Are rings really that important?

[UnbelievablyRAW]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes, but can you use in in a debate as too why player X is better than player B? Sometimes you are put in bad situations and can't win where you are. Yes one player can drastically change a team, but at the end of the day, no one man can win a championship.

I don't really factor rings in arguments over which player is better due to it not being completely in that players hands.

[Jasong7777]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Rings are important unless you are talking about someone who doesn't have one.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Bill Russell is the greatest player of all time. 11 rings. End of discussion. Thats basically what y'all are saying.

Robert Horry is better than Michael Jordan. 7 rings > 6 rings. Thats what y'all are saying.

The moment a point like that is made up, y'all quickly change your tune to explain why Jordan is better than Horry but turn around and argue that Kobe is better than Lebron because he has rings.

Makes no sense to me. By the way, I've read some of the replies to my other posts. I'll get back to y'all later. Some very good points that I'd like to discuss. #WorkFlow

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Bill Russell is the greatest player of all time. 11 rings. End of discussion. Thats basically what y'all are saying.

Robert Horry is better than Michael Jordan. 7 rings > 6 rings. Thats what y'all are saying.

The moment a point like that is made up, y'all quickly change your tune to explain why Jordan is better than Horry but turn around and argue that Kobe is better than Lebron because he has rings.

Makes no sense to me. By the way, I've read some of the replies to my other posts. I'll get back to y'all later. Some very good points that I'd like to discuss. #WorkFlow

No righteous argument against Russell from me.

Robert Horry could play the 3,4, and 5 (against certain opponents). He routinely nailed big time threes and could play earnest defense. Definitely one of the more versatile players of all time. He also proved that it isn't the sum total thats important, its when and where you record those numbers.

Since role players are just as valuable to a team's success as its 'stars', who are we to argue which job is more important?

Kobe Bryant functions as a post feeder, off ball cutter, and clutch time jump shooter. LeBron has yet to function in a team-oriented gameplan.

[Dice]

Re: Are rings really that important?

No righteous argument against Russell from me.

Robert Horry could play the 3,4, and 5 (against certain opponents). He routinely nailed big time threes and could play earnest defense. Definitely one of the more versatile players of all time. He also proved that it isn't the sum total thats important, its when and where you record those numbers.

Since role players are just as valuable to a team's success as its 'stars', who are we to argue which job is more important?

Kobe Bryant functions as a post feeder, off ball cutter, and clutch time jump shooter. LeBron has yet to function in a team-oriented gameplan.

Stars have more of an impact to a teams success than a role player when it comes to comparing them as individuals. Yes, role players make huge contributions to championship teams BUT only as a collective unit. The right role players paired with the star makes for a championship team. We all know that the wrong role players paired with the right star still does not equal championship.(see LeBron). BUT you also don't win a championship with a bunch of role players. You need that star to compliment them.

And the job of the star is much more important than the 'role player'. Just for the simple fact that the 'role player' can be easily replaced by someone else. It's much more trickier to replace a star player.

Robert Horry might have done wonders in the playoffs for the Rockets, Lakers and Spurs. BUT if he didn't have Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan as team mates, Horry doesn't even sniff the Finals. BUT I'm willing to bet you that those players I just mentioned wouldn't have too hard of a time making appearances in the Finals without Horry.

[The15thunter]

Re: Are rings really that important?

rings factor into the equation. yes, they are important. they are not the determining factor for greatness, but they help separate the wheat from the chaffe, or certain calibers of wheat from others.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Stars have more of an impact to a teams success than a role player when it comes to comparing them as individuals. Yes, role players make huge contributions to championship teams BUT only as a collective unit. The right role players paired with the star makes for a championship team. We all know that the wrong role players paired with the right star still does not equal championship.(see LeBron). BUT you also don't win a championship with a bunch of role players. You need that star to compliment them.

And the job of the star is much more important than the 'role player'. Just for the simple fact that the 'role player' can be easily replaced by someone else. It's much more trickier to replace a star player.

Robert Horry might have done wonders in the playoffs for the Rockets, Lakers and Spurs. BUT if he didn't have Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan as team mates, Horry doesn't even sniff the Finals. BUT I'm willing to bet you that those players I just mentioned wouldn't have too hard of a time making appearances in the Finals without Horry.

Yes, the right combination of players is crucial. And you're right, the star has to trust the role players and complement their skills. True, every championship team features star players.

Can a role player be easily replaced? Robert Horry for instance, how many other guys can swing from 3 to 5, bang three pointers and grab rebounds in the endgame?

Is the 10% of the time a guy has the ball more important than the 90% of the time a guy doesn't have it? Is it more important to score 25 points yourself or limit the opposing hot-shot to below 25? Is a made shot more important than the sturdy screen that created it?

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes, the right combination of players is crucial. And you're right, the star has to trust the role players and complement their skills. True, every championship team features star players.

Can a role player be easily replaced? Robert Horry for instance, how many other guys can swing from 3 to 5, bang three pointers and grab rebounds in the endgame?

Is the 10% of the time a guy has the ball more important than the 90% of the time a guy doesn't have it? Is it more important to score 25 points yourself or limit the opposing hot-shot to below 25? Is a made shot more important than the sturdy screen that created it?

