Are rings really that important?

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

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.

That Celtic team played the same 8 teams over and over during 65-66. Please stop trying to make a case for them. Its not impressive at all.

And the Stockton/Malone relationship is about which side you look at it from. Half of Stockton's assists were probably to Malone. Even if that was true, that would only make up about 1/3 of the points Malone scored in his career.

We're getting off topic so I'll let it go. I'll just take my 'W' and go...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D9MJW101UrE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Vega]

Re: Are rings really that important?

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.




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.

Those moves were made because that is what the GM Danny Ferry THOUGHT Lebron needed. Ferry made moves based on what HE thought. Not to the team. The coach. Or the owners.

Owner wanted Amare. Amare wanted to play with Lebron.
We didnt want to trade JJ Hickson & Z. Danny Ferry...exhibit A...

Those players that were signed didnt fit into Mike Browns defensive system. Nor did they compliment Lebron. Don't just say words for the sake of the argument or trying to get a point across if its not true or opinion. If those players complimented LeBron. He would have won in Cleveland but they didnt help him compete against Boston.
If you think it was Lebron's idea to want to have to everything and exhaust himself? You must have never played basketball.

Seriously. I never expected Mo williams & Antawn Jamison
to help Lebron beat Boston. But like I said. Put LEGIT players around him....give him a coach for more than 2 years or a great coach...along side management in Miami in Pat Riley and he will get his titles.

They already have the PERFECT foundation for him already in Wade & Bosh. 2 players that COMPLIMENT his skill set and will show up in big games because its impossible for one man to be @ his best EVERYDAY.
Lebron is play making SF. He is best at making plays. Wade is a scorer. Bosh is a shooting Big Man. Clears the paint.

Lebron has yet to have the same coach for an extended period of time in the NBA thanks to TERRIBLE ownership and management in Cleveland. Spending money isnt everything. You have to know basketball. Our owner just knows money talks.

But either way you look at it I can see your biased to Lebron as you are AI so this conversation is pointless...but you know...

IF rings were that important. Those players a top the 50 greatest without rings wouldn't be up there. Food for thought.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

That Celtic team played the same 8 teams over and over during 65-66. Please stop trying to make a case for them. Its not impressive at all.

And the Stockton/Malone relationship is about which side you look at it from. Half of Stockton's assists were probably to Malone. Even if that was true, that would only make up about 1/3 of the points Malone scored in his career.

We're getting off topic so I'll let it go. I'll just take my 'W' and go...

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D9MJW101UrE" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Actually, the Celtics defense was astounding. They were one of the few teams able to play all out defense and run at the same time. The deflections, blocks, and steals only fueled their running game. Their competition? Phenomenal. The Oscar/Lucas Royals, West/Baylor Lakers, Beaty/Wilkens Hawks, Wilt/Greer Sixers, and Bellamy/Johnson Bullets.

Stockton's game was near flawless. Tight crossovers, drop-dead jumpers, aggressive screens, perfect passes, errorless decision making, countless release points on his shots, ect. It was Stockton who was the most important member of the Jazz and he made beautiful music.
Its important to know how and when points are recorded. Looking at raw totals, its easy to be duped by Malone.

In Malone's stint with the Lakers he had no idea where he was supposed to go and what he was supposed to be doing. He didn't have the awareness to make the off ball cuts and the set up passes needed in the Triangle. The prosecution rests.

[TajDeni]

Re: Are rings really that important?

everytime i see threads and post like this all i can think about is that these are code words for attempting to justify Lebron greatness even tho he continues to fail, so far?

why is it that everytime Lebron fails do ppl try to change the language of what it means to be truly great at the hightest level?

can we please stop doing that??

at what point if does a player who ppl claim is the best ceased to keep being the best if he keeps failing on the biggest stages? i mean at what point does he have to win to justify him being the best player.

i mean if you are the best artist in the world but another artists painting keep outselling your painting and your kids cant eat dinner, at what point do they stop caring that your the best artist...just asking?

what imma say next truly hurts me to say because its nothing against him personally but i hope Lebron never wins...

and ppl know this is true, once he wins 1 ring, might as well just erase the history book and stop playing games because he will automatically be elevated to GOAT status, theyre just waiting...mark my words

so again, sports are about teamwork, commrodary, and being a champion. and last i checked you cant be a champion without a ring...so someone explain to me how rings arent important, because the game was never meant to be played for stats but it was always meant to be played for rings

please stop with the excuses, just let him earn his keep just like everyone else

[wwharton]

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.

