PDA

View Full Version : Player Legacy: The Rings Argument



Rentzias
10-03-2013, 10:16 AM
How much emphasis, if any, should we put on the number of championships a player has when evaluating that player's legacy? Would a better evaluation be that player's performance in the playoffs (even Finals if you choose) regardless of the outcome?

I've seen it brought up where "if all else is equal, why not go to rings as the decider?" Instead, why not the player's specific performance?

If someone goes Jerry West on the losing team in a seven game series with all games decided at the last second by 1 point, it seems extremely dismissive to to the guy who didn't win the ring, and conversely seems like the winner gets an equally unfair bump in status.

king4day
10-03-2013, 12:34 PM
I would only use rings in the argument for 'greatest of all time'. Because if you are THAT good (ie: Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Magic), you find ways to win rings with the talent you're given.

ManningToTyree
10-03-2013, 12:48 PM
I would only use rings in the argument for 'greatest of all time'. Because if you are THAT good (ie: Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Magic), you find ways to win rings with the talent you're given.

this.

Chronz
10-03-2013, 12:50 PM
Agreed, specific analysis can be just as telling. I hate that nobody remembers 2nd place (I will always remember the Sactown Kings and Nash led squads), like really, 30 teams and 320+ players compete all season long, and all you will remember from the season is who ultimately won? Sounds to me like you're purposely limiting your NBA experience. Some players/teams dont get to compete for a chip, it doesn't make their entire season meaningless.

I keep that in mind when kobephiles say its all about da ringz yet also prop up what Kobe accomplished during his 35PPG season. Historical level of play should be celebrated as triumphantly as winning a chip.

If you see a player single-handedly elevate a flawed roster to greater heights, that's your championship. The knowledge that you had a leader who could do that, it gives you faith that hes capable of winning a chip. Thats my experience with the NBA, the kind of guys who can lift teams to that degree are the guys capable of winning.


Too many losers have won titles for me to say its all about the rings.

Easiest comparison, who would you rather have, Elvin Hayes (a perennial All-Star/20-10 bigman) with a championship to boast, or the ringless Charles Barkley/Karl Malone?


Hondo and his endless rings vs LeBron.


Who you got?

FlashBolt
10-03-2013, 02:09 PM
I think MVP of the regular season has more ground than a ring. I'd rather have a ring but to be MVP of the regular season usually means you carried your team while putting up huge numbers.

PurpleLynch
10-03-2013, 02:33 PM
Agreed, specific analysis can be just as telling. I hate that nobody remembers 2nd place (I will always remember the Sactown Kings and Nash led squads), like really, 30 teams and 320+ players compete all season long, and all you will remember from the season is who ultimately won? Sounds to me like you're purposely limiting your NBA experience. Some players/teams dont get to compete for a chip, it doesn't make their entire season meaningless.

I keep that in mind when kobephiles say its all about da ringz yet also prop up what Kobe accomplished during his 35PPG season. Historical level of play should be celebrated as triumphantly as winning a chip.

If you see a player single-handedly elevate a flawed roster to greater heights, that's your championship. The knowledge that you had a leader who could do that, it gives you faith that hes capable of winning a chip. Thats my experience with the NBA, the kind of guys who can lift teams to that degree are the guys capable of winning.


Too many losers have won titles for me to say its all about the rings.

Easiest comparison, who would you rather have, Elvin Hayes (a perennial All-Star/20-10 bigman) with a championship to boast, or the ringless Charles Barkley/Karl Malone?


Hondo and his endless rings vs LeBron.


Who you got?



For all Lakers fan,just remember Jerry West in 1969 winning the Finals Mvp despite his own team loss. Just that proves that Chronz is right.
Just look also at the Stockton&Malone's Jazz.

Goose17
10-03-2013, 04:12 PM
It means almost nothing.

