PDA

View Full Version : Who are the Top 10 Players of All-Time if no player has any rings?



kArSoN RyDaH
01-03-2013, 09:31 PM
Who are the top 10 players all-time if no player has any rings at all?

Will 2 BE
01-03-2013, 09:53 PM
I dont think it changes anyones top 10 really, mabey Lebron gets in the top 10 and replaces a Larry Bird or Bill Russel but the Kobe's Jordan's and Magic positions dont change

ManRam
01-03-2013, 09:54 PM
My list wouldn't change a whole lot.

My top 10 in no order, also off the top of my head so don't be too harsh.

Jordan
Bird
James
Shaq
Robinson
Wilt
Duncan
Kareem
Magic
Russell


Kobe cracks my top 10 based on team accomplishments. Longevity gets him real close without them...but he wasn't better than those players individually if you take away team success (again, it does depend on how you value longevity...and this season is making it hard to say that).

Actually, I'd make room for Kobe there without rings. This year has sold me. But it's MUCH closer. He benefits probably the most from team success...because individually (statistically) he is FAR from a top 10 player ever.

Isiah would get bumped down a ton. He doesn't look too special without rings.

Obviously the ringless guys would jump up on everyone's list. I think Barkley long has been underrated because of his lack of rings and misconceptions of his game. I've seen some Stockton slander lately...I think he'd be a clear #2 PG of all time in many more people's eyes if we weren't worried about team success (until Point God takes him over). Elgin Baylor is much better than many people regard him to be, perhaps because of rings.


But as a whole, i don't think there are huge movers and shakers.

Longhornfan1234
01-03-2013, 09:55 PM
Duncan would be out of the top 10. KG and Charles (no rings) >.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2013, 10:02 PM
Jordan
Jabbar
Wilt
LeBron
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Barkley
Bird
Oscar


Russell, and Kobe drop, their rankings to me are heavily based on team success, not individual talent. That is off the top of my head, so don't kill me some of the people I respect..

Money_23
01-03-2013, 10:04 PM
1. MJ
2. Bird
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Oscar
8. Kareem
9. Hakeem
10. Duncan

LakersMaster24
01-03-2013, 10:06 PM
If no rings are in play, Kareem > Jordan. Don't murder me.

tredigs
01-03-2013, 10:08 PM
Jordan
Jabbar
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
LeBron
Barkley
Oscar
Duncan

Russell, and Kobe drop, their rankings to me are heavily based on team success, not individual talent. That is off the top of my head, so don't kill me some of the people I respect..

I'm a Russell die hard. He was the OG culture changer in the same vein as KG was when he entered Boston. I'm not sure there were many more important players to a franchises success than Russell to the Celtics. And they're among the 10 most successful franchises in sports history. No way he leaves my top 10.

Kobe does, so does Oscar. But they're close.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2013, 10:11 PM
I'm a Russell die hard. He was the OG culture changer in the same vein as KG was when he entered Boston. I'm not sure there were many more important players to a franchises success than Russell to the Celtics. And they're among the 10 most successful franchises in sports history. No way he leaves my top 10.

Kobe does, so does Oscar. But they're close.

he doesn't have to man. I simply don't think he was as good a basketball player as some guys ranked behind him in general. His affect to the sport will forever be measured in a different way...

tredigs
01-03-2013, 10:12 PM
And I realize team success walks the line with rings, but this is a team game regardless of those rings. What I'm saying is that your individual dominance can be greater than the sum of your talent, and obviously vice versa.

Hawkeye15
01-03-2013, 10:20 PM
And I realize team success walks the line with rings, but this is a team game regardless of those rings. What I'm saying is that your individual dominance can be greater than the sum of your talent, and obviously vice versa.

sure, but this type of thread basically is saying, "who are the best players if you take away rings", not team success.

Bruno
01-03-2013, 10:24 PM
My list wouldn't change a whole lot.

My top 10 in no order, also off the top of my head so don't be too harsh.

