Are rings really that important?

[Colts18]

Re: Are rings really that important?

People still claim that Peyton Manning should have more rings than 1 as if it is his fault. I hate the ring argument. Great post Van Hussen

[Ken North]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Depends on the context.

Does rings necessarily correlate with skill and ability? Of course not.

Can you ignore rings when discussing players' greatness? No.

The essence of doing sports is the desire to win. If you can't win, you're lacking something very significant, regardless of your physical abilities.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Its about more than just winning a ring. Its about playing hard, smart, tough, and with courage. Doing the right things at the right time, paying attention to xs and os, practicing hard, playing off the ball, ect. A player who does all that and more is bound to have success.

Some players did all that and never won. Nate Thurmond, John Stockton, Sidney Moncrief, and others. They were simply on the wrong teams at the wrong times.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Its about more than just winning a ring. Its about playing hard, smart, tough, and with courage. Doing the right things at the right time, paying attention to xs and os, practicing hard, playing off the ball, ect. A player who does all that and more is bound to have success.

Some players did all that and never won. Nate Thurmond, John Stockton, Sidney Moncrief, and others. They were simply on the wrong teams at the wrong times.

Yep

And by the same token, someone like say, Kobe Bryant is vastly overrated because of his 6 rings. And when I say overrated, I don't mean in the sense that he isn't the second best SG ever, I just mean the gap that most people peg him at between say someone like LeBron James or even Tracy McGrady.

So whomever said it depends on the discussion, I'd agree with that. There are a lot of different contexts one could make or dispute an argument about rings.

BTW, Alexbrady, I know you just forgot, but add Barkley, Malone, Ewing to your list.

[DukeC]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Kobe has 5 rings.....

Just sayin'

[clipperfan811]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The issue with greatness comes down to function, meaning: What is the function of a great basketball player? is it scoring points? is it accumulating stats? I would argue that the primary purpose/function of a professional basketball player is to win games.

Winning games at such a high level encompasses being so good that you make the players around you to play as effectively as possible. To do that you need to do a number of things that require skills and a high IQ for the game. You need to know what spots they're most effective from, you need to understand what their strengths and weaknesses are, you need to push them to improve in practice, you need to encourage and chew them out depending on what they need. You also need to sacrifice certain parts of your own game for the betterment of the team. And on top of all that perfect your game as much as possible.

It just so happens that when all those magic ingredients come together you have a recipe for dynasties.

In the strictest sense rings have nothing to do with measuring greatness, rings are merely the result of greatness. But it'd be sort of like asking "is wealth really that important for being a great business man?"

At the end of the day the greatest anything is whatever most effectively performs it's function.

[VDusen04]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The issue with greatness comes down to function, meaning: What is the function of a great basketball player? is it scoring points? is it accumulating stats? I would argue that the primary purpose/function of a professional basketball player is to win games.

Winning games at such a high level encompasses being so good that you make the players around you to play as effectively as possible. To do that you need to do a number of things that require skills and a high IQ for the game. You need to know what spots they're most effective from, you need to understand what their strengths and weaknesses are, you need to push them to improve in practice, you need to encourage and chew them out depending on what they need. You also need to sacrifice certain parts of your own game for the betterment of the team. And on top of all that perfect your game as much as possible.

It just so happens that when all those magic ingredients come together you have a recipe for dynasties.

In the strictest sense rings have nothing to do with measuring greatness, rings are merely the result of greatness. But it'd be sort of like asking "is wealth really that important for being a great business man?"

At the end of the day the greatest anything is whatever most effectively performs it's function.

I agree that the greatest players are those who can maximize the abilities of their teammates. However, my issue is that the maximizing of your teammates' abilities still might not be enough to win a championship. For instance, had Michael Jordan played on the 1993 Dallas Mavericks, would he have raised the level of play for guys like Doug Smith and Mike Iuzzolino? I'd say without a doubt. Even then, would it have been enough to win a championship? No way.

