Are rings really that important?

[CelticPride101]

Re: Are rings really that important?

all I'm saying is switch LeBron with Bird on that Heat team and Dirk is ringless, and you know that

[DrJones]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Do rings really reflect an individual players talent and skill?

In a vacuum, no. Compared to other major team sports (football, baseball, hockey, soccer), yes. With the possible exception of NFL quarterbacks, NBA stars are far more integral to their team's success than their counterparts in other sports.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I don't think any guidelines have definitively been put down here. I'm just saying a championship team is a concoction of many, many variables. Not just one. There's no doubt star players have massive impacts on teams. I'm saying often, even for the greatest of players, their impact alone will never be enough. As such, I don't feel it'd make sense to use the "this guy is better because he won more rings" reasoning technique because there's too many variables to be taken into account. I don't think that's anything within the realm of an excuse.

Great players will have a huge impact on teams. There's no doubt about that. There's just never a threshold of individual player greatness that will always undoubtedly lead to an NBA championship. As mentioned before, Michael Jordan would not have always won a championship regardless of which team he played for. He won in Chicago. He probably could have won elsewhere. But he wouldn't have won everywhere, regardless of how much he stepped his game up. A lot of things have to come together, extending far beyond a player's individual ability, in order to make a championship happen.

And regarding the dolling out of credit, that's another reason I'm not keen on the championship aspect when weighing an individual player's greatness. Kobe Bryant played a huge role in the Lakers' '09 title. He may have had the biggest impact on his team's success. That team was full of many excellent players who molded and gelled and ultimately won themselves a ring. Bryant clearly had a lot to do with it. It just happens that Bryant was able to provide such an impact on a team who was one huge impact away from being able to win an NBA championship. By that I mean, take away Bryant, and that team's still not horrible. But add a giant impact like Bryant, and a serious championship threat is born. As I mentioned before, I think Kobe had the same (if not greater) amount of impact on his '06 team. Only, that season, it just happens Bryant was able to provide such an impact on a team who was one huge impact away from being a borderline playoff team. That is to say, that '06 squad without Bryant would have been an absolute disaster. However, due to his greatness, he was able to significantly improve that team to the point of nearly being able to scrape out of the first round.

Overall, I feel LeBron's impact is similar to that of Kobe Bryant's. And over the years, I have found LeBron's teams to vary greatly in terms of ability. However, instead of excusing LeBron's failure in Cleveland, I more often tend to applaud him for the positive impact he was able to have on team after team during his time there. LeBron James is someone I define as being great. I think he's one of the greatest players we've seen in the NBA in a long time. Therefore, his greatness is not hinged upon whether his general manager was able to find good enough players to support him and win a championship.

And I don't know for sure, but I think you're suggesting I'm saying there should be some self-accountability among great players both in victory and in defeat. And there is. When the Cavaliers lose a game, I'm not saying it's merely because LeBron's teammates weren't good enough. Once again, I'm just saying there's many more things that factor into it than merely, "LeBron couldn't get it done." Sometimes, LeBron didn't play up to his own level. But you know what? Sometimes Dirk didn't play up to his own level either this year. I say, in the name of the Dallas Mavericks franchise, thank goodness for Jason Terry, JJ Barea and company. Similarly, I recall Kobe Bryant struggling in a deciding Finals game. Thank goodness for his excellent and timely teammates.

I'm just saying I judge a player off of his ability and not on a game-by-game basis, but on the breadth of what I've seen them able to perform up to that point. I've established, due to evidence shown on the hardwood, that Dirk Nowitzki, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant are all incredibly awesome players. I view them all as no-doubt legends. So with that established, a lot of the battle with these guys comes down to whether they find themselves in situations where the awesome impact they can have works within a team structure talented and functional enough to help them win a championship. And whether a player is able to be blessed with such a talented team structure should not have an effect for how good we find that individual player to be at the game of basketball.

I will agree with you on this though, I truly do believe too much focus is placed on why a team lost as opposed to why the other team won. It almost makes me sick to watch so many coaches in various sports get canned after three years for not leading their respective team to the promised land. I always wonder to myself, "AD's and GM's know only one team can win per year, right?"

We agree a lot more than just that... but my issue (stronger word than what I really mean) is with the examples used simply bc I don't want this to turn into another Lebron thread (especially a Kobe vs Lebron thread).

[Colts18]

Re: Are rings really that important?

all I'm saying is switch LeBron with Bird on that Heat team and Dirk is ringless, and you know that

So we are now using hypothetical questions/answers as gospel? Actually we don't know that.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

So we are now using hypothetical questions/answers as gospel? Actually we don't know that.

please don't feed the trolls.

[CelticPride101]

Re: Are rings really that important?

please don't feed the trolls.

I'm not trolling, just stating my opinion... yeah, I tried to be funny about it but that's my opinion

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I'm not trolling, just stating my opinion... yeah, I tried to be funny about it but that's my opinion

That opinion in this thread is trolling. We ignored it... would be best to not bring more attention to it.

[bamalam]

Re: Are rings really that important?

gotta give some credit to the rings when you look at history.



for last 21 years you have


kobe, timmy ,shaq ,mj, olajuwon, isiah, magic , and bird

thats only 8 guys in 21 years as the only guys winning multiple rings as the #1 guy on their team.

guys like wade, dirk start getting talked about when they win one because they might enter the rarefied air that these 8 guys are in.

that cannot be ignored when considering greatness of a player, and it is why guys that havent won are considered to be lesser players.

you could count rings and arguably you got 8 guys most people would have in their top 10-12 guys of the last 21 years right there.


as number 1 guy on their respective teams/rings won:
mj 6
magic 5
bird/shaq/timmy/ 3/3/4
olajuwon/kobe 2/2
isiah- 2



lots of variables involved , but winning one ring with any team as #1 guy, much less multiple, going against world class athletes is a rare achievement.

[Segagendude]

Re: Are rings really that important?

If it's only based on rings, than Robert Horry with his seven rings means he's better than even Jordan with his six, lol....


I know, I know-----Robert was a role player on some great teams. Just a joke, people!

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Are rings really that important?

If it's only based on rings, than Robert Horry with his seven rings means he's better than even Jordan with his six, lol....


I know, I know-----Robert was a role player on some great teams. Just a joke, people!

Which of course means Bill Russell is the greatest center of all time with his 11 rings

[For The Win]

Re: Are rings really that important?

As much as I think LeBron is one of the best players, rings do matter. If you get to the finals and need to win 4 games to get a ring after taking so much animosity from the fans, a great player would step up and show everyone why he's great. Whether it be 1 ring or 11 rings, if you are a great player more often than not you will win at least one championship in basketball.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

As much as I think LeBron is one of the best players, rings do matter. If you get to the finals and need to win 4 games to get a ring after taking so much animosity from the fans, a great player would step up and show everyone why he's great. Whether it be 1 ring or 11 rings, if you are a great player more often than not you will win at least one championship in basketball.

Yes... and no.

If you're the GREATEST player then always yes. If you're not (but still a great player), and playing against the greatest player, then what?

[1Rose]

Re: Are rings really that important?

My lord does this lockout need to end. -_________________-

[jzero]

Re: Are rings really that important?

My lord does this lockout need to end. -_________________-

LOL i reckon
the week long break between nfl games is sapping my youth

[rockchisler]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Still wondering why we are comparing a Small forward to a Shooting Guard and Rings are not important if you are under 20 year old and just think Lebron is the greatest because he dunks well. Compare Lebron to the Big O, That is a much better comparision...