Jordan
Bird
James
Shaq
Robinson
Wilt
Duncan
Kareem
Magic
Russell


Kobe cracks my top 10 based on team accomplishments. Longevity gets him real close without them...but he wasn't better than those players individually if you take away team success (again, it does depend on how you value longevity...and this season is making it hard to say that).

Actually, I'd make room for Kobe there without rings. This year has sold me. But it's MUCH closer. He benefits probably the most from team success...because individually (statistically) he is FAR from a top 10 player ever.

Isiah would get bumped down a ton. He doesn't look too special without rings.

Obviously the ringless guys would jump up on everyone's list. I think Barkley long has been underrated because of his lack of rings and misconceptions of his game. I've seen some Stockton slander lately...I think he'd be a clear #2 PG of all time in many more people's eyes if we weren't worried about team success (until Point God takes him over). Elgin Baylor is much better than many people regard him to be, perhaps because of rings.


But as a whole, i don't think there are huge movers and shakers.

Russell doesn't dump on Kobe statistically.

tredigs
01-03-2013, 10:26 PM
sure, but this type of thread basically is saying, "who are the best players if you take away rings", not team success.

Yeah exactly. Which is why I couldn't take away Bill.

Here's mine off the top of my head - I'll go prime (5-10 years) as my gauge.



Jordan
Kareem
Hakeem
Wilt
Bill
Bird
Magic
Duncan
Lebron
Shaq


I tried to find Barkley a spot, but couldn't.

TrueFan420
01-03-2013, 10:29 PM
Duncan would be out of the top 10. KG and Charles (no rings) >.

Duncan rings or not is better than both of those two

Raps18-19 Champ
01-03-2013, 10:32 PM
Wilt or Kareem would make it a lot closer against Jordan for GOAT.

b@llhog24
01-03-2013, 10:36 PM
MJ
LeBron
Barkely
Bird
Magic
DRob
Timmy
Hakeem
KAJ
Wilt

DallasTrilla23
01-03-2013, 10:51 PM
If rings didn't count then Wilt would be the greatest of all time imo. He was way more dominant than Jordan and his stats are crazy

dtmagnet
01-03-2013, 11:05 PM
The exact same, rings are a team achievement not a player achievement.

jayjay33
01-03-2013, 11:44 PM
And I realize team success walks the line with rings, but this is a team game regardless of those rings. What I'm saying is that your individual dominance can be greater than the sum of your talent, and obviously vice versa.

sure, but this type of thread basically is saying, "who are the best players if you take away rings", not team success.

Uh? That's like saying who's the fastest sprinter if there's no finish line. Lol

SirSkyHook
01-04-2013, 12:05 AM
Some threads are funny.

nickdymez
01-04-2013, 12:48 AM
Jordan
Jabbar
Wilt
LeBron
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Barkley
Bird
Oscar


Russell, and Kobe drop, their rankings to me are heavily based on team success, not individual talent. That is off the top of my head, so don't kill me some of the people I respect..

That's just unbelievable...... :facepalm:

DallasTrilla23
01-04-2013, 01:06 AM
I would think Kobe's ranking would increase because people couldn't say shaq got him 3 rings

Hawkeye15
01-04-2013, 01:16 AM
That's just unbelievable...... :facepalm:

sure, because without rings, your guy doesn't make top 10. Period.

Hawkeye15
01-04-2013, 01:20 AM
Uh? That's like saying who's the fastest sprinter if there's no finish line. Lol

what?

jayjay33
01-04-2013, 02:48 AM
Uh? That's like saying who's the fastest sprinter if there's no finish line. Lol

what?

Thats exactly my point. Lmao

That's how including team success, but not rings sounds. Like a race with no finish. Lol

ChiTownPacerFan
01-04-2013, 03:20 AM
originally posted by jayjay33
uh? That's like saying who's the fastest sprinter if there's no finish line. Lol

I think it's more like saying, "who are the top ten actors if you don't count Oscars". The top ten actors are the top ten actors, and the top ten players are the top ten players. Championships, like Oscars, depend on a ton of factors (some of which are outside the players control). Having or not having a championship shouldn't automatically change your ranking of a player.

Same point I guess...

sep11ie
01-04-2013, 03:24 AM
None, cause what's the point of playing for nothing.

