Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Which is more overrated, rings or stats?

69 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

rings because people use them in comparison of how good a player is. well guess what, luke walton has more rings than lebron. rings are a team achievement and an estimate of success, not skill level of a player.

GatemX, Gogi and NBA in the STL like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you're comparing similar caliber players with rings I find it acceptable. No intelligent person would suggest Walton/Horry>Barkley/Malone/Stockton etc. but it does have merit if you compare the likes of Barkley/Malone to Garnett, Dirk, etc.

Stats can be deceiving if a player is getting gaudy stats but never has a successful team. Example Marbury lit up the stats but his teams were never elite.

Flash D3, Kill BeIl and Clutch like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings are often construed to be of more importance than stats which I don't always believe to be true. Also are you asking whether individual statistics or team statistics or both are overrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe rings are, from the standpoints of both team and player success.

As for the player part, rings are a team accomplishment. People use this to unfairly compare players too often.

For the team part, winning the championship does not necessarily mean you are the best team in basketball. It just means you beat the opposing team in the finals. The game of basketball I've learned is all about matchups. Who knows if the Lakers could have beaten the Cavaliers in the 2010 finals like they beat the Celtics if that had occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings easily... They have alot to do with luck and they are a team achievement... People also use rings to measure how good of a playoff performer a player is... A player with no rings could be a better playoff performer than a player with 2 or more rings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings.Some peope are saying that LBJ has no rings and he is not good player,CMON.Luke walton has 2-3 rings :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It depends.

When we talk about how good a player is, then rings are overrated.

When we talk about who had the better, the more successful career then stats may be overrated.

Example:

Wilt was an awesome player but haters always say that he won only two rings despite his dominance.

Steve Kerr. Who can say that he didn't have a successful career. He didn't have good stats but he had 5 f***ing rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings easily... They have alot to do with luck and they are a team achievement... People also use rings to measure how good of a playoff performer a player is... A player with no rings could be a better playoff performer than a player with 2 or more rings...

so you're saying a ringless guy with monster stats like lebron, durant, rose etc. is better than kobe, mj, bird and magic? the ring means everything. you think mj or any other all time great player would be considered if he didn't win at least a championship? a player with good stats and no rings is just an above average player. you'll never be remembered if you don't win. how many people talk about barkley, stockton, malone, ewing and many others? practically none...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

so you're saying a ringless guy with monster stats like lebron, durant, rose etc. is better than kobe, mj, bird and magic? the ring means everything. you think mj or any other all time great player would be considered if he didn't win at least a championship? a player with good stats and no rings is just an above average player. you'll never be remembered if you don't win. how many people talk about barkley, stockton, malone, ewing and many others? practically none...

so are you saying walton and scalabrine are better then Lebron? and loads talk about Stockton, Barkley, Malone.

Melo doesn;t even have a ring but I'm sure you'd defend him if someone said he sucked because he had no ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings.Some peope are saying that LBJ has no rings and he is not good player,CMON.Luke walton has 2-3 rings :(

it doesn't matter. he was always a champion. rings are a team effort. stats are individual and meaningless.

so are you saying walton and scalabrine are better then Lebron? and loads talk about Stockton, Barkley, Malone.

Melo doesn;t even have a ring but I'm sure you'd defend him if someone said he sucked because he had no ring.

they were on championships teams so you can't do nothing about it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

so are you saying walton and scalabrine are better then Lebron? and loads talk about Stockton, Barkley, Malone.

Melo doesn;t even have a ring but I'm sure you'd defend him if someone said he sucked because he had no ring.

the reason why i would defend melo is because he's not boaster like many players just because they had the spotlight the minute they walked in the league and won nothing but individual awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

eh to me ppl use whatever is advantageous to their take.

If they want to appear like a smart basketball fan they say Tim Duncan is the greatest PF of all time because of his 4 rings vs Malone's zero.

However Malone as an individual player is much better because of his ability to play at an elite level for such a long time.

To me there has to be a blend of the two and a bit of common sense.

my pet peeve is relying on the playoffs to define a players career. Most multiple all-star level players have played about 1000 games in the regular season and yet we have ppl basing a lot of their opinion on 120-170 playoff games. Yes it's a factor, but the main factor? mmmmm not buying into that logic entirely. You can't gloss over the regular season so readily.

NBA in the STL likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Stats by sooooooo much.

People get that rings are a team award. Nobody says "Robert Horry is better than Jordan because he has 8 rings!"

People do, however, say "James Harden is the best SG in the NBA because he has more WP48 than Kobe and Wade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Stats are nice but advanced stats are meaningless and no stats can substitute watching a game. Too many people think they can

No doubt... Or like when people say LeBron's having the best season ever because of PER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

the reason why i would defend melo is because he's not boaster like many players just because they had the spotlight the minute they walked in the league and won nothing but individual awards.

no you constantly bash Lebron saying he is just an above average player because he has no ring but you then have to discredit Melo even more because he doesn't have a ring and he's never come as close to one as Lebron has not only this but Lebron has been more successful then Melo in his career to so far.

You only defend Melo because he is on the knicks but you fail to see that when you discredit Lebron for those reasons you have to discredit Melo even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you're comparing similar caliber players with rings I find it acceptable. No intelligent person would suggest Walton/Horry>Barkley/Malone/Stockton etc. but it does have merit if you compare the likes of Barkley/Malone to Garnett, Dirk, etc.

Stats can be deceiving if a player is getting gaudy stats but never has a successful team. Example Marbury lit up the stats but his teams were never elite.

this exactly. Good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings obviously.

Let's say a player can play anywhere from level 1-10.

10 is the best.

1 is the worst.

Player A can play at a level 10 but because of poor circumstances ends up winning 0-2 Rings.

Player B can play at a level 6.5 but because of excellent circumstances and luck ends up winning 5 Rings.

They both have equal longevity.

Now Player A is still a better player then Player B.

He produced and played at a higher level in the playoffs over his career and was more impactful then Player B.

Because of different circumstances/luck many people (especially fans of player B) will use Rings as a way to discredit Player A and claim Player B's superiority over him.

There are simply too many variables that go into winning rings outside of the individual performances of that main star player.

Things like :

-Supporting casts

-What era, player and teams you play against.

-Simple luck (a bad bounce here, a lucky basket etc...)

____________________________________________

Rings should only be used as contextual evidence to support opinion/arguments.

Example :

Player A's team didn't advance in the playoffs because Player A performed poorly in a certain series.

Or Player A's team lost in the Finals because said player played poorly in that series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you're comparing similar caliber players with rings I find it acceptable. No intelligent person would suggest Walton/Horry>Barkley/Malone/Stockton etc. but it does have merit if you compare the likes of Barkley/Malone to Garnett, Dirk, etc.

Stats can be deceiving if a player is getting gaudy stats but never has a successful team. Example Marbury lit up the stats but his teams were never elite.

Karl Malone was a billion time's better than garnett!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you're comparing similar caliber players with rings I find it acceptable. No intelligent person would suggest Walton/Horry>Barkley/Malone/Stockton etc. but it does have merit if you compare the likes of Barkley/Malone to Garnett, Dirk, etc.

Stats can be deceiving if a player is getting gaudy stats but never has a successful team. Example Marbury lit up the stats but his teams were never elite.

1998-2001 Nets wasn't elite team?

Karl Malone was a billion time's better than garnett!

is you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rings obviously.

Let's say a player can play anywhere from level 1-10.

10 is the best.

1 is the worst.

Player A can play at a level 10 but because of poor circumstances ends up winning 0-2 Rings.

Player B can play at a level 6.5 but because of excellent circumstances and luck ends up winning 5 Rings.

They both have equal longevity.

Now Player A is still a better player then Player B.

He produced and played at a higher level in the playoffs over his career and was more impactful then Player B.

Because of different circumstances/luck many people (especially fans of player B) will use Rings as a way to discredit Player A and claim Player B's superiority over him.

There are simply too many variables that go into winning rings outside of the individual performances of that main star player.

Things like :

-Supporting casts

-What era, player and teams you play against.

-Simple luck (a bad bounce here, a lucky basket etc...)

____________________________________________

Rings should only be used as contextual evidence to support opinion/arguments.

Example :

Player A's team didn't advance in the playoffs because Player A performed poorly in a certain series.

Or Player A's team lost in the Finals because said player played poorly in that series.

what is this "luck" supposed to mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

FFS tired of hearing this, we know LeBron is good, we JUST LIKE TO MAKE FUN OF LEBRON BECAUSE HE HAS NO RINGS.

LeBron will be a top 10 possibly 5 at the end of his career and he will have a ring, 1 probably but he will, guess what CARMELO DOESN'T HAVE A RING EITHER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Easily rings, Adam Morrison has more rings than LeBron, does that make him better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Easily rings, Adam Morrison has more rings than LeBron, does that make him better?

that is such a juvenile oversimplification of the topic. It's an absurd stance and comment.

Rings matter when it comes to talking about players of similar caliber. That's why ppl place Tim Duncan over Karl Malone even though Malone had a longer prime, more MVP's and scored a hell-a lot more points and grabbed more rebounds and assists.

Flash D3 and Penny like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.