deestillballin Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) I really can't remember if there is a topic on this if it is Merge away I see alot of debates on here so I figued I would start(or continue) one. Is it really the Rings that make you the better player? I will post my opinion later. I want to see what everybody has to say Edited July 11, 2010 by deestillballin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Nah they are a team award and have no bearing on who is the better player right now (see Kobe and LeBron). If you want to use rings in a debate save it for players who are retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 If Rings make you the better player then Adam Morrison is better than LeBron James. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universe Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 All depends because at some point they do. If the NBA MVP meets in the finals four years in a row yet the star of the other team wins it four years in a row, you might start looking at the guy whose the winner, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 All depends because at some point they do. If the NBA MVP meets in the finals four years in a row yet the star of the other team wins it four years in a row, you might start looking at the guy whose the winner, no? Depends, whoever wins is obviously because he has the better team around him but if one player does good and the other struggles then that should decide who is the better player. If Cleveland with LeBron faced the Lakers, and the Lakers won 4-2 with Kobe averaging 30 ppg on 48% shooting to LeBron's 25 ppg on 40% shooting then its not a debate that Kobe is better, but if LeBron has better stats and the Lakers still win, then its just the team that was better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clutch Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 this is a team sport, the best team wins rings..not the best player...but if you are the best player on the best team, then u are naturally the better pick in a "who's better" discussions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted July 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 If Cleveland with LeBron faced the Lakers, and the Lakers won 4-2 with Kobe averaging 30 ppg on 48% shooting to LeBron's 25 ppg on 40% shooting then its not a debate that Kobe is better, but if LeBron has better stats and the Lakers still win, then its just the team that was better.That doesn't always apply. Bryant was averaging 24 PPG in 2004, with Shaq racking up 22 PPG. Kobe was the best player in the league, but his stats didn't necessarily show it (24/6/5). Tyreke Evans put up 20/5/6 last season. That doesn't mean he's already on Bryant's level. Statistics are overrated. Terribly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenneral Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Statistics are overrated. Terribly.What else is there to go off of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 That doesn't always apply. Bryant was averaging 24 PPG in 2004, with Shaq racking up 22 PPG. Kobe was the best player in the league, but his stats didn't necessarily show it (24/6/5). Tyreke Evans put up 20/5/6 last season. That doesn't mean he's already on Bryant's level. Statistics are overrated. Terribly. They dont apply but in the situation I mentioned, it does. In the situation you mention, it doesnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted July 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 What else is there to go off of?Your own two eyes (and my one eye). Go look at Dwight Howard's scoring averages, and field goal percentages. By the numbers, you can say he's a very good offensive player...but we know he has limited offensive skills because we watch him. They dont apply but in the situation I mentioned, it does. In the situation you mention, it doesnt.Doesn't make sense. Players will put up bigger numbers when their teammates are less gifted on offense. Kevin Martin is a great example. If the Lakers had the Kings in the first round, and Martin dropped 30 a game and Bryant was averaging 25 (because LA kept pounding the ball inside), yet the Lakers won...does that mean Martin is the better player? Not even close. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Your own two eyes (and my one eye). Go look at Dwight Howard's scoring averages, and field goal percentages. By the numbers, you can say he's a very good offensive player...but we know he has limited offensive skills because we watch him. Doesn't make sense. Players will put up bigger numbers when their teammates are less gifted on offense. Kevin Martin is a great example. If the Lakers had the Kings in the first round, and Martin dropped 30 a game and Bryant was averaging 25 (because LA kept pounding the ball inside), yet the Lakers won...does that mean Martin is the better player? Not even close. Finals would be different than the 1st round because of the defense. I am guessing that you're hinting that theres more factors than just stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 There have to be parameters for what makes a "great player." They have to be very clear and concise and they have to set all things relative to all other things in the most real way. In other words, I choose 1a. winning, 1b. stats - confined by whether or not you won and 3. MVP - tiebreak, because those things are a) real, as in measurable, b) relative - i.e. he led his team to 3 titles while the other guy led his team to only one; not "player A is really skilled and I don't like player B's skill set." and c) subject to a rational discussion after you've actually quantified and related someone's achievements to everyone else. Rings are all that matters. The rest is just sorting out who is better after two guys win the same. Jordan was a ridiculous winner and statistical producer. Russell was a ridiculous winner. Wilt was a great stat producer. Winning rules if you're one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted July 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) Ok here is my opinion. I agree with what Poe said in some sence: If rings makes the better player, then what in the hell is John Stockton doing in the HOF over Derek Fisher right? If that dosen't prove to be true what would you say. John Stockton was the greatest PG of all time? What makes you say that, he made his temates better? How do we know that? Stats right, but in this debate I have had with many people "Stats are over rated", so again I ask, how do we know that Fisher isnt a snub in th HOF over John Stockton? Why isn't Robert Horry in the HOF he has 7 rings? Wow Karl Malone over Horry? Malone dosen't have one ring to his name. You may say what I stated is baseless, but is proving my point... I for one DO NOT think Rings Automatically makes you the better player... EDIT: FIXED.. it didn't add my poll to begin with Edited July 11, 2010 by deestillballin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted July 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Finals would be different than the 1st round because of the defense. I am guessing that you're hinting that theres more factors than just stats?Charlotte was one of the best defensive teams in the NBA last season, and they lost in the first round. It doesn't matter what round, what game...the point is, stats are distorted when you alter the environment. Kobe had games where he struggled against Boston. If another player dominates Boston, that doesn't mean he's a better player than Bryant...because maybe that same player struggles against more teams. Maybe Boston is built to handle Bryant, but not some other player that plays differently. What if Monta Ellis averages more points per game than LeBron or Wade this upcoming season? Does that make him a better player, or a better scorer? I don't think so. He could average more than Melo, for all we know. How many points will Amare average, now that he's on the Knicks? What if the Heat were to trade Wade to the Kings, for Evans? Wade would average 30+ on that team. It's not that difficult to understand. Statistics don't prove much. And with that said, it relates to the topic because rings do matter, just as much as stats, just as much as visuals, just as much as overall skills you can see just by watching the players. Players win rings without doing anything (Morrison). Players put up big numbers without winning rings (LeBron). Problem is, someone like Bynum is a very good center in the league, top 2-3 offensively, doesn't do much (15-20 minutes per game) and still wins rings. But he's good because we can tell from his post moves and how he challenges shots...things that don't show up in the statsheet. Rings are important to the player. Rings aren't important when we are judging that player's overall abilities. Rings are extremely important to that player's legacy, or greatness. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.