Korman12
01-04-2013, 03:38 AM
Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Bryant, Olajuwan, Duncan, Robertson. Pretty much the same as my regular top ten, just alter some of the order and replacing Russell.

Also, the only reason LeBron isn't here is only because he's not done yet, but Bryant and Duncan are much closer to the end of their careers than him.

jayjay33
01-04-2013, 04:45 AM
originally posted by jayjay33
uh? That's like saying who's the fastest sprinter if there's no finish line. Lol

I think it's more like saying, "who are the top ten actors if you don't count Oscars". The top ten actors are the top ten actors, and the top ten players are the top ten players. Championships, like Oscars, depend on a ton of factors (some of which are outside the players control). Having or not having a championship shouldn't automatically change your ranking of a player.

Same point I guess...

But winning and losing is really all that matters. When we define as good or bad play in sports, What we really mean is play that is "most" likely to lead to winning.

An no championships are nothing like Oscar, that's a horrible comparison. Kevin Durant can't get a ring for being more liked than Lebron. You can't compare a subjective award to direct competition.

An the biggest misconception in sports is that a player indivual performance
I'd any less dependent on out side factors than winning championships is. Refs, teammates, coaches, all have just as much to do with how well you play as your actual game.


If winning is the ultimate goal, than the person who's play most leads to winning is the best. IMO

Of course this is all subjective and it's really impossible to tell who's better than who once you reach a certain level.

Also "will" is a as important as anything. Which Is why, I am not sold in Lebron, yet.

smiddy012
01-04-2013, 04:50 AM
Statistically, MJ's still the best ever... unless you "believe" Wilt's competition was comparable to MJ's, in which case Wilt would be the GOAT. As for Lebron, to me he's clearly the most dominant player since MJ, and the stats back me up, so I'd have to put him above Shaq and Kobe already. All that said this thread is a little weird. I think comparing pure statistics, regardless of championships, all-star appearances, etc., would be a better comparison.

jayjay33
01-04-2013, 05:07 AM
Statistically, MJ's still the best ever... unless you "believe" Wilt's competition was comparable to MJ's, in which case Wilt would be the GOAT. As for Lebron, to me he's clearly the most dominant player since MJ, and the stats back me up, so I'd have to put him above Shaq and Kobe already. All that said this thread is a little weird. I think comparing pure statistics, regardless of championships, all-star appearances, etc., would be a better comparison.


I disagree, because heart, desire, will, mental fortitude and leadership are to big a part of what makes a player "great". Sports are as much mental as they are physical.

nickdymez
01-04-2013, 11:41 AM
sure, because without rings, your guy doesn't make top 10. Period.

There is no use arguing with you. Like I told Chronz, A few of you here just despise Kobe because of his "advanced stats" and its sad because he's one of the greatest players in our era. I dont think Rings is what made Kobe top 10, and for you to think so just goes to show that your bias is blinding you. Why would Bird or Lebron be top 10 and not Kobe? You said "based on talent", but leave Kobe off? Kobe has one of the best games ever. EVER. His only flaw his is need to play superman. He doesnt rely on strength or just being bigger and faster than his opponent, its all skill.

nickdymez
01-04-2013, 11:44 AM
I disagree, because heart, desire, will, mental fortitude and leadership are to big a part of what makes a player "great". Sports are as much mental as they are physical.

Bingo. Most this site really understands that

Money_23
01-05-2013, 04:10 AM
Statistically, MJ's still the best ever... unless you "believe" Wilt's competition was comparable to MJ's, in which case Wilt would be the GOAT. As for Lebron, to me he's clearly the most dominant player since MJ, and the stats back me up, so I'd have to put him above Shaq and Kobe already. All that said this thread is a little weird. I think comparing pure statistics, regardless of championships, all-star appearances, etc., would be a better comparison.

if you are doing pure statistics then Wilt would be #1, no competition. Then probably Oscar.

Alayla
01-05-2013, 04:25 AM
if you are doing pure statistics then Wilt would be #1, no competition. Then probably Oscar.

And we have a winner :clap: