PDA

View Full Version : Why when a debate comes up about championships...



LoveMeOrHateMe
08-15-2012, 11:01 AM
People have to say well I think Kobe>Lebron because of 5>1 championship rings
Then some one and this is what I'm talking about says well if that's the case then horry>Kobe Jordan etc.

I'm like really people we are talking about franchise players aka all time greats not some scrubs, your really gonna tell me horry was a franchise player and the leader of one of those rings?
People bring that up because that tells me that both players as the man or 1a) man like Kobe to shaq early on same with Kareem to magic etc. had a lot to do with winning the title not some scrub bench warmer, I find it pathetic that people resort to oh well Adam Morrison has 2 rings to lebrons 1 so he must be better, and I just can't help but laugh when that happens. It called comparing all-time greats with one another not what scrub has more rings then a star therefore he should be ranked higher on the all-time greats list!
Get it together kids

Longhornfan1234
08-15-2012, 11:03 AM
The more rings argument is a simpleton's argument.

BobbyHillSwag
08-15-2012, 11:03 AM
Ehh it doesnt matter people these days only use facts(stats) without context(truth). It's all about context, which is truly the most important thing when judging basketball.

Swashcuff
08-15-2012, 11:10 AM
Ehh it doesnt matter people these days only use facts(stats) without context(truth). It's all about context, which is truly the most important thing when judging basketball.

:clap:

/thread

Avenged
08-15-2012, 11:31 AM
Ehh it doesnt matter people these days only use facts(stats) without context(truth). It's all about context, which is truly the most important thing when judging basketball.

^

IndyRealist
08-15-2012, 11:47 AM
Comparing two franchise players and citing rings is valid, because they presumably have a huge amount of responsibility for those rings, or lack thereof. Comparing a role player and a franchise player is ridiculous, because the role player has significantly less effect on the game. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison, it's a straw man fallacy.

And Jordan has 6 rings.

mamba24
08-15-2012, 11:50 AM
exactly... rings doesnt mean player A is better than player B. Adam Morisson > Karl Malone... makes no sense...

Hawkeye15
08-15-2012, 11:51 AM
Some people cling to a go-to answer when their argument is bogus. Happens all the time.

dnewguy
08-15-2012, 11:52 AM
Championships are overrated to an extent. There have been players like Jordan and Kobe lucky enough to have teams with dominant players and role players; and then we have players like Malone, Stockton, Barkley, CP3 etc that are just as good but are unlucky enough to hav3 same support system. I don't think anyone will say Kobe and the Nets or Philly would have beaten the Lakers if Kid or Iverson switched roles/team with him during those championship years. Neither can anyone say Jordan will beat the Bulls had it been the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, a player can elevate a team but...there has to be a "team" that is good enough to begin with. Rasheed elevated the Positions but does that mean he played better than Karl Malone with the Lakers? NO

mamba24
08-15-2012, 11:52 AM
Comparing two franchise players and citing rings is valid, because they presumably have a huge amount of responsibility for those rings, or lack thereof. Comparing a role player and a franchise player is ridiculous, because the role player has significantly less effect on the game. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison, it's a straw man fallacy.

And Jordan has 6 rings.

also a good point... i think the issue is also the fact that lebron hasnt had the best of role players around him till now. he hasnt had the same opportunities that kobe has had. if you make a "rings" argument, the role players on each team need to be mentioned

Andrew32
08-15-2012, 11:53 AM
Production | Performances | Impact + Longevity >>>>> Rings.

When it comes to judging a players career value.

Rings are a teams accomplishment not an individuals.
Russell is not my GOAT.

Big Zo
08-15-2012, 11:54 AM
Bill Russell: 11 rings. Michael Jordan: 6 rings. These are all-time great players, so Bill Russell is clearly better than Michael Jordan. When will people see that the whole championship argument is stupid any way you look at it?