Rings are a reflection of a good team and usually good coaching staff. Nobody has won a championship on their own, therefore it doesn't reflect individual talent, only team work/collective talent.

jerellh528
10-03-2013, 09:05 PM
It's why they play the game. You have 4 teammates on the court with you, if your great enough there has to be a way to win a championship when you have well over a 1 in 5 percentage to be directly responsible for your team's success. Most nba teams have relatively equal talent from top to bottom, it's the superstars that put them over the edge, if you're said superstar you have to find a way to get your team those rings. The reason Malone and barley don't have rings, you can thank Jordan because his greatness transcends the level of mostly equal talent around the league to bring his team to championship status. Of course, there are rarely exceptions of no superstar teams that just mesh perfect. But that's super rare. My view on this is cutting edge but still I don't think rings have much value in ranking a player unless it's their career is over and your ranking best of all time. Anyone outside the top 10 or so probably doesn't even have the level of greatness to need to be mentioned in a rings for worth conversation.

Supreme LA
10-03-2013, 09:13 PM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them also matters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.

Chronz
10-03-2013, 09:22 PM
It's why they play the game. You have 4 teammates on the court with you, if your great enough there has to be a way to win a championship when you have well over a 1 in 5 percentage to be directly responsible for your team's success. Most nba teams have relatively equal talent from top to bottom, it's the superstars that put them over the edge, if you're said superstar you have to find a way to get your team those rings. The reason Malone and barley don't have rings, you can thank Jordan because his greatness transcends the level of mostly equal talent around the league to bring his team to championship status. Of course, there are rarely exceptions of no superstar teams that just mesh perfect. But that's super rare. My view on this is cutting edge but still I don't think rings have much value in ranking a player unless it's their career is over and your ranking best of all time. Anyone outside the top 10 or so probably doesn't even have the level of greatness to need to be mentioned in a rings for worth conversation.

So then why can the team success vary so differently depending on those players? A player can be the same player if not better and suffer worse team success despite his improvements. Thats why its better to focus on the play of the individual and how he raises the teams level of play rather than blind glances at win-loss tallies.

Chronz
10-03-2013, 09:24 PM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them also matters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.
So how many of Kobe's chips were legit?

koreancabbage
10-03-2013, 09:27 PM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them also matters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.

he isn't the GOAT of all time but now its seeing how close he gets to it in the end.

east fb knicks
10-03-2013, 09:32 PM
It means almost nothing.

Rings are a reflection of a good team and usually good coaching staff. Nobody has won a championship on their own, therefore it doesn't reflect individual talent, only team work/collective talent.
ummmmmm mr goat micheal jordan begs to differ

koreancabbage
10-03-2013, 09:34 PM
ummmmmm mr goat micheal jordan begs to differ

if we are using one dimensional arguments of counting rings, then MJ isn't the GOAT then.

jerellh528
10-03-2013, 09:36 PM
So then why can the team success vary so differently depending on those players? A player can be the same player if not better and suffer worse team success despite his improvements. Thats why its better to focus on the play of the individual and how he raises the teams level of play rather than blind glances at win-loss tallies.

Yeah my view is not an end all, that's why there is a thread on this topic. There are anomalies though, such as when Kobe had the worst roster in league history back during his prime. But if it's an average nba roster the greatness of players certainly play a major role in winning championships. That's why everybody in the top 10 ever have won. It's not coincidence.

D-Leethal
10-03-2013, 09:37 PM
Agreed, specific analysis can be just as telling. I hate that nobody remembers 2nd place (I will always remember the Sactown Kings and Nash led squads), like really, 30 teams and 320+ players compete all season long, and all you will remember from the season is who ultimately won? Sounds to me like you're purposely limiting your NBA experience. Some players/teams dont get to compete for a chip, it doesn't make their entire season meaningless.

I keep that in mind when kobephiles say its all about da ringz yet also prop up what Kobe accomplished during his 35PPG season. Historical level of play should be celebrated as triumphantly as winning a chip.

If you see a player single-handedly elevate a flawed roster to greater heights, that's your championship. The knowledge that you had a leader who could do that, it gives you faith that hes capable of winning a chip. Thats my experience with the NBA, the kind of guys who can lift teams to that degree are the guys capable of winning.


Too many losers have won titles for me to say its all about the rings.

Easiest comparison, who would you rather have, Elvin Hayes (a perennial All-Star/20-10 bigman) with a championship to boast, or the ringless Charles Barkley/Karl Malone?


Hondo and his endless rings vs LeBron.


Who you got?

Agreed. I enjoy reading up on some older teams that never made the Finals but had some awesome runs and battled dynasty teams similar to the way the Pacers did last season. Everyone will remember Miami as the back-to-back champion but will people remember how Paul George came into his own drilling 30 foot threes and ice water FTs to put the game in OT, or how Roy Hibbert dominated like Cs of old? They will just remember the Heat winning another chip and getting a hell of a battle in the Finals to get it.

Two similar teams that come to mind are the Aguire/Harper/Blackman Mavs who pushed Showtime to 7 in the WCF in '88 and the Ricky Pierce/Terry Cummings/Sidney Montcrief Bucks that couldn't get past Boston in the 80s (but beat Barkley/Moses/Cheeks/Dr. J). The championship titans get boring after a while, the next tier guys pique my interest when it comes to brushing up on your history. I like reading about the dudes you never heard of that pushed the titans to the brink.

D-Leethal
10-03-2013, 09:40 PM
'92 Cavs are another one.

jerellh528
10-03-2013, 09:40 PM
It means almost nothing.

Rings are a reflection of a good team and usually good coaching staff. Nobody has won a championship on their own, therefore it doesn't reflect individual talent, only team work/collective talent.

Basketball is the team sport where a single player can have the biggest impact overall on a team. Not counting a qb or pitcher. So yes, it does factor in somewhat. How much stock you put into rings is a different ball game but there's a reason the top 10 of all time have rings.

koreancabbage
10-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Yeah my view is not an end all, that's why there is a thread on this topic. There are anomalies though, such as when Kobe had the worst roster in league history back during his prime. But if it's an average nba roster the greatness of players certainly play a major role in winning championships. That's why everybody in the top 10 ever have won. It's not coincidence.

did you not see who they played against in Orlando. that was even worse than the team Kobe had! but Kudos to Kobe in the western conference finals where he put up BIG numbers against the nuggets. that was a classic series.

but in the end, I could not believe how bad both teams were in that finals.

jerellh528
10-03-2013, 09:44 PM
did you not see who they played against in Orlando. that was even worse than the team Kobe had! but Kudos to Kobe in the western conference finals where he put up BIG numbers against the nuggets. that was a classic series.

but in the end, I could not believe how bad both teams were in that finals.
Not talking about finals years. Talking about mihm, smush, cook, odom, Walton, years lol

east fb knicks
10-03-2013, 09:46 PM
he isn't the GOAT of all time but now its seeing how close he gets to it in the end.

what :facepalm: unless lebum heads back to the cavs and leads a irving bynum tandem to atleast 3 rings he's not even top 10 imo of all time

jerellh528
10-03-2013, 09:49 PM
what :facepalm: unless lebum heads back to the cavs and leads a irving bynum tandem to atleast 3 rings he's not even top 10 imo of all time

I honestly think if Lebron went back to Cleveland next year and brought the cavs a title that would be a great place to end his career for his legacy. Not saying goat by any means but it would help him get into top 5

Goose17
10-04-2013, 02:10 AM
ummmmmm mr goat micheal jordan begs to differ

Jordan never won a championship on his own, Kobe never won a championship on his own, Lebron has never won a championship on his own.

Nobody wins a championship on their own. Never.

This is a team sport.

"Talent wins games but team work and intelligence wins championships" - Michael Jordan

koreancabbage
10-04-2013, 09:01 AM
what :facepalm: unless lebum heads back to the cavs and leads a irving bynum tandem to atleast 3 rings he's not even top 10 imo of all time

and what LOGIC are you using in this statement? please, this is gonna be good.

Rentzias
10-04-2013, 09:22 AM
IMO, counting rings is as pointless as the Finals MVP, and I forgot who it was who suggested making it a Playoffs MVP instead. Even then, as with MVP, I find MVP Shares/Voting to be a more valuable resource in legacy discussions. I'm a huge MJ fan, but I've never yet used the "six rings!" argument, and instead can just look at his performance in the playoffs outside of W-L.

I would like to have a legacy discussion some day where we pretend like straight up W-L and "# of rings" numbers don't exist. I think that would be a significantly different discussion, probably with slightly different results than what this forum has been producing a majority of the time.

therealwd27
10-04-2013, 09:25 AM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them alsomatters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.