To me, the question that defines a great basketball player is: Do you play incredibly? Can you score much more frequently and effectively than 98% of the rest of the players in the world? Do you lead the way? Can you make excellent passes at the right time? Do you clean up the boards? Are you an excellent defender? Can we count on you to take care of the ball without turning it over at a high rate? Can you do things on the floor that only few others can and can you do them repeatedly? Can you make those around you play at a higher level?

To me, the ability to raise your teammates' level of play is an aspect of greatness, but not the aspect. I feel there's more to it than that. I believe Rajon Rondo really raises his teammates' ability to perform. And Rondo may be great, but I don't think that could be a primary means of measuring his greatness.

From a personal standpoint, I've played with certain guys through the years who made me a better ballplayer. They pushed the ball in the open floor, made me run with them and were able to deliver the ball at just the right time, allowing me the ability to score more than I would without them on the floor. If I wasn't going as hard as I could, he'd tell me to go harder. He'd push me to be better, to maximize my efforts. Essentially, he made all his teammates better. So that was a great part of his game. Unfortunately, his jumper was inconsistent at best, he struggled to finish inside and he was a questionable defender.

But I think we're in agreement here, because at one point you do say, "And on top of all that perfect your game as much as possible" but that kind of makes a player's actual skills sound like an afterthought. My feeling is the ability to make your teammates better is just a single part to the puzzle. In a lot of cases, the height of a great player's skills is going to raise the ability of those around him almost automatically.

For instance, Shaquille O'Neal was so dominant that he forced many teams to double team him constantly. O'Neal then developed the underrated ability to recognize double teams and effectively pass out of them. These passes often led to open looks for players such as Kobe Bryant, Robert Horry, Rick Fox, and Derek Fisher, allowing them to take more open shots than they'd otherwise see and essentially making the game easier for them than normal. I think that's the primary way O'Neal was able to "make his teammates better" (if we want to call it that) and it had little to do with leading and whatnot. Instead, it's a byproduct of how awesome his skills were in the first place in combination with complementing what those teammates were able to do best (make open shots).

And maybe we say, "Exactly, that's a part of what made Shaq so great. He was able to raise the ability of his teammates and as a result they won a number of world titles." However, again, I'd have to wonder what Shaq would have done with those same '93 Mavericks. Would Derek Harper have benefited from constant Shaq double teams? Yes. Iuzzolino? Yep. Would they have won more than 11 games (their true number of wins that season)? No doubt in my mind. Would they have won an NBA championship with that roster, ever? Even if Shaq became the most adept post passer of all-time and was the best leader ever invented? Nope.

To top it all off, yes, I do believe one of the primary functions (if not the primary function) of a great player is to win games. However, winning games is different than winning championships. A great player is going to help a team win more than they would without him, but the level of his greatness will not directly correlate to how much more that team wins. Being a great player and then winning championships does not, in my opinion, automatically make them greater than another player who has not won championships.

The beauty of basketball is that there's never been a player who could do it alone, ever. He's always needed great teammates to win a championship. To illustrate this fact even more clearly, let's assume Michael Jordan had my former varsity team as his Chicago Bulls supporting cast. We mentioned MJ on that horrible Mavericks team, but I bet some people could have pulled the "Well, we don't know, maybe Jordan turns Iuzzolino and Rooks in to All-Stars" card. Anyway, truth is, MJ leading a bunch of Class B high schoolers would get rocked night-in and night-out in the NBA. He'd push us all to the limit and it'd never be enough. That's a super obvious example. We all clearly suck (except for MJ). It's a sliding scale though. There's teams in the NBA who are so lacking in talent, that a single great player could do as many things right as humanly possible and it'd never be enough. LeBron James, in 2007, was historically great. It wasn't enough. The Cavs didn't lose because LeBron wasn't great. The Cavs lost because the team was not good enough. They were as good as they were because of LeBron, but it still wasn't good enough. Sometimes, great players can only do so much and that is why I don't believe their greatness can be measured by rings.

[rockchisler]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I hate the whole Kobe vs Lebron arguement, One is a shooting guard the other is a small forward, I think Comparing him To Julius Erving is a better comparison....But oh well

[Sam Marlowe]

Re: Are rings really that important?

