Evaluating the championship ring's value without finals MVP

[cpower]

Winning as 1st option is more impt than Finals MVP.

That's another way of looking at things. To me Shaq has been the man 3 times with 4 rings and Kobe has been the man twice with 5 rings. I would still put Shaq a tiny bit ahead of Kobe in the all time list because of that.

[grimballer]

a ring with finals mvp > a ring without it.

this should be common sense.

most ppl agree that:

playoffs > regular season,

than

finals > any other playoff series.

a player doesnt get a ring for beating the best team in 1st or 2nd round or winning the tougher conference. all that is forgotten.

the only thing that matters is who wins the finals.

the best player should step up n play his best game during the finals.

try to make an argument that bulls win those 6 rings without jordan or lakers win those 1st 3 in 00 without shaq.

now try to make an agrument for spurs winning without duncan in 07.

which one is more realistic?

[grimballer]

The problem is you aren't correctly evaluating a championship ring in the first place. It's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. Players don't have "Ring Shares" when they retire, they just play a certain level of basketball, and if they are in a good enough TEAM setting, sometimes that ends in a championship. Focus on how individuals play.

Similarly, the Finals MVP is an individual award bestowed on the most valuable in one series (4-7 games). It doesn't say anything too large about contributions over the course of the season or who is historically better than someone else.

Legler made the point that if you look back 30-40 years all the multiple title winners had more than 1 Finals MVP save Jordan's Bulls. KAJ had Magic, Magic KAJ and Worthy, Bird Maxwell, Shaq Wade, Kobe Shaq, Duncan Parker, etc etc. The Jordan " win every single one" precedent is the exception, not the rule. That speaks to the point about a good enough TEAM setting, that no matter how great a guy is he's almost always going to need very good help, good enough to even possiboy outshine him over the course of a playoff series, AND the player has to be unselfish enough to let his teammate outshine him bc he is committed to the team success.

u talkin about the time when there were 15 teams n teams were stacked.

look at last 20 years (teams with more than 1 title).

u got jordan, shaq, duncan, olajuwon, kobe.

clear cut best players on their teams.

parker finals mvp in 07 is the only exception.

[fatal9]

The problem is you aren't correctly evaluating a championship ring in the first place. It's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. Players don't have "Ring Shares" when they retire, they just play a certain level of basketball, and if they are in a good enough TEAM setting, sometimes that ends in a championship. Focus on how individuals play.

Similarly, the Finals MVP is an individual award bestowed on the most valuable in one series (4-7 games). It doesn't say anything too large about contributions over the course of the season or who is historically better than someone else.

This. You play at a certain level or you don't.