Hawkeye15
08-15-2012, 11:55 AM
also a good point... i think the issue is also the fact that lebron hasnt had the best of role players around him till now. he hasnt had the same opportunities that kobe has had. if you make a "rings" argument, the role players on each team need to be mentioned

You have just been added to my short list of reasonable Kobe fans.

Max.This
08-15-2012, 11:59 AM
These rings have to play in some part of the argument though. In those games, there were key moments in which great players such as kobe, Duncan had to step up and carry the team across the finish line. To role players the argument is invalid but when talking about key players that play significant roles a kobe vs lebron is valid.

IndyRealist
08-15-2012, 12:01 PM
also a good point... i think the issue is also the fact that lebron hasnt had the best of role players around him till now. he hasnt had the same opportunities that kobe has had. if you make a "rings" argument, the role players on each team need to be mentioned

Absolutely, the "rings" argument isn't the end of the conversation, it's the beginning. But to ignore it completely would be a gross miscarriage.

Karl Malone is one of the greatest of all time. Zero rings. Charles Barkley? Ditto. Doesn't mean they weren't great, but it does matter.

Andrew32
08-15-2012, 12:05 PM
These rings have to play in some part of the argument though. In those games, there were key moments in which great players such as kobe, Duncan had to step up and carry the team across the finish line. To role players the argument is invalid but when talking about key players that play significant roles a kobe vs lebron is valid.

Every moment is "key" in winning a game from the first minute to the last second.
Every point scored in a game go's towards victory, none are more valuable then the others.

We can judge performances without using Rings.

Rings are subjective.

Kobe gets drafted to Charlotte and stays there and he wins 0 Rings but still puts up some great performances with many 1st and 2nd round exits.
Lakers don't rob Memphis for Gasol and Kobe only has 3 Rings but still puts up some great performances in the late 00 playoffs just without winning.
Gasol doesn't dominate in G7 in the 2010 Finals and Lakers lose.

-IJS Rings can so easily be won or lost and that doesn't necessarily change an individual players value.

Winning Rings is mostly about playing in the right time with the right supporting casts and having some luck.

dnewguy
08-15-2012, 12:05 PM
These rings have to play in some part of the argument though. In those games, there were key moments in which great players such as kobe, Duncan had to step up and carry the team across the finish line. To role players the argument is invalid but when talking about key players that play significant roles a kobe vs lebron is valid.

With the help of the like of Fisher, Horry, Ginobli and co making clutch shots. On those other teams, their role players fade into oblivion. Imagine the finals...Mike Miller, Battier and Chalmers contributing big but on the other hand Ibaka, Harden and Perkins faded. Some super stars get lucky, other are just the opposite. If Tmac, carmelo and Iverson had Shaq, Fisher, Horry and that whole Lakers sqad or Pippen, Rodman, Kerr and the Bulls around them...they will win a championship too.

JordansBulls
08-15-2012, 12:15 PM
Bill Russell: 11 rings. Michael Jordan: 6 rings. These are all-time great players, so Bill Russell is clearly better than Michael Jordan. When will people see that the whole championship argument is stupid any way you look at it?

Logic doesn't apply here because Russell only had to win 2 playoff series to win a title while Jordan and anyone from the mid 80's forward had to win 4 playoff series to win a title.

IndyRealist
08-15-2012, 12:15 PM
Every moment is "key" in winning a game from the first minute to the last second.
Every point scored in a game go's towards victory, none are more valuable then the others.

We can judge performances without using Rings.

Rings are subjective.

Kobe gets drafted to Charlotte and stays there and he wins 0 Rings but still puts up some great performances with many 1st and 2nd round exits.
Lakers don't rob Memphis for Gasol and Kobe only has 3 Rings but still puts up some great performances in the late 00 playoffs just without winning.
Gasol doesn't dominate in G7 in the 2010 Finals and Lakers lose.

-IJS Rings can so easily be won or lost and that doesn't necessarily change an individual players value.