It depends on what the discussion is about. If we're referencing someone in the context of greatest players of all time then rings do matter. Every player worth mentioning in that context has been part of a team capable of winning a title. So determining why they did or didnt win at the highest level is certainley relevent to deciding their place among the other greats. We play to win the game as Dennis Green once said.

[clipperfan811]

Re: Are rings really that important?

You do make a ton of valid points the only problem is that you're arguing a position that is too extreme and therefore far too easy to have holes poked in.

It's almost as if you're saying that rings have no effect whatsoever in how we should determine a great player. You're partly correct but if you're playing a game there has to be a score sheet somewhere, or else you're not really playing a game.

Rings are a big part of the tally sheet and while it has more to do with measuring the greatness of a team rather than a player, it's still a big part of the perception of greatness. At the end of the day greatness is only perception anyways. There is no mathematical formula for greatness, it's all memories, which turn into stories, which turn into legends.

Let's take this years NBA finals because it illustrates the power of perception so clearly. Dirk had a great playoff run, he posted similar stats as in the past and in fact has posted better averages in the playoffs in the past (01/02 28.4 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 2.3 apg. 2.0 spg, 0.8 bpg). His public perception took a massive leap this year after he led his team to a championship.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes as far as him motivating his teammates but as I sat there and watched, I saw a fire in the guy's eye that frankly scared me to death. He did what he had to do to help his team win when it mattered most and that passion spread like a virus to his teammates. It's what he showed on his way to the ring that cemented him as one of the greatest players we've seen; NOT the ring itself, that's obviously after the fact.

Playing great (stat-wise) with a bunch of scrubs as teammates is much easier than when you have other capable teammates who can create their own shots, distribute, defend, rebound ect. There's simply less to go around, lets take the 1992 dream team Jordon averaged 14.9 ppg, 2.4 rpg and 4.7 apg. Those statistics are way down from his NBA championship winning season averages (30-6-6) but MJ adapted his game for the greatness of the team, he did things (like averaging 4.7 spg )which would maximize the use of his teammates. That team dominated and that accomplishment adds to the resume of Jordan's greatness.

It's very hard to argue that once you get to that elite level, rings don't separate the absolute greatest from the also great's, if only by wide-spread perception.

[VDusen04]

Re: Are rings really that important?

You do make a ton of valid points the only problem is that you're arguing a position that is too extreme and therefore far too easy to have holes poked in.

It's almost as if you're saying that rings have no effect whatsoever in how we should determine a great player. You're partly correct but if you're playing a game there has to be a score sheet somewhere, or else you're not really playing a game.

Rings are a big part of the tally sheet and while it has more to do with measuring the greatness of a team rather than a player, it's still a big part of the perception of greatness. At the end of the day greatness is only perception anyways. There is no mathematical formula for greatness, it's all memories, which turn into stories, which turn into legends.

Let's take this years NBA finals because it illustrates the power of perception so clearly. Dirk had a great playoff run, he posted similar stats as in the past and in fact has posted better averages in the playoffs in the past (01/02 28.4 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 2.3 apg. 2.0 spg, 0.8 bpg). His public perception took a massive leap this year after he led his team to a championship.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes as far as him motivating his teammates but as I sat there and watched, I saw a fire in the guy's eye that frankly scared me to death. He did what he had to do to help his team win when it mattered most and that passion spread like a virus to his teammates. It's what he showed on his way to the ring that cemented him as one of the greatest players we've seen; NOT the ring itself, that's obviously after the fact.

Yep, I feel what you're saying. And this is where things can get a little muddled. Championships are a wonderful thing. I value Detroit's 2004 ring as one of the greatest extended basketball moments of my life. On that same hand, was Chauncey Billups any greater as a player after that championship compared to before? No. Did the public perceive him to be? In many cases, yes. So maybe that's where greatness will never be agreed upon in basketball. Many perceive championships to mean a great player must have single handedly done something extraordinary that non-championship winning players never did. I disagree with that. Many believe it's not about how good a player is, just how good we want to perceive him to be. I also disagree with that.

