PDA

View Full Version : Should stars with rings be measured in a class all their own?



Chronz
08-24-2012, 03:04 PM
How highly do you value championships, are the ringless many destined to an inescapable list of futility, in spite of whatever individual dominance they may show?

Or is there a certain level of play that no amount of rings from another player could make up?

Obviously Im using the word star so guys like Horry are not in the discussion but lets say we have 2 other HOF players with multiple All-Star bids and a variety of records. Do the rings separate them or would you still stick with the numbers?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I ask is simple, before Duncan showed up, I often saw Malone described as the best PF of all time, regardless of his ringless fingers. Then Duncan came in, started winning and soon the debate became lopsided. Which I would have agreed with regardless of the wins but they definitely cemented the argument.

That said, what was odd about the debate was how mostly everyone pointed to the ring(s) over whatever stats Malone fans threw out. Yet when Malone was being hailed as the best PF no one pointed out the championships won by Elvin Hayes & Pettit. Even today with KG and Dirk both winning chips, I think I still see the majority have Malone ahead of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


If that sounds like a flawed/complicated issue, then just give me your list of Top6 Power Forwards, it will help in understanding how much you value winning over stats.

Heediot
08-24-2012, 03:20 PM
Winning a ring is tough. There are so many great players that can only win in a given year. I would judge them on their own.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 03:22 PM
No, they should not be put in a different class. A player only has so much control over the outcome of a game/series by himself. He relies to a huge degree on his teammates being more productive than the other teams players. How can you hold a player accountable for his teammates?

StarvingKnick22
08-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Horry is arguably a HOF'er

GREATNESS ONE
08-24-2012, 03:30 PM
Nope. I value Championships pretty highly because well that's the point right? Too win.

But I think most knowledgeable fans can understand different circumstances for great players. Malone and Duncan are a great comparison. I would give the slight edge to Duncan for leading then to 4 Championship banners but ut's a lot closer then people think.

JordansBulls
08-24-2012, 03:32 PM
Depends on how you get the rings. Are you with a franchise that always wins or did you put a franchise on the map? Were you the main reason a team won titles? Did you join teams with stars in order to win or did you get better throughout the years with the team you were on?

KnicksorBust
08-24-2012, 03:37 PM
No, they should not be put in a different class. A player only has so much control over the outcome of a game/series by himself. He relies to a huge degree on his teammates being more productive than the other teams players. How can you hold a player accountable for his teammates?

I value winning and rings significantly. Over the course of a 10-15 year HoF career(keep in mind we are talking about HoF players with sustained greatness), these legends all will eventually get enough help to get over the top. Name me a top 30 player that never won a ring because he didn't have enough help. If you're good enough to get there, you're good enough to win. That being said, somebody like Malone was just so damn good for so long that resume can overcome a single championship season.

My List:

#1. Tim Duncan
#2. Karl Malone
#3. Charles Barkley
#4. Kevin Garnett
#5. Bob Pettit

Honorable Mention: Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin McHale

ghettosean
08-24-2012, 03:39 PM
Depends on how you get the rings. Are you with a franchise that always wins or did you put a franchise on the map? Were you the main reason a team won titles? Did you join teams with stars in order to win or did you get better throughout the years with the team you were on?
This

:clap:

Lakers + Giants
08-24-2012, 03:40 PM
Depends on how you get the rings. Are you with a franchise that always wins or did you put a franchise on the map? Were you the main reason a team won titles? Did you join teams with stars in order to win or did you get better throughout the years with the team you were on?

I find it more impressive when players win championships on a team that expects to win it all. Much more pressure when that's what's expected out of you.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 03:40 PM
I value winning and rings significantly. Over the course of a 10-15 year HoF career(keep in mind we are talking about HoF players with sustained greatness), these legends all will eventually get enough help to get over the top. Name me a top 30 player that never won a ring because he didn't have enough help. If you're good enough to get there, you're good enough to win. That being said, somebody like Malone was just so damn good for so long that resume can overcome a single championship season.

My List:

#1. Tim Duncan
#2. Karl Malone
#3. Charles Barkley
#4. Kevin Garnett
#5. Bob Pettit

Honorable Mention: Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin McHale

And do you basically not allow anyone into the top ranked players list because they don't have a ring? Of course you don't just discard a great player for not winning. Rings have value, no doubt. But is it more important for a star player to win a ring while underperforming, or for a star to go down killing it but losing to a superior team?

JordansBulls
08-24-2012, 03:43 PM
I find it more impressive when players win championships on a team that expects to win it all. Much more pressure when that's what's expected out of you.

No not really. It is like saying you get a job with a prestigious company vs you build a company up from the ground and turn it into a prestigious company.

Its like saying you are more impressed winning titles with the Yankees than you would be winning with the Tigers.

KnicksorBust
08-24-2012, 03:49 PM
And do you basically not allow anyone into the top ranked players list because they don't have a ring? Of course you don't just discard a great player for not winning. Rings have value, no doubt. But is it more important for a star player to win a ring while underperforming, or for a star to go down killing it but losing to a superior team?

It's such a vague question. You'd need to be more specific for me to answer that. In these discussions each individual case can be different. There is no almighty rule that can be applied to all my opinions because I fiercely value winning but I still would disagree with seeing the 2nd leading scorer in NBA History ranking as only the 4th/5th best player at his own position.

KnicksorBust
08-24-2012, 03:50 PM
It ties into the longevity issue as well. Winning, longevity, peak, accolades, etc... it's all a part of it in my mind.

There's no perfect ratio of:

2 championships + 6 all-star games = 1 championship + 8 all-star games + 4 defensive play of the year awards = 0 championships + 11 all-star games + 2 scoring titles

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 03:54 PM
It's such a vague question. You'd need to be more specific for me to answer that. In these discussions each individual case can be different. There is no almighty rule that can be applied to all my opinions because I fiercely value winning but I still would disagree with seeing the 2nd leading scorer in NBA History ranking as only the 4th/5th best player at his own position.

The whole thread question is vague. As you said, no almighty rule can be applied to evaluating individual players.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 03:55 PM
It ties into the longevity issue as well. Winning, longevity, peak, accolades, etc... it's all a part of it in my mind.


exactly. Its a lot of factors, none really weigh much more than others.

Chronz
08-24-2012, 04:19 PM
exactly. Its a lot of factors, none really weigh much more than others.

I have to think some must weigh more than others.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 04:35 PM
I have to think some must weigh more than others.

They do, but nothing just blows up the equation for me.