The question in relation to this thread isn't whether or not Horry is easily replaceable though. The example presented has Horry considered better than Jordan because he has one more ring. You can polish up Horry's resume all you want and it will still pale in comparison to Jordan.

I don't really agree with the assessment that it's that black and white (no matter which side of the argument you're on) but there's really no reason to defend Horry here.

[Dice]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes, the right combination of players is crucial. And you're right, the star has to trust the role players and complement their skills. True, every championship team features star players.

Can a role player be easily replaced? Robert Horry for instance, how many other guys can swing from 3 to 5, bang three pointers and grab rebounds in the endgame?

Is the 10% of the time a guy has the ball more important than the 90% of the time a guy doesn't have it? Is it more important to score 25 points yourself or limit the opposing hot-shot to below 25? Is a made shot more important than the sturdy screen that created it?

Take a look at the Bulls in the 90's. They kept the same two superstars in Jordan and Pippen between the two threepeats and everybody else changed around them. So yes, you can easily replace a John Paxson with a Steve Kerr. You can replace Will Purdue with a Bill Wennington. Heck, you can even replace a Horace Grant with a Dennis Rodman. BUT if the Bulls would have been trying to replace Jordan or Pippen or both? They wouldn't have even come close to their second threepeat run.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The question in relation to this thread isn't whether or not Horry is easily replaceable though. The example presented has Horry considered better than Jordan because he has one more ring. You can polish up Horry's resume all you want and it will still pale in comparison to Jordan.

I don't really agree with the assessment that it's that black and white (no matter which side of the argument you're on) but there's really no reason to defend Horry here.

Theres no doubt Jordan was a wonderful player, but he had different responsibilities than Horry did, making any comparison silly. Jordan won a fistful of rings because of the all-encompassing scope of his game. His game was a winner, and the rings were the ultimate function.

Take a look at the Bulls in the 90's. They kept the same two superstars in Jordan and Pippen between the two threepeats and everybody else changed around them. So yes, you can easily replace a John Paxson with a Steve Kerr. You can replace Will Purdue with a Bill Wennington. Heck, you can even replace a Horace Grant with a Dennis Rodman. BUT if the Bulls would have been trying to replace Jordan or Pippen or both? They wouldn't have even come close to their second threepeat run.

Pippen was actually a Hall of Fame role player, and so was Russell. Neither guy needed the ball or plays called for them to have a huge impact on the game. I don't remember the Bulls needing to replace Pippen during their incredible run. When Jordan was playing baseball, the Bulls played exceptional team basketball without him. The ball was popping all over the place, the cuts were determined, the screens solid, ect. Too bad Hue Hollins terminated their season, which likely would have ended with a ring.
How many other players could approximate Pippen's incredible skills?
Credit the Bulls for finding the right pieces and having the right system in place.

[Dice]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Theres no doubt Jordan was a wonderful player, but he had different responsibilities than Horry did, making any comparison silly. Jordan won a fistful of rings because of the all-encompassing scope of his game. His game was a winner, and the rings were the ultimate function.




Pippen was actually a Hall of Fame role player, and so was Russell. Neither guy needed the ball or plays called for them to have a huge impact on the game. I don't remember the Bulls needing to replace Pippen during their incredible run. When Jordan was playing baseball, the Bulls played exceptional team basketball without him. The ball was popping all over the place, the cuts were determined, the screens solid, ect. Too bad Hue Hollins terminated their season, which likely would have ended with a ring.
How many other players could approximate Pippen's incredible skills?
Credit the Bulls for finding the right pieces and having the right system in place.

Well, that's what you get when you replace Jordan with Pete Myers. Yes, the Bulls played well minus Jordan BUT they were not a championship team. And despite the fact that I believe the Bulls could have beaten the Knicks regardless of the Hue Hollins call, I'd give them less of a chance to beat the Rockets in the Finals. The Rockets used to give the Bulls trouble when Jordan was playing. I just couldn't see them beating the Rockets without their main guy. Pippen was great that year and had an MVP type season, BUT Olajuwon basically took the mantle of best player in the league and ran with it at that time when Jordan briefly left the game.

Pippen skill was unique to the Bulls title runs. No question. BUT the whole point of my argument was Pippen was irreplaceable. Probably as much as Jordan. Without neither of those guys, they don't win 6 titles. BUT I can still remember Jerry Krause trying to find anyway he could to sabotage the run by trying to trade Pippen in 1994. That would have been the worst move that they could have possibly ever made. Jordan probably wouldn't have came back neither.

[videobastard]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Getting rings are by circumstances. The team make up, coaching, chemistry, opposing opponents, and even officiating can factor into titles.

When kobe did not have shaq and phil jackson and wanted to be traded what kobe is that when comparing to other players with great skill sets. It cant be a one way street. Im more into logic then labels.

If someone thinks that player x is better then player y because of skill sets, IQ then i can respect their opinion even if i disagree. But rings should not anoint a player to be individually better then another player when different circumstances will provide different outcomes.

[RedPhazon8]

Re: Are rings really that important?

One man... Brian Scalabrine... the beast of the league... has one ring... So for this, not it doesn't matter...