Dirk Nowitzki, for example, has been a killer for years. I feel the only reason he did not garner the proper respect he deserved was because people were making judgments based off of false pretenses. Dirk is suddenly less skilled than anyone who's ever won a championship because his Mavericks couldn't get over the hump? He was a choker because he missed a game-winner? Both clearly false. Dirk has always been Dirk. The only thing that happened this year is that everything fell in line for the big guy. He did his part, but the rest of his team also did their part, and it wasn't from some magical mystique Dirk was bestowing upon them. Jason Terry, Shawn Marion, Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler and J.J. Barea all played insanely huge roles in completing important tasks that ultimately led to an NBA championship. Perception among a lot of the media and many others says that Dirk finally learned how to play better and win. I say that's a bunch of bologna.

In terms of the fire in Dirk's eye, I bet it was there, but it's not as if he was the only star player to have that look. We tend to remember and think of all these small things about players who win. However, when Charles Barkley is living and dying for his team, breathing fire, but ultimately losing, many people like to pretend he didn't have that look in his eye too; they don't believe it was possible he could will his teammates to push themselves further. To me, that aspect to "greatness" is more storytelling than hard evidence and often does not interest me when discussing how good a player was. It's like saying, "Man, Chauncey just wanted to win. If his team needed a three pointer from half court, he was going to take it. And you could see in his eyes that he knew he was going to make it. That's just what champions do."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o2MQBM_CpKg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I love that shot. But I don't get caught up in the myth of it all. The 2004 Detroit Pistons may be a better example at defining greatness than I originally thought. Prior to their ring, Ben Wallace was just about the only player worth writing home about, according to league-wide perception. But I'm telling you, Chauncey, Sheed, Ben, and Rip were all already great players. I mean very skilled players. Somehow though, it wasn't until after they won a championship that wide-spread perception decided to accept all these players as truly being great. Their skills generally stayed the same (except Memo blossomed in Utah) yet seemingly, just the fact that each player now had a championship belt around their waist suddenly meant they were all individually more skilled than they were the year before, which would be a false notion. I remember Lindsey Hunter's 2K rating jumping from something like a 66 to a 79 between 2K4 and 2K6. The only thing that'd changed in Hunter's game was perception among the masses.

Playing great (stat-wise) with a bunch of scrubs as teammates is much easier than when you have other capable teammates who can create their own shots, distribute, defend, rebound ect. There's simply less to go around, lets take the 1992 dream team Jordon averaged 14.9 ppg, 2.4 rpg and 4.7 apg. Those statistics are way down from his NBA championship winning season averages (30-6-6) but MJ adapted his game for the greatness of the team, he did things (like averaging 4.7 spg )which would maximize the use of his teammates. That team dominated and that accomplishment adds to the resume of Jordan's greatness.

I'm not entirely sure how I want to tackle this statement. Numbers will surely drop when players are operating alongside a great supporting cast. But I'm uncertain how that relates to the topic at hand. Rick Fox averaged 15 a night for the '97 Celtics. A change of scenery and two seasons later, a 29 year old Fox is averaging almost half that for the star-studded Lakers. So did his stats change? Yes. Does the 9ppg average in L.A. mean he was half the player he was in Boston? No. Is he somehow greater than he was in Boston? I wouldn't say so. Fox was generally operating with the same set of skills, only with a different role. NBA champion Rick Fox was merely a more savvy, but slightly older and steadily debilitating-skills version of Boston Rick Fox to me.

It's very hard to argue that once you get to that elite level, rings don't separate the absolute greatest from the also great's, if only by wide-spread perception.

And therein lies our disagreement, for which we will likely just have to respectfully acknowledge our differences between one another. The idea of wide-spread perception is the idea I reject in the first place. Oftentimes, wide-spread perception can fall in line with what I believe to be true. I think wide-spread perception is that Vince Carter is the greatest dunker in NBA history at this point. However, I don't believe wide-spread perception alone is reason enough to acknowledge Vince's dunking abilities. If debating with someone who was arguing Dominique Wilkins being in fact the better dunker, I wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to use the "well, that's what most people believe so that's kind of got to be how it is" argument and have it pass as a legitimate point.

