Are rings really that important?

[DukeC]

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...

Oscar was a PG....and he has a ring...Lebron doesn't have a ring and isn't a PG...still a horrible comparison...

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The thread isn't about Lebron (though some may only be looking at it from his angle).

And yes, it probably would be done if there wasn't a lockout, lol.

[cjonesfan921]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes and no. I know no one is doubting how well Karl Malone was, as a player. It's tough. It's as much a team game as anything. Yes, great players can dominate, but, great teams usually beat out a great player on a team.

Jordan is, and may always be, the best. However, the Bulls did win 55 games without him. They had a very good team, but it was great with him.

Lebron may, or may never win, an NBA championship, but there is no doubt that he is one of the best talents to come into the league. Also, with all the hype and hoopla, he has done a pretty darn good job. Now if he can only finish off some games in May/June...

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if anything is repeated.

No, rings are NOT important. Rings are not important due to basketball being a team sport. Jordan, Magic, Bird... none of those guys did it by themselves and I despise people who think that they did. Bird didn't break out until Parish, McHale, and Ainge joined the team. How many rings did he win before them? Magic had Jabbar and/or Worthy his entire career. How many rings did he win without them? Jordan had Pippen. Without Jordan, when he went to play baseball, the Bulls were still contending for the Eastern Conference crown.

So many players, great players, are without rings. Just a few that I can remember from my lifetime are as follows:

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley
Allen Iverson
Reggie Miller

Some great players that never got a ring before my time:

Dominique Wilkins
Elgin Baylor
George Gervin
Pete Maravich

All these players don't get their due. Its funny to me when Magic makes fun of Lebron for not winning when he probably grew up idolizing Pistol Pete. I bet he wouldn't tell Maravich he doesn't have the heart of a champion. I bet Trent Dilfer wouldn't go up to Dan Marino and tell him he sucks because he doesn't have a ring.

Rings are just icing on the cake. It rewards a TEAM for playing as a TEAM and nothing more.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if anything is repeated.

No, rings are NOT important. Rings are not important due to basketball being a team sport. Jordan, Magic, Bird... none of those guys did it by themselves and I despise people who think that they did. Bird didn't break out until Parish, McHale, and Ainge joined the team. How many rings did he win before them? Magic had Jabbar and/or Worthy his entire career. How many rings did he win without them? Jordan had Pippen. Without Jordan, when he went to play baseball, the Bulls were still contending for the Eastern Conference crown.

So many players, great players, are without rings. Just a few that I can remember from my lifetime are as follows:

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley
Allen Iverson
Reggie Miller

Some great players that never got a ring before my time:

Dominique Wilkins
Elgin Baylor
George Gervin
Pete Maravich

All these players don't get their due. Its funny to me when Magic makes fun of Lebron for not winning when he probably grew up idolizing Pistol Pete. I bet he wouldn't tell Maravich he doesn't have the heart of a champion. I bet Trent Dilfer wouldn't go up to Dan Marino and tell him he sucks because he doesn't have a ring.

Rings are just icing on the cake. It rewards a TEAM for playing as a TEAM and nothing more.

That particular group of players never won rings because they were all seriously flawed in some way (with the exception of Stockton).

-Karl Malone directly cost Stockton a championship with his choke-artistry from 96-98. He took bad shots, missed good shots, tried to jam passes into double coverage, ect.
-Patrick Ewing was a low IQ player and a no show in the clutch.
-Charles Barkley was rarely in shape and never played defense.
-Allen Iverson was proof that scoring runts rarely win a Title.
-Reggie Miller was a poor defender and his clutch shooting was slightly overrated.
-Dominique Wilkins was a turnover machine and his defense was abysmal.
-Elgin Baylor was another no 'D' guy and he had poor practice habits.
-George Gervin was soft and his defense was awful.
-Pete Maravich was a ballhog and his defense was a joke.

Pete Maravich had the heart of a champion? He never played defense, hogged the ball, and had an awful completion rate.

Ringless players who were legitimate winners? John Stockton, Sidney Moncrief, Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, Steve Nash, Gus Johnson, Lou Hudson, and Jack Twyman.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

That particular group of players never won rings because they were all seriously flawed in some way (with the exception of Stockton).

