Rings mean what exactly?

[dude77]

[QUOTE=swi7ch]Yeah man, I don't know why these athletes want to win a ring! It's pointless. Carlos Boozer knows the real deal:

[I]

[pauk]

I still do operate under such logic (or illogic). Great star players fortunate enough to be a member of great teams are not automatically better players to me than great star players stuck with lame teams.

Even there its about context...

[Mr Exlax]

So if your not playing for rings..then what are you playing for?
Lets just play basketball for fun and never amount to anything.. Its more for the players a feeling of accomplishment.

You gotta read more than just the title. Read my first post. I should've put a better thread title lol

[Owl]

In a team sport, I don't find it terribly logical either. Every single great player's team success is dependent upon his teammates. There's a reason Kobe Bryant wasn't winning rings in 2006 and it has very little to do with his skill level. In contrast, there's a reason Kobe Bryant was winning rings in the early and late '00's and again it had to do with a lot more than his skill level.

Absolutely.

Nobody can win a title alone, MJ didn't, Abdul-Jabbar didn't, Chamberlain didn't and those are aguably the three greatest players of all time. Indeed all of them played for below .500 teams in years close to their statistical peaks ('63 Warriors, '75 Bucks, '87 Bulls).

A single superstar individual can influence a teams performance more in basketball than in most other sports (1 of 5 players on a team, one of ten on the court), but they can still only account for a relatively small fraction of what is going on on the court overall. It's extraordinarily difficult to win a title without a superstar (especially since their was a cap placed on individual player salaries), but no superstar can win without a having a whole team at a sufficient level.

[swi7ch]

So does that mean Dirk is better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley? I look at the player, the team and the opponents.

No, Dirk wouldn't win a title too if he played in the Jordan years. Luck has something to do with winning titles, too.

[Rake2204]

It's like playing video games. Beating/finishing the game is like winning a title. At some point, don't you want to beat your favorite video game instead of playing the same level over and over again for 10 years?

Again, I think the original post was in regards to a player's skill ranking, not a "Why do players even want to win?" thing.

[Mr Exlax]

I mentioned context before... it's a pretty complex assessment.

Rings should play a big factor.

It's not crazy to think Dirk's better than Malone and/or Barkley, at all.

Dirk's done more than enough in his career and as a player to be in conversation with them and over them as well, IMO.

I like how you put the IMO at the end. That's perfect actually. Means we can have a logical debate. So IYO, was Tim Duncan better than Hakeem?

[Mr Exlax]

Again, I think the original post was in regards to a player's skill ranking, not a "Why do players even want to win?" thing.

Rake that's 100% correct. I just don't know how to change the thread title lol.

[Sampsonsimpson]

They are subjective. You have to look at the context.

[Punpun]

Rings are everythinf for stars. Everything.

[Mr Exlax]

How do I change the thread title? I worded it wrong.

[Inactive]

They mean your team won the most games, in the playoffs. Their value in regards to an individual's legacy, or reputation is indefinite. It's entirely dependent on the feelings of the observer.

There isn't an easy so way to quantify a player's contribution towards winning a championship. There is no such thing as a superstar, roleplayer, or scrub. They are invented fan concepts, which we use to communicate the perceived contributions of an individual player, without having to think about it very much. Arbitrarily separating players by these subjective classifications, and then ranking them, by counting the number of championships that their team won, is anything but logical. In order for that to even begin to make sense, you'd have to acknowledge that you can quantify their contributions objectively, and then define specific criteria for each tier. However, once you've done that, you no longer need to count rings to determine who contributed more. You just compare them by the metrics you used to separate them into different tiers.

[Mr Exlax]

They mean your team won the most games, in the playoffs. Their value in regards to an individual's legacy, or reputation is indefinite. It's entirely dependent on the feelings of the observer.

There isn't an easy so way to quantify a player's contribution towards winning a championship. There is no such thing as a superstar, roleplayer, or scrub. They are invented fan concepts, which we use to communicate the perceived contributions of an individual player, without having to think about it very much. Arbitrarily separating players by these subjective classifications, and then ranking them, by counting the number of championships that their team won, is anything but logical. In order for that to even begin to make sense, you'd have to acknowledge that you can quantify their contributions objectively, and then define specific criteria for each tier. However, once you've done that, you no longer need to count rings to determine who contributed more. You just compare them by the metrics you used to separate them into different tiers.

Read my very first post. I worded the title wrong.

[Inactive]

Read my very first post. I worded the title wrong.

Was my post not relevant to the thread? The question you posed was:

How does a ring make one player better than the other?

My response was that they don't, and that the arguments for ring counting are flawed.

[Mr Exlax]

Was my post not relevant to the thread? The question you posed was:

My response was that they don't, and that the arguments for ring counting are flawed.

I honestly didn't read any part of your respsonse lol. It was so long so i just figured you were explaining to me what a championship ring was lol. I just read it. You're 100% on point with my thinking.