RealGM

I know many don't like Gilbert as an analyst but he and jr brought up points about winning a title I found interesting when it comes to an individual player.

Some interesting points made is that nobody can win a title by themselves, it's far more a team accomplishment then a individual accomplishment.

Fans clown stars if they team up to win a title but also clown stars if they don't win a title.

Fans will rate a lesser player with lesser talent over a player with greater talent just because the former has a ring.

These are all points I found interesting.

Hard to answer this with any real objectivity but they're generally viewed as fairly important when evaluating great players amongst one another with proper context. Becomes muddier when discussing role players. But really most people just use them to make pointless GOAT arguments about who is better than who and invoke them when they see that it fits their point (Jordan 6-0) and dismiss it when it doesn't (Russell's rings). Ring count is just a d*** measuring contest for fans

The reality imo is that they do hold a fair amount of weight when comparing the top tier players evaluated in the proper context. Yes basketball is a team sport but it's also a team sport where only 5 teammates can be on the floor at any given time so one player can have an enormous impact on winning on their own

It varies, and depends on which side of the argument you are picking on a particular day.

Why's JR got a pumpkin on his head?

It's vastly important... we as fans don't allow things to hurt us anymore

Not as important for guys like Beal. Not gonna fault him, I'd sign that Supermax fast AF too.

It's weird how it makes people think the team that won is like massively better than all the teams that year, or all teams that never won a title before. Most of the time they are just barely better than the other teams in the conference finals and real finals.

When you’re talking Mt Rushmore, there is a feeling you should have been able to carry a team with little help at least once. Beyond that top 5-15 conversation, not as important.

You start the guys without a ring wherever you have Malone ranked. Most have him 15-25. His resume looks a lot better with a few rings, as the biggest knock on him is post season failures.

The greatest players make their teammates better, which leads to winning rings. That concept is hard for guys like Arenas & JR Smith to grasp because they only cared about their individual performances.

Depends how you win it. Rings are not made the same. Lebron's Cavs ring is worth more than the rest of his rings. Then you have KD's rings that are worthless.

It’s definitely the most important thing, way more important than money. Even the 12th man benchwarmers make six figure wealth significantly beyond the average American’s median income. Any average role player will make tens of millions easily and if not spent foolishly has more money than they need if they were to live a few lifetimes. The stars and superstars have generational wealth that can last 50 lifetimes. However nobody remembers any of these guys for their money or what the details of their contract were. Everyone does remember titles and ring counts though. That’s what lives on in their legacy.

If we're judging players

Individual performance >>> winning a ring

How good is the player?

Nobody cares about Norris Cole's rings, some people care about K.C. Jones rings, everyone cares about Michael Jordan's rings.

It's a team accomplishment but basketball is also a sport where a single superstar can have an outsized impact on the overall outcome of the game. That's why it is so common to have certain superstars dominate eras, whether that be Russell or Magic / KAJ or Jordan or LeBron.

Where 'rings' as a discussion frustrates me is that it largely strips the situation of context. It's the dumb person's idea of a strong argument. NBA history suggests, with surprisingly few exceptions, that the most talented team (players + coach) tends to win. It's surprisingly rare, even for the best players, to overcome clearly superior opposition. So really when people evoke 'rings' as their go-to argument what they are really evoking is that 'player x' was luckier to play with better teammates + coaching than 'player y'.

I think rings would be more useful in the context of 'who is the most accomplished player' rather than 'who is the best player'. Jordan is more accomplished that LeBron. It's less clear whether he was better since both enjoyed tremendously productive and successful careers. Similarly, Tom Brady is by far the most accomplished NFL player but it's less clear whether he was the best player given that he was outperformed by his peers for long stretches of his career.

It depends on the player.

Depends on the player .Ike Chris Paul it’s the only thing that will cement his career . Harden on that same path.

Only in my greatest players rankings. In my favorite players rankings, not even close

Why does JR look like black raggedy ann?

Big J wrote:The greatest players make their teammates better, which leads to winning rings. That concept is hard for guys like Arenas & JR Smith to grasp because they only cared about their individual performances.

What the actual ****... did you even watch the video and listen to JR Smith?? No chance you did, so best to not reply.