-Karl Malone directly cost Stockton a championship with his choke-artistry from 96-98. He took bad shots, missed good shots, tried to jam passes into double coverage, ect.
-Patrick Ewing was a low IQ player and a no show in the clutch.
-Charles Barkley was rarely in shape and never played defense.
-Allen Iverson was proof that scoring runts rarely win a Title.
-Reggie Miller was a poor defender and his clutch shooting was slightly overrated.
-Dominique Wilkins was a turnover machine and his defense was abysmal.
-Elgin Baylor was another no 'D' guy and he had poor practice habits.
-George Gervin was soft and his defense was awful.
-Pete Maravich was a ballhog and his defense was a joke.

Pete Maravich had the heart of a champion? He never played defense, hogged the ball, and had an awful completion rate.

Ringless players who were legitimate winners? John Stockton, Sidney Moncrief, Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, Steve Nash, Gus Johnson, Lou Hudson, and Jack Twyman.

The same things you've applied to some of these players can be said about the players who've won rings. Jordan, like or not, was a ballhog. He took a lot of bad shots but because he was Jordan nobody really complained. He lost his fair share of games for the Bulls.

Most of your 'poor D' labels on guys are from guys that played during the era in which defense was not top priority in the league. The name of the game back then was to run and gun.

Through all your assessments you are putting the blame on ONE player and not the team. Basketball is a team sport. In fact, during your answer you put Stockton in the list of winners but neglected Malone? They go hand and hand. You cannot mention one without mentioning the other. They spent their primes together.

Let me riddle you this, just for sake of proving my point a little. I don't think Steve Nash is a winner. Now, without mentioning anything about his team, name why he has not won a title.

[a_maz_ing]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The same things you've applied to some of these players can be said about the players who've won rings. Jordan, like or not, was a ballhog. He took a lot of bad shots but because he was Jordan nobody really complained. He lost his fair share of games for the Bulls.

True but Jordan wasn't exactly a low efficiency high volume shooter. He shot over 50% from the Field, which is impressive considering how many bad jumpshots he took. Him being a ball hog did not hurt his team THAT much.

Most of your 'poor D' labels on guys are from guys that played during the era in which defense was not top priority in the league. The name of the game back then was to run and gun.

Really? I'm sure Baylor played during the same time as the Celtics who had many dominant defensive players. Heck Jerry West wasn't exactly a shmuck on D either.
Reggie and Barkley played during the 90s, I would not consider that a "non D era" at all.
Overall just because an era was run and gun doesn't mean you can't play D...great players would anyway.

Through all your assessments you are putting the blame on ONE player and not the team. Basketball is a team sport. In fact, during your answer you put Stockton in the list of winners but neglected Malone? They go hand and hand. You cannot mention one without mentioning the other. They spent their primes together.

Like any team sport, one person can screw up for the whole team or uplift them. If the best player doesn't play any D, then he gets blame for not doing his job (or what a great player should do).
And yes Malone and Stockton played together but that doesn't mean they were both equally involved in all parts of helping the team win.

Let me riddle you this, just for sake of proving my point a little. I don't think Steve Nash is a winner. Now, without mentioning anything about his team, name why he has not won a title.

Because he doesn't play defense...

You can't put all the blame on 1 star player for never winning a ring, however some star players (i.e. Lebron's bad FT shooting and disappearing in clutch) have significant parts in their team. If a top player on a team as small as basketball underperforms, they will lose more often then not.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

The same things you've applied to some of these players can be said about the players who've won rings. Jordan, like or not, was a ballhog. He took a lot of bad shots but because he was Jordan nobody really complained. He lost his fair share of games for the Bulls.

Most of your 'poor D' labels on guys are from guys that played during the era in which defense was not top priority in the league. The name of the game back then was to run and gun.

Through all your assessments you are putting the blame on ONE player and not the team. Basketball is a team sport. In fact, during your answer you put Stockton in the list of winners but neglected Malone? They go hand and hand. You cannot mention one without mentioning the other. They spent their primes together.

Let me riddle you this, just for sake of proving my point a little. I don't think Steve Nash is a winner. Now, without mentioning anything about his team, name why he has not won a title.

Up until the 91 Finals against the Lakers, Jordan was mostly going one on one. However, he finally accepted the triangle offense and began to make the facilitation passes it needs to function. Jordan did everything at the highest level, score, pass, handle, defend, rebound, and compete in every practice.

Defense has always been a top priority when it comes to winning a ring. The truth is that Stockton generated numerous open shots for Malone in those Finals games, he simply missed. Stockton always played with courage, smarts, and determination in the clutch which cannot be said about Malone.