Jordan shot over 50% from the field for his career... as a sg/sf. That's insane, and the reason he should've taken as many shots as he did. I also don't see how he took a ton of bad shots considering he made over 50%. A bad shot for some is not a bad shot for all.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[a_maz_ing]

Re: Are rings really that important?

IF rings were that important. Those players a top the 50 greatest without rings wouldn't be up there. Food for thought.

Rings are important...they just aren't the whole picture. They account for like 20%-35% of player's ranking in my opinion if he is the focal point.

The ringless player's are still up there because they are still recognized for their overall stats, win's and impact despite lacking a ring. You don't have to win a ring to have been a top 50 player, but at least IMO you need one to be top 10.

It is not always a player's fault that they don't win but sometimes they do play a noticeable part in not winning, i.e. Karl Malone missing clutch free throws.
We all know Lebron is arguably the greatest mix of talent, IQ, and skill ever, but his past 2 playoff chokes clearly costed him 2 series where he was favored. That is not something to just brush off when you talk about his lack of rings.

Not saying player's with rings are perfect, just that they're flaws didn't hurt them as much or were minimized.
You mention Jordan being a ball hog but once again he shot 50% from the field...more often then not him having the ball literally resulted in points.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Those moves were made because that is what the GM Danny Ferry THOUGHT Lebron needed. Ferry made moves based on what HE thought. Not to the team. The coach. Or the owners.

Owner wanted Amare. Amare wanted to play with Lebron.
We didnt want to trade JJ Hickson & Z. Danny Ferry...exhibit A...

Those players that were signed didnt fit into Mike Browns defensive system. Nor did they compliment Lebron. Don't just say words for the sake of the argument or trying to get a point across if its not true or opinion. If those players complimented LeBron. He would have won in Cleveland but they didnt help him compete against Boston.
If you think it was Lebron's idea to want to have to everything and exhaust himself? You must have never played basketball.

Seriously. I never expected Mo williams & Antawn Jamison
to help Lebron beat Boston. But like I said. Put LEGIT players around him....give him a coach for more than 2 years or a great coach...along side management in Miami in Pat Riley and he will get his titles.

They already have the PERFECT foundation for him already in Wade & Bosh. 2 players that COMPLIMENT his skill set and will show up in big games because its impossible for one man to be @ his best EVERYDAY.
Lebron is play making SF. He is best at making plays. Wade is a scorer. Bosh is a shooting Big Man. Clears the paint.

Lebron has yet to have the same coach for an extended period of time in the NBA thanks to TERRIBLE ownership and management in Cleveland. Spending money isnt everything. You have to know basketball. Our owner just knows money talks.

But either way you look at it I can see your biased to Lebron as you are AI so this conversation is pointless...but you know...

IF rings were that important. Those players a top the 50 greatest without rings wouldn't be up there. Food for thought.

The combo of Amare and LeBron wouldn't win a title. Stoudamire is a good cutter and diver in the screen/roll game and would get plenty of cookies but his defensive awareness is awful, which would make him a bad fit in Mike Brown's coordinated defenses.

Wan't Antawn Jamison the tricky scorer to perfectly compliment LeBron? Wasn't Mo Williams the drop-dead shooter to convert on LeBron's kickouts? Wasn't Shaquille O'Neal the post up scorer the Cavs needed? Hmmm, so none of the spare parts fit LeBron's game?

So Miami is the perfect situation? Interesting, because LeBron's gameplan requires him to dominate the ball which leaves his teammates with nothing to do, except stand around and watch him. And anyone who has played basketball knows that players are most comfortable when they are active, cutting and screening. The pressure mounts on stand-still players, so when they have to covert on big time shots, they can't do it. This is precisely why the Cavaliers and now the Heat have won diddly. And is it a coincidence that the ball was moving much more, when LeBron was on the bench and Wade was in charge (in the Finals)?

Allen Iverson played the same ball-dominating style. His teammates mostly watched him go one on one and had to cover for his reckless defensive gambles.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Jordan shot over 50% from the field for his career... as a sg/sf. That's insane, and the reason he should've taken as many shots as he did. I also don't see how he took a ton of bad shots considering he made over 50%. A bad shot for some is not a bad shot for all.