If greatness in basketball to someone is defined by how fun of a story we can tell about a player, then championships are going to play a huge role. To me, how good a player is depends upon what they do on the basketball court. Kobe Bryant, in 2006, on a team that didn't even escape out of the first round, was great. He was incredible. To suggest it was easier for him to score so many points and do what he did on the floor only because he was stat-padding or didn't have to share with fellow skilled plyers would be terribly short-sighted and missing the point. It's a great example of us witnessing outstanding basketball play which resulted in a team succeeding on a much higher level than it ever should when players such as Smush Parker and Kwame Brown were starting and playing big minutes. If Kobe played on a team like that his whole career, and never won a ring, I'd view him just as great as many do now.

Contrary to wide-spread public perception, I do not view the Kobe Bryant who was able to win a championship (alongside Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum) any differently than the one playing on a team trying to maximize minimal talent in 2006. I'd hear many stories of how Kobe "finally did it on his own" when L.A. won in '09. It was a feeling of, "Oh? Really? You guys. . .don't think. . .teaming him up with one of the best power forwards in the league. . .really. . .counted for anything? That's Kobe doing it on his own?" And that's not a slight toward Kobe. Rather, it's just an affirmation that no one wins a ring alone and no matter how great a player is (Kobe in this case) he needs help. So to judge how great Bryant was based on his team's ability to fill in the pieces around with legitimate players is haphazard at best.

[Colts18]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The essence of doing sports is the desire to win. If you can't win, you're lacking something very significant, regardless of your physical abilities.

Bogus. If this were a 1-on-1 contest maybe, but it is a team sport. No matter how great a player is, if his team doesn't come to play, they don't come to play. I would be a fool to blame the best player for his team not being good enough.

There is a difference between the desire to win and having a realistic shot at winning.

If anyone tells me that LeBron is to blame for not winning a ring in Cleveland, then I would call that person a fool to their face.

[ironblood]

Re: Are rings really that important?

VDusen, awesome stuff. I share your sentiments 100%.

At the end of the day, Basketball is a team sport and a championship is a team achievement. It doesn't say 'Michael Jordan' on those six banners, it says 'Chicago Bulls'. It doesn't say 'Larry Bird', it says 'Boston Celtics'. For some reason though, our sports culture feels the need to credit but one individual. I blame some of the ESPN personalities and "experts" for breeding that type of mind state. When the Lakers won two seasons ago, no one was talking about the Lakers. They were talking about Kobe. It's like Gasol, Odom, and Fisher didn't matter. All people want to remember is Kobe. The story wasn't 'Lakers beat Celtics to win championship'. It was 'Kobe Bryant wins fifth championship. Where does he rank now?'

To me, stats don't matter. Honest. They don't tell the whole story and they never did. There are far too many variables that can affect numbers. Different players are going to excel in different roles and on different teams. I don't focus on a player's numbers, I focus on his impact. A basketball player's worth is only as high as his ability to help his team win the game. THAT'S how greatness should be defined. Anyone who says LeBron James can't be considered one of the greats is by all means blind. I don't think there's a player in history who might have been able to have done more with less for so many seasons. The fact that Cleveland couldn't get over the hump isn't a reflection of James's lack of leadership or lack of greatness, it was a reflection of Cleveland's. I challenge you to find a player who could have filled LeBron's shoes and have gotten the job done. Most likely, you can't. Yet here we are years later and the story was never 'Cavs lack the firepower to compete', it was 'LeBron choked'.

It's very hard to argue that once you get to that elite level, rings don't separate the absolute greatest from the also great's, if only by wide-spread perception.

Well that's the thing. It's up to us, the the intelligent sports fans, to observe the variables and form our own conclusions based upon what we know to be true. If ESPN wants people to believe that those type of things matter, then fine. It's all just propaganda anyway. Let the casual fans eat it up and count rings. These are the same blockheads who discredit Peyton Manning because he only won one Superbowl. If you don't think that Manning is already in the same company as Montana, then quite frankly you're not worth arguing with.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

VDusen, awesome stuff. I share your sentiments 100%.

At the end of the day, Basketball is a team sport and a championship is a team achievement. It doesn't say 'Michael Jordan' on those six banners, it says 'Chicago Bulls'. It doesn't say 'Larry Bird', it says 'Boston Celtics'. For some reason though, our sports culture feels the need to credit but one individual. I blame some of the ESPN personalities and "experts" for breeding that type of mind state. When the Lakers won two seasons ago, no one was talking about the Lakers. They were talking about Kobe. It's like Gasol, Odom, and Fisher didn't matter. All people want to remember is Kobe. The story wasn't 'Lakers beat Celtics to win championship'. It was 'Kobe Bryant wins fifth championship. Where does he rank now?'

To me, stats don't matter. Honest. They don't tell the whole story and they never did. There are far too many variables that can affect numbers. Different players are going to excel in different roles and on different teams. I don't focus on a player's numbers, I focus on his impact. A basketball player's worth is only as high as his ability to help his team win the game. THAT'S how greatness should be defined. Anyone who says LeBron James can't be considered one of the greats is by all means blind. I don't think there's a player in history who might have been able to have done more with less for so many seasons. The fact that Cleveland couldn't get over the hump isn't a reflection of James's lack of leadership or lack of greatness, it was a reflection of Cleveland's. I challenge you to find a player who could have filled LeBron's shoes and have gotten the job done. Most likely, you can't. Yet here we are years later and the story was never 'Cavs lack the firepower to compete', it was 'LeBron choked'.



Well that's the thing. It's up to us, the the intelligent sports fans, to observe the variables and form our own conclusions based upon what we know to be true. If ESPN wants people to believe that those type of things matter, then fine. It's all just propaganda anyway. Let the casual fans eat it up and count rings. These are the same blockheads who discredit Peyton Manning because he only won one Superbowl. If you don't think that Manning is already in the same company as Montana, then quite frankly you're not worth arguing with.

Both of you make good points but before this turns into ANOTHER LEBRON THREAD, the story is not "Lebron choked" when it comes to the Cavs and never has been. We're not even going to get started on that tangent bc it's very, very far from the truth. And with that said, using the guidelines you both have just laid down, Lebron is FAR from exempt from blame with how the Cavs performed during his time there. Just like having better players (or having players play better) around him could've gotten them a championship, his play being different or better could've also. You can't complain about Kobe getting too much credit then blame everything on Lebron's supporting cast. Just doesn't add up.

Teams play against other teams that are trying to win too. Usually, when you lose it's to a team that is better and/or played better than you. There's too much focus on putting blame on losers while ignoring what was done to win. Lebron didn't win in Cleveland bc the Cavs ran into teams that were either better or played better... same as last year. Even trying to make excuses for Lebron is going against the principle of "team" that you both are pushing in your posts.

[VDusen04]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Both of you make good points but before this turns into ANOTHER LEBRON THREAD, the story is not "Lebron choked" when it comes to the Cavs and never has been. We're not even going to get started on that tangent bc it's very, very far from the truth. And with that said, using the guidelines you both have just laid down, Lebron is FAR from exempt from blame with how the Cavs performed during his time there. Just like having better players (or having players play better) around him could've gotten them a championship, his play being different or better could've also. You can't complain about Kobe getting too much credit then blame everything on Lebron's supporting cast. Just doesn't add up.

Teams play against other teams that are trying to win too. Usually, when you lose it's to a team that is better and/or played better than you. There's too much focus on putting blame on losers while ignoring what was done to win. Lebron didn't win in Cleveland bc the Cavs ran into teams that were either better or played better... same as last year. Even trying to make excuses for Lebron is going against the principle of "team" that you both are pushing in your posts.

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?"