Are rings really that important?

[UnbelievablyRAW]

After reading a lot of the comments on the "who do you think the best players in 2K12 will be" thread, I pondered over this question. Do rings really reflect an individual players talent and skill? Many people hail Kobe as better than Lebron because he is a winner and has 5 rings, but to be honest, even if Kobe won 8 rings I'd still take Jordan.

I always disregard the ring argument when debating over which player is better, it seems like a poor way for people that can't form a proper argument to try to boost their favourite player up. You might be thinking now that



But I do not. I respect his game, but I believe your individual production on the court holds more value than how many rings you have won with your team.

[youvalss]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I think Kobe is a great player and a winner (and I can't stand him, as many here know). Those rings count, but I don't think you can say that because a guy has 3 rings - he's better than another guy with one ring (unless he won all these titles all by himself, which is pretty impossible when we're talking about a team sport).

I wonder what people would say about MJ/Bird/Magic if they never won a title...

[Pims33]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes, to some extent. Basketball is a team sport, you can have all the personal accolades but it's all about what you bring to your team, a lot of players sometimes get overlooked because they don't have a ring. With that being said that's not the only thing you gotta look at when ranking a player but it matters.

[st0rmb11]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I think it depends on the argument.

The question that is constantly posed is "who is the better player?"
let's take LeBron & Kobe and ask that question.

I think the overwhelming opinion would be that LeBron James is the better PLAYER. he can do more things as a player.

When people pose that question, I think what they really mean is "who has had the better career?"
in that case, it's overwhelmingly Kobe.

You should definitely weigh rings into the "better career" argument. but in determining who's the better player (who has the better skill set, etc.), I don't see where rings are relevant.

Wilt Chamberlain was a better basketball player than Bill Russell. He could do more (and do many of the same things Russell could do) on a basketball court.

but if you ask who had the better career, it's clearly Russell.

and the "who would you rather have?" changes the whole argument. Because while James & Chamberlain are clearly better players than Kobe & Russell, I think many people would take Kobe over LeBron, and I KNOW most people would take Russell over Wilt.

I know I'm sort of rambling, but to answer the question - I don't think you should take rings into account when determining the better player. Better career? yes.

[Pims33]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I think it depends on the argument.

The question that is constantly posed is "who is the better player?"
let's take LeBron & Kobe and ask that question.

I think the overwhelming opinion would be that LeBron James is the better PLAYER. he can do more things as a player.

When people pose that question, I think what they really mean is "who has had the better career?"
in that case, it's overwhelmingly Kobe.

You should definitely weigh rings into the "better career" argument. but in determining who's the better player (who has the better skill set, etc.), I don't see where rings are relevant.

Wilt Chamberlain was a better basketball player than Bill Russell. He could do more (and do many of the same things Russell could do) on a basketball court.

but if you ask who had the better career, it's clearly Russell.

and the "who would you rather have?" changes the whole argument. Because while James & Chamberlain are clearly better players than Kobe & Russell, I think many people would take Kobe over LeBron, and I KNOW most people would take Russell over Wilt.

I know I'm sort of rambling, but to answer the question - I don't think you should take rings into account when determining the better player. Better career? yes.

LeBron got some things better than Kobe but Kobe also got some things better than him. Right now, I'll probably say LeBron is the better player (let's see what the season brings) but Kobe is stepping away from his prime and we'll see if LeBron develops right now, he still got lots to improve, if he can improve. I don't want to turn this into a Kobe vs LeBron thing though, I don't care about it.

Back on topic, like I've said it's about what you bring to your team, because it's a team sport, so rings matter, you gotta take many things in account though, but it's also about what you do and win, making your team mates better, proving that you are the better player, the man for your team, something LeBron didn't do last season for instance. People also got to remember that this isn't a one-on-one sport.

[Pims33]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Jordan, Bird an Magic in the 80's did incredible things as players but Jordan didn't have a ring so people never mentioned him in the same breath as the other two, it started to happen in '91 when he got that ring. You gotta step up and be the man for your team (sometimes great ones have really lousy teams though and other things come in consideration), make the team better, your team mates better, or both, and win that ring, it's about what you accomplish and do for that, not just about what you can do, if you catch my drift.