By the way... Jordan shot just below 50% from the field. And I don't know where you ball but a bad shot is a bad shot. I don't care who takes it. Posts like this only turn a legend into a myth. Next thing we know people will claim that he was dangerous from 3.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

By the way... Jordan shot just below 50% from the field. And I don't know where you ball but a bad shot is a bad shot. I don't care who takes it. Posts like this only turn a legend into a myth. Next thing we know people will claim that he was dangerous from 3.

Jordan shot 49.7% from the field for his career. That's 50% in most people's eyes so is your issue that I said over? You're yanking at straws if it is (sounds like you're yanking at them anyway). If you cut out the 2 years on the Wizards which really shouldn't count anyway, he shot 50.5% from the field for his career.

Either way, those numbers are insane for a wing player who takes a ton of shots... let alone who has every defense in the league scheming to stop you.

Since you don't know after playing in college I've coached 15 years of varsity basketball, along with the countless summer leagues and camps I've worked. I understand the concept of a bad shot VERY well. The quality of a shot is related to the player taking it and the situation. Kevin Durant pulling up for a 3 pointer with Derek Fisher in his face is not a bad shot. Dwight Howard pulling up for a 3 with no one else in the gym is. Jordan made shots on a consistent basis that most other players shouldn't even consider taking.

I don't know how old you are but I grew up during all of Jordan's career starting at UNC. I've seen him play in person. He's not just highlight reels and stats to me. There's a much greater chance that kids that didn't see him play believe the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world have a chance at reaching his level than those of us who actually did overstating how great he really was.

[Dice]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I thought I’d put my 2 cents in this thread since we got some interesting convo here. Especially from my man AlexBrady, who always enlightens us with his 60’s generational love. LOL! BUT in all seriousness, AlexBrady does provide some good insight on basketball, despite the fact that we disagree on some things. BUT I do respect his opinions.

Anyhow, the original topic at hand. Do rings matter in regards to individual talent? In regards to talent, I don’t think so. There have been many players that have come across this league who have been one of the most talented players either at his position or just generally overall and they came out ringless. Take a look at a guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond and even LeBron James. Supremely talented guys who are ringless but nevertheless, hall of fame talents. NOW, when you’re talking about GREATNESS, here’s where the ring discussion come in. Obviously, we look at the great players of the NBA and see that just about every one of them has a ring or two. And the rings don’t necessarily reflect talent BUT it does reflect a lot of the intangibles of a basketball player. Things like heart, sacrifice and desire to win. These are the things that makes a great player. Talent is just the surface of a player. Most of these guys have talent, BUT how are they using it to be great?

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Jordan shot 49.7% from the field for his career. That's 50% in most people's eyes so is your issue that I said over? You're yanking at straws if it is (sounds like you're yanking at them anyway). If you cut out the 2 years on the Wizards which really shouldn't count anyway, he shot 50.5% from the field for his career.

Either way, those numbers are insane for a wing player who takes a ton of shots... let alone who has every defense in the league scheming to stop you.

Since you don't know after playing in college I've coached 15 years of varsity basketball, along with the countless summer leagues and camps I've worked. I understand the concept of a bad shot VERY well. The quality of a shot is related to the player taking it and the situation. Kevin Durant pulling up for a 3 pointer with Derek Fisher in his face is not a bad shot. Dwight Howard pulling up for a 3 with no one else in the gym is. Jordan made shots on a consistent basis that most other players shouldn't even consider taking.

I don't know how old you are but I grew up during all of Jordan's career starting at UNC. I've seen him play in person. He's not just highlight reels and stats to me. There's a much greater chance that kids that didn't see him play believe the Kobe's and Lebron's of the world have a chance at reaching his level than those of us who actually did overstating how great he really was.

First, the bolded part is what I waited for. Everyone who has responded to my posts have all given reasons of why a player is great without mentioning their rings if they have them. Not saying you picked one way or the other but you too have agreed with the 'rings don't matter' side without really saying it. Greatness is not defined by highlights, stats or.... rings. Its defined by what you saw from that player every night.

Every generation has the 'greatest player ever'. If Kobe gets 7, what would people say? People, especially guys who saw Jordan play, would immediately dismiss the ring theory and go solely off the player's on court performance. Kids who grew up in the 'Kobe era' would immediately dismiss that notion with only seeing Kobe.

By the way, I'm old enough to have watched Jordan (as I've done plenty of times) play basketball.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I thought I’d put my 2 cents in this thread since we got some interesting convo here. Especially from my man AlexBrady, who always enlightens us with his 60’s generational love. LOL! BUT in all seriousness, AlexBrady does provide some good insight on basketball, despite the fact that we disagree on some things. BUT I do respect his opinions.

Anyhow, the original topic at hand. Do rings matter in regards to individual talent? In regards to talent, I don’t think so. There have been many players that have come across this league who have been one of the most talented players either at his position or just generally overall and they came out ringless. Take a look at a guys like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond and even LeBron James. Supremely talented guys who are ringless but nevertheless, hall of fame talents. NOW, when you’re talking about GREATNESS, here’s where the ring discussion come in. Obviously, we look at the great players of the NBA and see that just about every one of them has a ring or two. And the rings don’t necessarily reflect talent BUT it does reflect a lot of the intangibles of a basketball player. Things like heart, sacrifice and desire to win. These are the things that makes a great player. Talent is just the surface of a player. Most of these guys have talent, BUT how are they using it to be great?

This was my point for bringing up Jordan. Once MJ peaked (or, to avoid a sidetrack, the Bulls team clicked on all cylinders) it was pretty much like no one was going to beat them. Since only one team wins every year, that pretty much meant that if the peak of your career was during this time, you weren't getting a ring. I don't consider these players lesser talents (or even having less "greatness") because of when they played. They aren't as great as Jordan and their teams weren't as great as the Bulls, but they were still great.

First, the bolded part is what I waited for. Everyone who has responded to my posts have all given reasons of why a player is great without mentioning their rings if they have them. Not saying you picked one way or the other but you too have agreed with the 'rings don't matter' side without really saying it. Greatness is not defined by highlights, stats or.... rings. Its defined by what you saw from that player every night.

Every generation has the 'greatest player ever'. If Kobe gets 7, what would people say? People, especially guys who saw Jordan play, would immediately dismiss the ring theory and go solely off the player's on court performance. Kids who grew up in the 'Kobe era' would immediately dismiss that notion with only seeing Kobe.

By the way, I'm old enough to have watched Jordan (as I've done plenty of times) play basketball.

My reply to you was part of a sidetrack about Jordan in general (my fault on that), but for the record I'm not really on either side for this. I generally agree that "great" players (in basketball) lead their teams to championships. Players play both offense and defense and have the chance to effect the game in any way every other player does (this is different with say baseball or football). The correlation between rings and greatness is much closer here than in most other team sports.

But, with that said, there are situations where it still doesn't matter (why I brought up the example with Jordan here). I think I said earlier in this thread that the only place this really applies is when talking about the greatest of them all. If you're THAT guy, then yeah you need to have some rings. But anything less than that, you may or may not.

As for Kobe, even considering rings it's not as easy to just say "x has 6 and y has 7 so y is better". Kobe is a great player... not because he has rings but his rings help validate his greatness. If someone wanted to call him the greatest ever, his rings wouldn't be enough to do that... even if he had 7. In the same sense, Jordan is the GOAT (I'll just say imo) and he didn't need to pass Russell to be considered that. I'm not sure what side you're on in your Kobe paragraph but I'm definitely on the side that would dismiss it because of what I've seen from both. I feel like we agree but I'm still not sure. You've seen both play also. Are you saying you think Kobe with 7 surpasses MJ?

And since LBJ is the elephant in the room, he could retire tomorrow and be considered one of the greatest to ever play in the NBA. A ring doesn't make him any better. Seeing him lead his team to a ring would. The good thing about rings (from these players perspective) is 10 years from now people forget or just don't know exactly the role that was played in getting them. Gary Payton is blinging all day... he was a great player but his ring means absolutely nothing to me. But if someone were to compare him to say Steve Nash, does the ring give him the edge? Shouldn't imo.

[rockchisler]

Re: Are rings really that important?

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

BIG O had a all around game, Triple double average for a season almost 3 seasons of that..That's why the comparision.

[plumplylumpkin]

Re: Are rings really that important?

For a player that is top ranked player in nba it is.

[jeebs9]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I might have posted already in this thread. But I've come to think now. That yes rings do make a difference. Isn't that the whole reason to play? To win? Win at the highest level.