Winning Rings is mostly about playing in the right time with the right supporting casts and having some luck.

I don't think anyone on PSD knows the actual definition of subjective.

JordansBulls
08-15-2012, 12:22 PM
Rings matter if the players are close overall to the same level, but they only matter if the player won them as being the best on the team by a good margin. Using someone and saying they have rings as the 2nd best player on the team doesn't hold weight against a guy who has done it as the best player on a team.

For instance, using someone and saying they have 4 rings and if they have a guy on there team better than them and they win some more is not going to move a player up the alltime rankings list (when we are discussing top 10 players all time) because they won some more rings when they weren't the best player on there team. However it will help against guys who are in the 20-30 all time range.

Clyde Drexler winning a ring in 1995 helped his legacy for him to compete against guys in the top 25-35 range all time, but it doesn't help against guys in the top 10-15 range all time.

Kobe winning 3 rings from 2000-2002 helps in his debate to be in the top 20-25 all time, however it doesn't help in his debate in the top 10 all time when you have a player that was the best in the league on the same team.

KeepMonta#8
08-15-2012, 12:24 PM
wining a championship is a team award, players can elevate there game and be a big key in it but every body has a role on a team, some might be bigger than others but without those other roles u dont win

i dislike when people compare rings cause its like saying Robert horry is better than Kevin Durant even tho kd doesn't have any and Robert has 7 that's bogus

KeepMonta#8
08-15-2012, 12:25 PM
Rings matter if the players are close overall to the same level, but they only matter if the player won them as being the best on the team by a good margin. Using someone and saying they have rings as the 2nd best player on the team doesn't hold weight against a guy who has done it as the best player on a team.

For instance, using someone and saying they have 4 rings and if they have a guy on there team better than them and they win some more is not going to move a player up the alltime rankings list (when we are discussing top 10 players all time) because they won some more rings when they weren't the best player on there team. However it will help against guys who are in the 20-30 all time range.

Clyde Drexler winning a ring in 1995 helped his legacy for him to compete against guys in the top 25-35 range all time, but it doesn't help against guys in the top 10-15 range all time.

Kobe winning 3 rings from 2000-2002 helps in his debate to be in the top 20-25 all time, however it doesn't help in his debate in the top 10 all time when you have a player that was the best in the league on the same team.

you are correct it does help because at the end of the day you want to go down as winner

dnewguy
08-15-2012, 12:35 PM
I don't think anyone on PSD knows the actual definition of subjective.

I think you're underestimating people that post on PSD

DTownSkitzo
08-15-2012, 12:48 PM
To dismiss the number of rings a player has is also ignorant. It's a mixture of what the player has done and how far they've gotten. Some players don't have the drive or mental capacity to dominate the playoffs. That makes them lesser players.

Malone was a stat stuffer in the regular season but his playoff preformances left you wanting more. I'm a guy huge into stats but even I will tell you it only tells the story 90%of the time.



It's kind of like how people call Kobe a ballhog but not James.

For example:

Kobe shoots 30 times in a game compared to Lebron shooting 20 times and dishing 10 dimes.

Kobe is no more a ballhog than Lebron is in this instance. Just because Kobe shot more doesn't make him more of a ballhog. Lebron has the ball in his hands just as much as Kobe in this example. Now if you want to call Kobe inefficient fine, but to say Kobe is a ballhog and Lebron isn't is ignorant.

Look at all stats with an open mind and envision what they mean. It takes a strong player to lead a team to a championship and giving rings no value toward a player's success is very very close minded.

Horry is not better than Kobe, but having that many rings tells you Horry was an excellent preformer (trust me... I hate the dude lol 05' Finals).

Stinkyoutsider
08-15-2012, 12:51 PM
I think we can use the rings argument when we talk about franchises as a whole but it wouldn't make sense when comparing players to players or coaches to coaches.

