Jump to content


Photo

Which is more overrated, rings or stats?


  • Please log in to reply

#1 ONLINE   Mirrors

Mirrors
  • BACK TO BACK

  • 12,757 posts

    • Country: Country Flag
Explain your case.

                                              tumblr_mnupigq6Rv1r98qz6o1_500.gif

                                                                                     My YouTube Channel

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:17 PM


#2 OFFLINE   airWarrior

airWarrior
  • fkn goin to war brehs

  • 14,632 posts

    • Country: Country Flag
  • NBA in the STL, GatemX and Gogi like this
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.

Dv1G7Sw.png

2014 NBA PLAYOFFS 

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:33 PM


#3 OFFLINE   Dr. Wolf

Dr. Wolf
  • World Famous in Minnesota

  • 18,608 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
  • Kill BeIl, Flash D3 and Clutch like this
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.

Co-Commish of the GSL, former Timberwolves GM: 10.5 Seasons (659-210) 3 Championships

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:42 PM


#4 OFFLINE   zetch

zetch
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?

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:43 PM


#5 ONLINE   Mirrors

Mirrors
  • BACK TO BACK

  • 12,757 posts

    • Country: Country Flag
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?

                                              tumblr_mnupigq6Rv1r98qz6o1_500.gif

                                                                                     My YouTube Channel

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:47 PM


#6 OFFLINE   Savage™

Savage™
  • http://mastakushhoe.tumblr.com/

  • 6,219 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
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...

GhwRkYX.gif?1

"I thought school was wack, being cool was wack/And niggas thought I was cool, how cool is that?"

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:49 PM


#7 OFFLINE   Penny

Penny
  • no quiero nada más sin vos

  • 9,722 posts

    • Country: Country Flag
  • Kill BeIl, Flash D3, Bball_Jones and 3 others like this

*
POPULAR

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

2i6jvag.png

.Gay.Thomas.Cousins.

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:12 AM


#8 OFFLINE   Manavski

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

Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:08 AM


#9 OFFLINE   TeoTheGreek13

TeoTheGreek13
  • Basketballholic

  • 23,130 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
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.

★★★Panathinaikos BC★★★

Posted Image

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:30 AM


#10 OFFLINE   carmeloanthonyfico

carmeloanthonyfico

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...

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:12 AM


#11 OFFLINE   Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman
  • Bateman

  • 10,752 posts


    • Country: Country Flag

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.

patrick-bateman-card_zpseb5cad13.png

New card, What do think?

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:14 AM


#12 OFFLINE   carmeloanthonyfico

carmeloanthonyfico

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,

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:16 AM


#13 OFFLINE   carmeloanthonyfico

carmeloanthonyfico

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.

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:21 AM


#14 OFFLINE   celtic fan

celtic fan
  • Greatest Poster of All-Time?

  • 5,482 posts

  • NBA in the STL likes this
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.

t02snb_jpg_medium.gif

 

4SxShuO.png

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:29 AM


#15 OFFLINE   Bball_Jones

Bball_Jones
  • baddest dribbler in the whole neighborhood

  • 4,519 posts

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.

30mxxyo.jpg 33 3ub9c.jpg

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:47 AM


#16 OFFLINE   Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman
  • Bateman

  • 10,752 posts


    • Country: Country Flag

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.

patrick-bateman-card_zpseb5cad13.png

New card, What do think?

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:46 AM


#17 OFFLINE   Clutch

Clutch
  • #CelticsGang

  • 13,669 posts


    • Country: Country Flag

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!

parents-not-happy-with-beyonce-performan

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:37 PM


#18 OFFLINE   32Dayz

32Dayz
  • Greatest Poster of All-Time?

  • 3,591 posts

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.

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:42 PM


#19 OFFLINE   MJistheGOAT

MJistheGOAT

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!
Posted Image

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:42 PM


#20 OFFLINE   Stefan

Stefan
  • Greatest Poster of All-Time?

  • 6,378 posts

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?

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:45 PM





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome Guest!

Hello and welcome to our forums, Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. You may be required to register to be able to discuss and communicate with other members of our community.