[CelticPride101]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Yes, to some extent. Basketball is a team sport, you can have all the personal accolades but it's all about what you bring to your team, a lot of players sometimes get overlooked because they don't have a ring. With that being said that's not the only thing you gotta look at when ranking a player but it matters.

agreed.....

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Everything is circumstantial. Circumstances vary from one year to the next. If a player doesn't have a ring, it doesn't necessarily discount him. That said, rings are obviously important. Playoff success overall is pretty important. A guy who lucks out on a ring doesn't necessarily mean he's better than a guy who makes it to the Conference Finals/Finals like 5 times but for whatever reason never ends up winning a ring.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Only one man knows the answer...The Lord of The Rings.

[The Bad Man]

Re: Are rings really that important?

it depends on how you value it. rings are for recognition of a player as a champion. if it's your personal goal to achieve one then it's really that important to you.

[VDusen04]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I've never been a fan of using someone's rings (or lack thereof) as a primary means of supporting how great a player is believed to be. I find such reasoning to be one hundred times more logical in individual sports. For instance, when Tiger Woods racks up win after win after win, it's because he is constantly beating everyone on his own. It's all him (and yes, I'm discounting the caddie).

In basketball, I feel there's so many darn variables that it's always shortsighted to break it down to be simply a "Well, call me when he's got six championships" debate. For instance, I feel we all view Hakeem Olajuwon on a different plane than we did in 1993. At that point, he was already an 8-time All-Star, but he wasn't on everyone's conscious. He was known as an excellent center. However, once Olajuwon's Rockets won those two titles, Dream suddenly became the definition of greatness at the center position. The championship propelled him over nearly all his contemporaries (though some argue in Shaquille O'Neal's favor). I'm mostly okay with that. Olajuwon performed masterfully against most of his opponents, barreling through Malone, Robinson, O'Neal, Barkley, and Ewing in separate rounds over two years.

However, my hypothetical theory is that if Michael Jordan happened to not retire and instead carried his dynasty right on through the mid-90's, defeating those Rockets teams each season, Hakeem Olajuwon would not receive the same amount of reverence, respect, and acknowledgment of his own abilities by the masses today. Even though he may have performed just as masterfully, only the sum of his team's parts was not enough to overcome MJ's legend and supporting cast, many would henceforth discredit Hakeem's overall ability. And that's where my dispute with the rings argument would come in.

To verify, I know hypotheticals are just that, they're hypothetical. I understand some people are saying, "Well, Jordan did leave, and Olajuwon did win, so he is great." But that's my point. Too often I see spectacular talents and/or legendary performers come up short because their team truthfully just wasn't that great (or, they were great, but not great enough to defeat the greatest). In the Olajuwon example, to borrow the common logic thought process, wouldn't Olajuwon's inability for his Rockets to take out the Bulls only mean he wasn't as great as the greatest (Michael Jordan), which could possibly still mean he's the second greatest? Instead, a lot of people look at these players as failures. We don't look at Charles Barkley as a beast who was possibly the greatest player in the game at one point (behind MJ). Instead, a lot of us just look and see that Barkley "failed" and therefore wasn't as great as any other player who's been a part of a championship winning team. If Kevin Johnson was able to connect on that runner in Game 6 and then Dan Majerle and Danny Ainge went nuts in game seven, hitting a combined 11 three pointers while Chuck struggled, and Phoenix won that ring in '93, would Charles truly have been any greater than he was a few days earlier? No. But would his legend stand infinitely higher (since he'd be a champion) than it does right now in reality? Absolutely. I find that flawed.

I think everyone's situation should be taken into account when judging their individual greatness and I believe weighing a person's ability based on the number of championship rings their team has won is clearly and obviously a misguided form for measuring an individual's ability. I think LeBron James is another glowing example of why the "ring" train of thought is not necessarily logical. We all know how great we either think James is or is not at this point. But am I to believe that his winning a ring with a team he essentially hand-picked to be full of fellow legends and excellent role players will suddenly mean he's great? To me, LeBron's been great for a while. I don't need his winning a championship on a stacked team to confirm that. I have a hard time believing James would catch flak for not leading that Cleveland team to a title yet. The fact that he couldn't lead Boobie Gibson, Eric Snow and Sasha Pavlovic to the title in '07 didn't mean he wasn't great. In fact, I thought it was pretty great that team was able to get as far as they did. . .