Some coaches are top quality coaches who don't get quality players on the team because the front office doesn't supply them. And we can't use the ring argument when we talk about players because it's a team game.

If we were talking about golf or tennis, using championships in the discussion would make sense...

Chronz
08-15-2012, 01:14 PM
The Horry example is bogus but thats why I tell people to cite Elvin Hayes vs guys like Chuck and Malone. Hell some people still have those 2 PF above guys like Dirk/KG despite the ring.

Does Pippen having 6 rings make him better than Rick Barry or Drexler/Nique. Im not saying he isnt, but is that what separates them? What about if they win them past their prime like Big O and D-Rob?

xxplayerxx23
08-15-2012, 01:16 PM
Championships are more a team accomplishment, but they are still important. IMO lebron is so great that he is close to being better then Kobe if not already better career wise.

Big Zo
08-15-2012, 01:37 PM
Logic doesn't apply here because Russell only had to win 2 playoff series to win a title while Jordan and anyone from the mid 80's forward had to win 4 playoff series to win a title.

But if it was so easy back then why didn't other teams win it more often?

Burgo
08-15-2012, 03:12 PM
Ehh it doesnt matter people these days only use facts(stats) without context(truth). It's all about context, which is truly the most important thing when judging basketball.

Like it dude. Well played.

LoveMeOrHateMe
08-15-2012, 03:47 PM
Championships are more a team accomplishment, but they are still important. IMO lebron is so great that he is close to being better then Kobe if not already better career wise.

As of now hell no he's not close, he wins 2 more rings and Kobe wins none from now on then there is a debate

xxplayerxx23
08-15-2012, 03:49 PM
As of now hell no he's not close, he wins 2 more rings and Kobe wins none from now on then there is a debate

Disagree. Lebron doesn't need that. I believe he is very close. He is better then Kobe was in his Prime IMO, ofcourse Kobe has better numbers but I think an argument can be made for Lebron being better then kobe.

LoveMeOrHateMe
08-15-2012, 04:05 PM
Disagree. Lebron doesn't need that. I believe he is very close. He is better then Kobe was in his Prime IMO, ofcourse Kobe has better numbers but I think an argument can be made for Lebron being better then kobe.


Man how old are you? Your either 15 or have a short memory! Kobe was unstoppable when he was in his prime no one was close to his skill level and that's why every player when asked always said Kobe was the best player in the game heck even now a lot of them say he's the best due to the respect they have for him. Championships aren't the end all be all but they do matter a lot when you compare the all time greats! If lebrons doesn't win anymore he won't be> then Kobe ever because he won't be known as a winner, what makes it worse is it looks like kobe might win 2-3 more rings before he retires ofcourse nothing is guaranteed

Big Zo
08-15-2012, 04:05 PM
As of now hell no he's not close, he wins 2 more rings and Kobe wins none from now on then there is a debate

It's not his fault Kobe was given better teammates.

xxplayerxx23
08-15-2012, 04:30 PM
Man how old are you? Your either 15 or have a short memory! Kobe was unstoppable when he was in his prime no one was close to his skill level and that's why every player when asked always said Kobe was the best player in the game heck even now a lot of them say he's the best due to the respect they have for him. Championships aren't the end all be all but they do matter a lot when you compare the all time greats! If lebrons doesn't win anymore he won't be> then Kobe ever because he won't be known as a winner, what makes it worse is it looks like kobe might win 2-3 more rings before he retires ofcourse nothing is guaranteed

Im 18. I remember kobe. I understand he was dominate but he never made his teamates better the way Lebron makes them. Not saying 100 percent Lebron is already ahead of Kobe all time but he can make the Arguement. Lebron will be better then Kobe when he calls it quits Ill bet on that.

LoveMeOrHateMe
08-15-2012, 06:15 PM
Won't happen

xxplayerxx23
08-15-2012, 06:19 PM
Lebron will be better then Kobe minus a big Injury from Lebron.