Lol your such a hater its very pathetic actually. Every single finals had crucial turning points , you mustve forgot that Lakers vs Kings game huh? Dumbass

jstone0716
10-04-2013, 11:50 AM
I think guys like McGrady get screwed by the ring thing. He was absolutely amazing in his prime, on a good team could have done some great stuff. Some guys just don't get paired with enough talent to really do much come playoff time. But I agree when it comes to talking about the greats you have to throw that into the debate because their individual greatness speaks for itself.

TheIlladelph16
10-04-2013, 12:11 PM
While we shouldn't be looking at rings as the end-all-be-all determinant on ranking players:

1) Rings do matter to some extent when we are talking about all-time greats
2) The performance by an individual player en route to those rings is even more important than the rings themselves.

I'm really right in the middle on this, so when people say they don't matter at all or are the end-all-be-all, both bug the **** out of me.

PhillyFaninLA
10-04-2013, 12:30 PM
If your not willing to say Robery Horry is better than Kobe Bryant and that Brain Scalbrine is better than Allen Iverson than use what a player does and not rings.

1 player cannot win a title

PhillyFaninLA
10-04-2013, 12:33 PM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them also matters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.

And you are the only one so far to bring up Lebron, troll......Kobe is also no better then the 4th best Laker of all time so he's not GOAT either and never will be, troll of PSD.

editL Shaq, Magic, Wilt, Kareem...all better then Kobe...so correction no better than 5th best player in team history.

koreancabbage
10-04-2013, 12:36 PM
If your not willing to say Robery Horry is better than Kobe Bryant and that Brain Scalbrine is better than Allen Iverson than use what a player does and not rings.

1 player cannot win a title

exactly. how many times have you seen Horry save the legacies of many superstars out there? how about Derek Fisher for Kobe?

I just don't get why Lebron is the only one being taken down b/c of what Bosh and RayRay did in that sequence. I mean, its fact that Kobe has missed more clutch shots than Lebron but Lebron is known to be not "clutch".
Most Game-Tying/Go-Ahead FG in Playoffs
Final 24 Secs. of 4th Qtr/OT Since 2003-04

LeBron James 7-16
Kobe Bryant 5-17
Kevin Durant 5-12
Dirk Nowitzki 5-12

see the propaganda by Kobephiles?

Bostonjorge
10-05-2013, 09:49 PM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.

Chronz
10-05-2013, 11:14 PM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.

So when do they eventually pass Hondo and Russell?

FlashBolt
10-06-2013, 12:45 AM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.
So where does Bill rank? If Jordan never won a ring but was the exact same player, but Kobe won 7 with teammates like Shaq, Duncan, Nash, and Tracy McGrady, is Kobe honestly better than Jordan? That's a joke and I think we both know it.

JEDean89
10-06-2013, 06:36 PM
Yah I only use rings to measure #1 options. It really doesn't matter that Eddy Curry has a ring and Patrick Ewing doesn't. Even with Wade having 3, I still put Hakeem over him. I think Lebron needs at least 6 to win the GOAT title, you need chips to compare GOAT's for everyone else, it's just to get them in the HOF or to have their jersey retired by their main team.

Hawkeye15
10-06-2013, 06:41 PM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.

then Bill Russell leads you all timer list, right? I mean, its not as if we should factor in stats, accolades, awards, dominance amongst peers, roster support throughout career, or any other factor in a TEAM sport.

Hawkeye15
10-06-2013, 06:43 PM
Yah I only use rings to measure #1 options. It really doesn't matter that Eddy Curry has a ring and Patrick Ewing doesn't. Even with Wade having 3, I still put Hakeem over him. I think Lebron needs at least 6 to win the GOAT title, you need chips to compare GOAT's for everyone else, it's just to get them in the HOF or to have their jersey retired by their main team.

rings need to be put into context. Do the greatest of the greatest almost always find a way to win one? Yes. But giving credit to an all timer for being in a great situation most to all of his career, is not evaluating correctly.

KnicksorBust
10-06-2013, 08:47 PM
If your not willing to say Robery Horry is better than Kobe Bryant and that Brain Scalbrine is better than Allen Iverson than use what a player does and not rings.

1 player cannot win a title

The comparisons are laughable in every aspect of their careers except rings. That makes that argument completely invalid.


rings need to be put into context. Do the greatest of the greatest almost always find a way to win one? Yes. But giving credit to an all timer for being in a great situation most to all of his career, is not evaluating correctly.