With all that said, I'm digressing because I believe I've already far surpassed the "didn't read lol" threshold.

[marq]

Re: Are rings really that important?

^^^^My sentiments exactly...and this is even worse in football (arguably the most team-oriented sport of all). Great post

[clipperfan811]

Re: Are rings really that important?

Rings matter big time in the sense that the greatest players do the greatest things in the biggest moments against the best competition.

Obviously winning a few rings at the end of the bench doesn't give you any clout against a guy like Barkley, Iverson or Lebron who haven't been able to get over the hump but still did great things during their pursuit of ultimate greatness.

[wwharton]

Re: Are rings really that important?

In basketball, a future HOFer can vault an entire team to a level higher than one player can in really any other sport, so rings are more relevant in basketball than say football. But just like everything else, they can be part of the equation but not the end all, be all. Jordan's not great bc he won 6 rings but Jordan won 6 rings bc he was great.

In a discussion, someone may say "How can you say he wasn't great when he was the best player on 3 championship teams". That's saying he won rings bc he was great, not the other way around.

In a discussion if someone says "He's not that good bc he never won a ring." that's not necessarily true. So rings help tell the story of greatness easier, but aren't necessary to be great. I will say if we're talking about the best ever, the difference between the great players you'd be comparing is so small that you have to take it to the level of rings (in short, career accomplishments) paired with talent. Whether we can figure out why someone didn't win more titles or not is irrelevant if we're talking about the greatest ever. In my mind, the greatest ever basketball players has led his team to championships... period.

[VDusen04]

Re: Are rings really that important?

I think a lot of folks use the "Well, rings count for the stars of the team, but you can't use the rings argument to compare Jud Buechler to Lindsey Hunter" point of view as a statement of fact. When in truth, a statement such as that seems to reveal the flawed nature of such a mindset.

My question becomes: Can we use Jordan's rings as a means of comparison between players? Assuming people would agree that we could, my next question would be: Can we use Pippen's rings as a means of comparison between players? Then, could we use Bill Cartwright's rings as a means of comparison between players? Where does it stop being applicable? Only amongs all-stars? And if the idea is "Well, we only go the ring comparison when the gap is so close between two legends" then my question is: If the ring comparison can be brought out as a backup plan for legends, why couldn't we bring it out in the Hunter vs. Buechler debate?

The answer, I believe, is because such an argument doesn't hold weight, only it is more apparent on a smaller scale when comparing guys like Lindsey Hunter and Jud Buechler. The door to circumstance is busted wide open. Maybe the thought is, "Well, c'mon, Hunter didn't win his team an NBA Championship." True, but he certainly played a part. Understanding this, the next thought would likely be, "Yeah, but Michael Jordan played a much bigger part in Chicago winning than Hunter ever did during his title runs with L.A. and Detroit." Likely true, but under no circumstances was Jordan ever the only part. It seems to insinuate that there must be some sort of guideline where the only way the "rings" debate could be implemented is when comparing legends who were the best players on championship teams and were, say, at least 75% responsible for their team's championships.

But that's just it, the minute we begin wagering how much of a role a particular player had in his team's success (even among greats), using rings to differentiate between players again hits a brick wall. If Kobe Bryant, an awesome player, somehow manages to win two more NBA Championship, will many then anoint him the new king, as he surpasses MJ's title count? Would his seven rings at least be accepted in a feasible counterargument as to why he may be on Jordan's level in some regard? Or would we have to account for the fact that Kobe may have split his championship accountability with another legend for three of those victories? Would it then be decided that Jordan's six rings eclipse Bryant's seven simply because Jordan was undoubtedly the man in each victory? Maybe, and I think that's why a ring argument never works. We could just as easily say, "Yeah well, take away Scottie Pippen and Jordan wouldn't have a single ring either." Could be true. Maybe not. We don't know. What we do know is that noone's ever won a ring alone. So many factors must come together to make it work that I find it short-sighted to simply point a finger at championships and say "There, he's got rings, so he's great" and "He doesn't have rings, so he's clearly not as great."