Steve Nash always plays hard no matter where his team is ranked or what time of the year it is. He raises his teammates' level of play and routinely drops his pull-up jumpers in the clutch. Sure, he can't play a lick of defense and he has sticky fingers but the guy is a winner.

[23]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Jordan went through a season where he averaged 8 assists a game

Can you name me 5-10 other SG's that has done that?

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Is that really impressive when you figure how much Jordan had the ball in his hands? I mean Lebron floats around that number from the 3 and I'm pretty sure Iverson, who many label a ball hog, was at least 7 per game multiple seasons.

I'm not going to dig into stats and see if a 2 guard actually put up a number like that, even though it may have happened in pre 90s NBA, so you can have that. I will just say that MJ was a 'ball hog' that probably had 5 assists per game, if that.

Maybe later I'll take up the challenge of finding 5-10 SGs to accomplish that.

[Vega]

Re: Are rings really that important?

...I have this argument at least once a week...

And the answer is not at all. For a COACH...Maybe...

But you can't put a players value into championships because of all the variables that come along with it. (Role players. Coaching. Management. Owners ALL play a part in winning championships.

You have to have the personnel, its been proven time after time. Larry Brown & Detroit. Phil & LA & Chi. Dallas & Rick (Coached Jermaine Oneal,Ron Artest & Reggie Miller 2 best record years back) Gregg & Sprus. No championship team has been that because of one player...or too much talent...not even lack of talent.

Its been said 1 million times in the topic probably...but Lebron is that example. No matter what you say about his performance in championship games. I'm from Cleveland. Unbiased. Watch a 23 year old carry a list of players all no longer NBA players (3/4 Years ago) to the Finals. Ira Newble. David Welsey. Eric Snow. Drew Gooden. Sasha Pavolic. Big Z. Larry Hughes. Daniel Gibson...

Easily the worst talent I've ever watched for 82 games plus.
Worse than Kobe & Smush Parker & Kwame (@ least he had Phil for some time)
Lebron James did what he did in Cleveland with a defensive coordinator. A great one...but thats all he is good for. And that forced Lebron to be a player he wasn't Yes he has the ability to control games with scoring. But he is a playmaker. Lebron James & Iverson have had the same problems when it comes to being surrounded with talent.

You put Lebron in Miami. With 2 Allstars. You reach the finals again. Easily. Only losing 3 times to get there? Could have possibly swept the entire east. First season as a team with no legit center. or starting point guard. (they need a rondo that can shoot from anywhere) . That should be proof enough that's what he needed. Dallas just had the coach. & more NBA proven players on their TEAM. The missing piece to that puzzle wasnt even a PG or C or talent...it was a legit coach who has coached teams to championships, same problem in Cleveland. No Adjustments. James Jones went from playing to not seeing a second. Mike Miller missing everything put still playing. Coaching problem.

I use these present day examples to explain why I feel rings are not that important and shouldn't have as much value if your weighing a player as a player. Lebron is proof. Look at Clevelands records. He took almost all of them over in 7 years.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

True but Jordan wasn't exactly a low efficiency high volume shooter. He shot over 50% from the Field, which is impressive considering how many bad jumpshots he took. Him being a ball hog did not hurt his team THAT much.



Really? I'm sure Baylor played during the same time as the Celtics who had many dominant defensive players. Heck Jerry West wasn't exactly a shmuck on D either.
Reggie and Barkley played during the 90s, I would not consider that a "non D era" at all.
Overall just because an era was run and gun doesn't mean you can't play D...great players would anyway.



Like any team sport, one person can screw up for the whole team or uplift them. If the best player doesn't play any D, then he gets blame for not doing his job (or what a great player should do).
And yes Malone and Stockton played together but that doesn't mean they were both equally involved in all parts of helping the team win.



Because he doesn't play defense...

You can't put all the blame on 1 star player for never winning a ring, however some star players (i.e. Lebron's bad FT shooting and disappearing in clutch) have significant parts in their team. If a top player on a team as small as basketball underperforms, they will lose more often then not.

Sooo... basically it takes a TEAM to win a championship and not a player, correct? So that means, in my eye's at least, a player shouldn't be judged by rings because that is a team accomplishment, not a player accomplishment.

By the way, before labeling those Celtic teams 'great' defensive teams, go look at their defensive stats. Now I did a quick search for some stats to see if that Celtic team really belonged up there with the great teams of yesteryear. Now, according to the stats, from the 1959-2000... not ONE CELTIC team cracked the TOP 50 for best defensive teams of all time (going off Points Per Game).

Now what makes that Celtic team garner that label? It sure isn't the stats. Its the way they played the game.

Still don't understand how John Stockton is labeled a winner and Karl Malone is not when they played on the SAME TEAM. That my friend was just a mistake posted by you so I'll let that slide. I won't bring up the 25 and 10 Malone averaged a night. The big men he had to deal with nightly. You know.. the Smits, Hakeem, The Admiral, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Kemp, Divac, Sabonis, Radja, Kevin Willis, a little bit of Duckworth... man I'll even throw Luc Longley in that mix. He'd do things to these 'big men' hearts of today. Some of those guys, you slip up and forget to bring your game, will put you on lock and key. Gotta respect the Mailman's work. Not only were these dudes skilled defensively but most will score on you when they wanted. To last in the 90s you better had been good on both sides of the ball (Rodman is one of the few exceptions but then again he was a nasty defender).

Now back to the original topic. Greatness is not defined by rings... its defined by the way they played the game. You've basically said that already without saying it.

I got mind control over Debo....

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

...I have this argument at least once a week...

And the answer is not at all. For a COACH...Maybe...

But you can't put a players value into championships because of all the variables that come along with it. (Role players. Coaching. Management. Owners ALL play a part in winning championships.

You have to have the personnel, its been proven time after time. Larry Brown & Detroit. Phil & LA & Chi. Dallas & Rick (Coached Jermaine Oneal,Ron Artest & Reggie Miller 2 best record years back) Gregg & Sprus. No championship team has been that because of one player...or too much talent...not even lack of talent.

Its been said 1 million times in the topic probably...but Lebron is that example. No matter what you say about his performance in championship games. I'm from Cleveland. Unbiased. Watch a 23 year old carry a list of players all no longer NBA players (3/4 Years ago) to the Finals. Ira Newble. David Welsey. Eric Snow. Drew Gooden. Sasha Pavolic. Big Z. Larry Hughes. Daniel Gibson...

Easily the worst talent I've ever watched for 82 games plus.
Worse than Kobe & Smush Parker & Kwame (@ least he had Phil for some time)
Lebron James did what he did in Cleveland with a defensive coordinator. A great one...but thats all he is good for. And that forced Lebron to be a player he wasn't Yes he has the ability to control games with scoring. But he is a playmaker. Lebron James & Iverson have had the same problems when it comes to being surrounded with talent.

You put Lebron in Miami. With 2 Allstars. You reach the finals again. Easily. Only losing 3 times to get there? Could have possibly swept the entire east. First season as a team with no legit center. or starting point guard. (they need a rondo that can shoot from anywhere) . That should be proof enough that's what he needed. Dallas just had the coach. & more NBA proven players on their TEAM. The missing piece to that puzzle wasnt even a PG or C or talent...it was a legit coach who has coached teams to championships, same problem in Cleveland. No Adjustments. James Jones went from playing to not seeing a second. Mike Miller missing everything put still playing. Coaching problem.

I use these present day examples to explain why I feel rings are not that important and shouldn't have as much value if your weighing a player as a player. Lebron is proof. Look at Clevelands records. He took almost all of them over in 7 years.

Thats a bogus argument. When those players were acquired (Mo Williams, Larry Hughes, Antawn Jamison, Delonte West, Shaq, Anthony Parker) they were universally hailed as being brilliant moves and perfectly complimenting LeBron's ball dominating/erratic shooting/defensively challenged gameplan.
It was LeBron who failed to compliment his teammates. Iverson failed in a similar fashion.

Dallas proved that they had the heart, understanding, and commitment to win the gold.

Sooo... basically it takes a TEAM to win a championship and not a player, correct? So that means, in my eye's at least, a player shouldn't be judged by rings because that is a team accomplishment, not a player accomplishment.

By the way, before labeling those Celtic teams 'great' defensive teams, go look at their defensive stats. Now I did a quick search for some stats to see if that Celtic team really belonged up there with the great teams of yesteryear. Now, according to the stats, from the 1959-2000... not ONE CELTIC team cracked the TOP 50 for best defensive teams of all time (going off Points Per Game).

Now what makes that Celtic team garner that label? It sure isn't the stats. Its the way they played the game.

Still don't understand how John Stockton is labeled a winner and Karl Malone is not when they played on the SAME TEAM. That my friend was just a mistake posted by you so I'll let that slide. I won't bring up the 25 and 10 Malone averaged a night. The big men he had to deal with nightly. You know.. the Smits, Hakeem, The Admiral, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Kemp, Divac, Sabonis, Radja, Kevin Willis, a little bit of Duckworth... man I'll even throw Luc Longley in that mix. He'd do things to these 'big men' hearts of today. Some of those guys, you slip up and forget to bring your game, will put you on lock and key. Gotta respect the Mailman's work. Not only were these dudes skilled defensively but most will score on you when they wanted. To last in the 90s you better had been good on both sides of the ball (Rodman is one of the few exceptions but then again he was a nasty defender).

Now back to the original topic. Greatness is not defined by rings... its defined by the way they played the game. You've basically said that already without saying it.

I got mind control over Debo....

Players are certainly judged on the quality of their games. Well-rounded players are very much preferrable.

Stats are very deceiving. The 65 and 66 editions of the Celtics were two of the greatest defensive teams of all time. They featured four defensive stoppers in K.C. Jones, John Havlicek, Satch Sanders, and Bill Russell. In the 66 playoffs, they limited the mighty Sixers to 104 ppg, which was below their 117.3 average. Truly, a great defense.

Pay little attention to stats, they are deceptive. The truth is that Karl Malone couldn't pass, handle, defend, or do anything useful in the clutch. A big percentage of his points were generated by Stockton's incredible passes which led to countless open jumpers and layups. Malone was an excellent rebounder and screener but he wasn't the greatest power forward of all time.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Players are certainly judged on the quality of their games. Well-rounded players are very much preferrable.

Stats are very deceiving. The 65 and 66 editions of the Celtics were two of the greatest defensive teams of all time. They featured four defensive stoppers in K.C. Jones, John Havlicek, Satch Sanders, and Bill Russell. In the 66 playoffs, they limited the mighty Sixers to 104 ppg, which was below their 117.3 average. Truly, a great defense.

Pay little attention to stats, they are deceptive. The truth is that Karl Malone couldn't pass, handle, defend, or do anything useful in the clutch. A big percentage of his points were generated by Stockton's incredible passes which led to countless open jumpers and layups. Malone was an excellent rebounder and screener but he wasn't the greatest power forward of all time.

They limited the Sixers, in one playoff series, to 104 points per game. Wow... yup, that has defense written all over it. Seriously, that proves nothing. It means for one playoff series they had all the answers... not that they were the one of the greatest defensive fronts of all time.

Malone averaged those numbers BEFORE Stockton joined the Jazz. Not sure if you knew that or not... just tossing it out there. I can bet Malone would of been fine without Stockton. Stockton was good but if I 'google fu' his history right quick.... yup, he was a reserve before coming to Utah and most of his career assists were to the Mailman. Now I'm not saying Stockton isn't an all time Top 5 point guard of all time, I'm just saying that Malone put in some work rather than just stand there and wait for a pass. They fed off each other.

Edit: John Stockton was drafted by Utah. Wasn't a starter though.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

They limited the Sixers, in one playoff series, to 104 points per game. Wow... yup, that has defense written all over it. Seriously, that proves nothing. It means for one playoff series they had all the answers... not that they were the one of the greatest defensive fronts of all time.

Malone averaged those numbers BEFORE Stockton joined the Jazz. Not sure if you knew that or not... just tossing it out there. I can bet Malone would of been fine without Stockton. Stockton was good but if I 'google fu' his history right quick.... yup, he was a reserve before coming to Utah and most of his career assists were to the Mailman. Now I'm not saying Stockton isn't an all time Top 5 point guard of all time, I'm just saying that Malone put in some work rather than just stand there and wait for a pass. They fed off each other.

Edit: John Stockton was drafted by Utah. Wasn't a starter though.

That Sixer team was one of the best clubs anywhere at anytime. Impressive to hold a team with that many power players 13 points below their average. The Celtics shut down most every team though with all the deflections, steals, blocks, and outright stops. They would be just as dominant in the modern game as well since they were all fleet-footed.

Impossible, since Stockton was a member of the Jazz before Malone got there. Even in limited daylight, Stockton was generating plenty of open shots for his teammates. Stockton and Malone mastered the screen/roll game and that was how Malone recorded most of his points. When he had to create off his own dribble, he used a fadeaway jumper from the left box or power dribbled his way into the paint. He had a predictable gameplan. Certainly, a good player, but Stockton did more for Malone than Malone ever did for Stockton.