Exactly. I don't see how people can completely throw them out of the equation when that's why they play the game. Ahh cringe, I just sounded like Herm Edwards. Anyway, even though 1 player may not single-handedly win a ring there are countless examples of legacy altering performances. Modern examples that people would understand would be Dirk, Pierce, and especially Dwyane Wade. Going further back... Hakeem, Moses, Barry.

Dade County
10-06-2013, 09:12 PM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.


:laugh2:

I can't wait until Wade gets 6 rings.

starks99
10-06-2013, 11:02 PM
Rings are only 1 of a few different accolades to look at.

Perspective is needed on everything, including competition faced, and relative dominance per era. Teams win championships, unless a player single handedly elevates that team by himself - Hakeem eg.

FlashBolt
10-07-2013, 03:08 AM
I hate using rings as an argument. Is LJ visibly and on paper better than Kobe? Yes. Kobe has more rings but it's as simple as LJ being a better player. That's not an insult, when you're a top 20 player out of all the living souls that this world has encountered, you should just be damn proud. Actually, I think most players in the top 10 have an argument for the GOAT. It depends on how you look at it but we can't really say Jordan was so much better than Bird or Magic.

naps
10-07-2013, 04:55 AM
I think the manner in which you win those titles also makes a difference. The fact that Lebron & the Heat beat an average Finals team in OKC one year and basically had last year's title lost to San Antonio until one stupid offense rebound at the last second if game 6 shows how little his 2 titles really mean, not to mention it was a lockout season.

Rings matter. The manner in which you win them also matters.

Lebron is not the GOAT children of PSD. He will never be.

Jesus!! Why are these kobephiles so insecure? It's alarming how they have to involve LeBron in everything. This is becoming a disease. Vaccination is on it's way!

bagwell368
10-07-2013, 10:11 AM
Rings are the most important stat when comparing the greats. I mean why else would lebron cheat his way to finally win one. If Allen misses the greatest save ever then lebron takes a couple steps back in the rankings. Lebron rings are less in value but there still a ring Barkley wish he had.

Jordan with 5 rings is one of the best but jordan with 6 is the greatest. Kobe with 7 becomes the greatest and so on.

Please. Kobe with 7 is still not fit to wipe Jordan's backside.

KnicksorBust
10-07-2013, 04:20 PM
Please. Kobe with 7 is still not fit to wipe Jordan's backside.

But he'd pass Magic.

Rentzias
10-07-2013, 06:27 PM
So at what point do you bring in the rings argument? What is the baseline where you can bring in rings/no rings/more rings as a legitimate tiebreaker? I feel like there are so many other things that you can look at before you even get to the point of rings as a differentiator.

Rentzias
10-07-2013, 06:35 PM
rings need to be put into context. Do the greatest of the greatest almost always find a way to win one? Yes. But giving credit to an all timer for being in a great situation most to all of his career, is not evaluating correctly.

What about just the greats? Your Baylors or Stocktons. And West won, but what if he hadn't?

A Black Prophet
10-07-2013, 07:38 PM
Yah I only use rings to measure #1 options. It really doesn't matter that Eddy Curry has a ring and Patrick Ewing doesn't. Even with Wade having 3, I still put Hakeem over him. I think Lebron needs at least 6 to win the GOAT title, you need chips to compare GOAT's for everyone else, it's just to get them in the HOF or to have their jersey retired by their main team.

Lebron doesn't need 6 more rings to be considered a better player than Jordan. Larry was actually a better overall player than Magic. Magic just was lucky to play with the G.O.A.T Center

Hawkeye15
10-07-2013, 07:52 PM
What about just the greats? Your Baylors or Stocktons. And West won, but what if he hadn't?

again, context. What type of player were they at that point? Winning a ring in your prime, as the lead dog, weighs more than getting one early before development, or late when you are riding the train.

I agree with your previous post. Pulling out the rings argument only makes sense when all things are equal in the event you do pull it out.

KnicksorBust
10-07-2013, 07:58 PM
Lebron doesn't need 6 more rings to be considered a better player than Jordan. Larry was actually a better overall player than Magic. Magic just was lucky to play with the G.O.A.T Center

McHale...Parish...DJ...

Trying to sort out who had more help between those two rosters is an exercise in futility.