount of rings?

[Marv_Albert]

I mean serious Karl Malone/Charles Barkley were far better than any bigs in the league right now and they have 0 rings would you rank them over the PF/C we have in the league today? No of course you wouldn't

And then people go on about oh Lebron is shit because he has only won 2 chips, when most of the league will never win one.

I don't get the world today...

[sammichoffate]

[Done_And_Done]

People/Fans/Media will always use championships as a key barometer to gauge ones career. It's the ultimate achievement in their respective sport (especially in basketball where a singular player can make such a consequential difference)

Right or wrong, it will always be that way. Is it a overblown factor? I tend to agree with you in that regard.

[FrobeShaw]

Because people are stupid and the media plays on this and continues the superhero angle of one man going through adversity to reach the summit.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Titles are overrated.

[Psileas]

Because not only do people need to believe in definitive GOAT's (=successors of their favorite childhood superheroes) and GOAT lists, they also want to believe that such lists can easily be formed by using the most simplistic criteria available (=rings, ppg and flashy plays).

[ClipperRevival]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.

[sportjames23]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.

Co-sign.

[FrobeShaw]

Because in the sport of basketball, one player can have a huge impact on the outcome of games. It is unlike any other team sport. If history proved that championship winning teams were comprised of solid role players without stars, titles would be downgraded. But that simply isn't the case. Almost every team that won a title was led by an all-time great or superstar. Yes, there are your exceptions like the Sonics in 1979 and Pistons 2004 but almost every time, this holds true.

It's just the way it is. It's a sport where a transcendent talent can literally impose his will on the game. That's why the best of all time need to be judged by rings. Not the be all, end all but a huge criteria in my book.

It's a stupid criteria really. Look at Steve Nash. If Cheap Shot Bob doesn't do what he did, Suns likely win it all. Is Steve Nash now suddenly a greater player? By all accounts in terms of how people view him, yes. He won a championship. Now he'd be seen as a clear cut best PG of his generation since no other great PG accomplished that from his era. This is all because his teammates didn't get suspended. Not really his own play that changed.

[ClipperRevival]

As Herman Edwards once said, "You play to win the game."

A lot of guys can put up empty stats on bad teams. They can play the game the wrong way, dominate the ball, not play optimal team ball and when it's all said and done, they might have stats that might compare with some of the best ever. How much weight does that really carry? Not much in my book. Superstars only win titles as "the man" by playing the game the right way, for the most part.

Clutch matters. The game isn't played by robots. Guys can shrink in the moment (2011 Lebron) or elevate his game (Hakeem 1994). For people going strictly by the numbers and saying there is no such thing as clutch or choking, I really question whether they played the game.

It's about winning and impacting the game. Not just put up empty stats.

[ClipperRevival]

It's a stupid criteria really. Look at Steve Nash. If Cheap Shot Bob doesn't do what he did, Suns likely win it all. Is Steve Nash now suddenly a greater player? By all accounts in terms of how people view him, yes. He won a championship. Now he'd be seen as a clear cut best PG of his generation since no other great PG accomplished that from his era. This is all because his teammates didn't get suspended. Not really his own play that changed.

What season are you talking about?

But Nash's game wasn't optimal for championship winning teams. It was bordering on gimmicky. He dominated the ball too much. The Suns played no defense. You don't win championships with a run and shoot offense with no D. They were a great regular season team but would've never won a title like that.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

What season are you talking about?

But Nash's game wasn't optimal for championship winning teams. It was bordering on gimmicky. He dominated the ball too much. The Suns played no defense. You don't win championships with a run and shoot offense with no D. They were a great regular season team but would've never won a title like that.

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

[Wade's Rings]

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

This.

[ClipperRevival]

2007. They absolutely would have won a title if not for that cheap shot.

Enlighten me about the situation.

[riseagainst]

Enlighten me about the situation.

cheap shot Rob with the flagrant