How important is a ring?

[Rainwater]

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.

Yeah, I don't think he watched the video. JR came off incredibly humble in this video. I loved his reaction when some kid said he was better than T-Mac because he had two rings. He was the guy who helped superstars get 40 points, he wasn't the guy who got 40 points. JR knew his role.

[dk1115]

I feel like championships are extremely important, but context is also important. Take for instance Gary Payton. Won a ring with the Heat, but wasn't really the reason the Heat won. Kevin Durant; if he won it in OKC, how much nicer would it have been?

Heck, take Steph Curry/Klay/Dray. That first title and most recent one probably means more to them than the ones with KD.

[ken6199]

I feel like championships are extremely important, but context is also important. Take for instance Gary Payton. Won a ring with the Heat, but wasn't really the reason the Heat won. Kevin Durant; if he won it in OKC, how much nicer would it have been?

Heck, take Steph Curry/Klay/Dray. That first title and most recent one probably means more to them than the ones with KD.

The reality is people will forever talk about Steph Klay Draymond in a different way than Lebron Wade Bosh. Like the Warriors is all Steph and the other 3 just superteamed up. Sometimes you know, having a working system where everyone can thrive with their strengths is equally important than stacking up talent. 1+1+1 > or < 3, most of the time. That’s why so many super teams underperformed.

People will also rarely talk about the contributions from Looney, Wiggins, others as if Klay is a stonewall one third of the big three no matter what (not that he hasn’t earned but but ykwim). Championship is a team effort down to GM coaching stuff etc that’s why I am sick every time when Shaq says “yo I got 4 how many u got”, or, “Steph got 4 now let’s talk about him vs Lebron”. That’s just silly in every way.

[carlquincy]

Extremely important, esp if the said player is in a good team and fails to deliver.

[MrBigShot]

Importance depends on the context in which you won the ring. Dirk and Giannis' single rings did exceedingly more for their legacies than KD's two rings did for his.

[dc]

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.

KD joined a stack team and they beat Lebron's stacked team (Lebron at his peak + 2 all-stars). It's worth something to beat the 2nd best player of all time at his peak, even if you had a stacked team along with you.

[OdomFan]

Definitely depends on the talent for many out there. Case in point, Wilt Chamberlain being so high on manys list out there despite only winning 2 rings in his 14 year NBA career.

I view it quite highly though when it comes down to the players who are/were the leader of their teams. As best player Michael Jordan was the ultimate example that showed he could lead even at times when his secondary guy was hurt in 1998, and could be coached well consistently.

[BlackThought]

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.

KD joined a stack team and they beat Lebron's stacked team (Lebron at his peak + 2 all-stars). It's worth something to beat the 2nd best player of all time at his peak, even if you had a stacked team along with you.

You convinced me, it's worth a teeny tiny weeny bit.

[BostonCouchGM]

It's really important and often a determining factor when people rank players. How you win one matters though. Are you one of, if not THE driving force for that championship (Giannis, Bird, MJ, Steph, Lebron), a past his prime ring chaser, a role player, or a #2, #3 or #4 type? And who did you beat? Bird beating the loaded Lakers in 1984 is better imo than his 1986 ring vs the one-man Rockets led by Hakeem. If KG has 5 rings and Duncan only 1 is Duncan ranked above KG? Remember, more rings likely means KG gets selected to more all-NBA, all-stars and potential MVP awards even if not necessarily deserved.

[HEAT33]

Rings matter to the elite players. Like the top 10 of all time….. because we have to nick pick at everything to rate one player over the other

[LuDux1]

No ding ding without the wedding ring

[Mavrelous]

If we're judging players

Individual performance >>> winning a ring

Dirk had amazing individual years 2004-2010, had he not won in 2011, it would be looked at totally different.
Giannis also had he now won last year.

[jokeboy86]

Didnt Beyonce already address this years ago?

[PistolPeteJR]

My fiancee thought it was quite important when I asked her to marry me a few weeks ago. Good thing I came prepared.

[Godymas]

It really depends

I don't think anyone really faults Malone/Stockton for never getting a ring. Despite never getting a ring they are still all time greats. The Utah team made the finals 2x in a row and lost to Michael Jordan. There is no shame in that. Malone tried the ring chasing for one year at age 40. To be honest his numbers for a 40 year old..really he still had it even at that age.

Now if Malone/Stockton won 2 rings, how much of an impact does that have on their legacy? Well 2 rings did a ton for Hakeem's legacy, in some ways Malone basically gets on the same tier as someone like Hakeem. Stockton vs. Isaiah Thomas becomes a more serious debate.

Rings do add to a legacy, but rings don't necessarily define greatness. If you want to be the greatest rings are a must without a doubt. If you want to be great you don't necessarily have to win a ring. Look at Allen Iverson, despite never getting a ring he is still one of the most beloved players in the NBA of all time.

Rings only elevate greatness, but they don't define what is actually a great career. If you make it to the finals at some point and lose because it's a team sport, well so be it, that was the situation and the case at the time. That doesn't necessarily hurt your overall legacy though imo.

Rings do matter, but they only matter for a top 25 type of player. Anyone below that is still very much great, but it's really easy to look at even the raw stats and comparisons to see that top 25 players put on top 25 of all time performances to win rings.

[rzzzzz]

If championships were not important, Bill Russell would have scored a lot more points, and collected even more rebounds.
Heck, he may not have played ball at all. He was all about championships, and he was brilliant at winning them.

[JonFromVA]

We count rings in basketball because there's only 5 men on a side, and a single great player can make a huge difference; but fact is this is relative to the player's team, his coach, the level of competition, and the style of game.

For instance, this is not the best era for a big post Center to dominate. And even in the previous era ... Shaq may not have won any rings if he didn't have a teammate like Bryant or Wade to help close out opponents. Yet in other eras, his pure physical dominance might had been enough to rack them up on a weaker team.

But we do nobody any favors by blindly focusing on a rings/winning when we have analytics that can examine things like offense/defensive uplift, clutch performance, etc. Given the amount of money being thrown around, good luck drafting and developing a young great player who may be primarily driven to get to another team where he can start collecting rings and become "great".

[Uncle Mxy]

This guy seems to think rings are a big deal.
I think he's on to something...

[NZB2323]

It’s certainly a factor to use when ranking different players, but I have Elgin Baylor, Karl Malone, and Charles Barkley ranked ahead of Paul Pierce, Chauncey Billups, and Isiah Thomas.

[Tacoma]

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.

It's not weird to think that if you are one of the key players, a difference maker, who stepped up to move the needle to make your team just barely better to win it all. But that doesn't really answer the question of how important is a ring.

The answer depends on who you are. MJ's legacy would be vastly different if, instead of winning 6 rings, he lost all 6 NBA Finals. On the other hand, if you're a supporting role player like Ron Harper with 5 rings, it's not so much important.