How important is a ring?

[Quattro]

Welcome to sports. At least NBA isn’t as bad as the NFL where that’s all that matters. How often do you hear Dan Marinos name when people talk about the greatest QBs ever?

[SecondTake]

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.

An average role player will not make enough for a single lifetime. Not sure what you're talking about. They might make 20-40 million. A mansion, plane and Yaht alone would go for multiples of that. And that's without anything else. A role player would then have to budget that for the rest of their lives after they retire in their 30s.

Sent from my SM-S908W using RealGM mobile app

[G35]

In history, there were many wars between countries and there were several close battles and sometimes the winning side lost some crucial battles...there is also a phrase called a "pyrrhic victory" when you win a battle at a great loss.

But at the end of the day, we only remember those that won...those that lost are remembered only through the eyes of the victor.

It doesn't matter if you win by one point or 20 points. Winners are celebrated and if you never won anything, all you have is coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Whenever we argue one player over another player, if there are two players of similar value, the one with the ring always wins.

KG and Dirk are not better than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley...you can guarantee that KG and Dirk supporters will be bringing up those ring seasons.....

[BostonCouchGM]

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

that's because if you take away his team won rings he's not a top 25 player

[BostonCouchGM]

Welcome to sports. At least NBA isn’t as bad as the NFL where that’s all that matters. How often do you hear Dan Marinos name when people talk about the greatest QBs ever?

in literally every discussion I've ever heard about GOAT QBs? I mean, Marino, Brady, Manning, Rodgers and Montana are the names pretty much every single discussion is centered around. Now if Marino had a ring or two wouldn't he THEN be put above at least Manning and Rodgers? Maybe even Montana? As it is, there are many who believe he's the best despite the rings.

[Hipster Doofus]

Don't ask a girl this.

"How important is a ring, REALLY?"

[zeebneeb]

It's the only thing that matters. It's the whole reason they play, and that's to produce a title. Without it, the career is worthless.

[threethehardway]

MVPs and All-NBA Teams are more important than rings for a player.

A ring is an organizational achievement.

It's largely outside of a player's control

If your team don't draft well, don't use cap well, can't acquire key free agents, has poor executive leadership, rings aren't happening no matter what a player does.

Unless that player takes over teams like Bron and Rich and do.

[CobraCommander]

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

Ring important to
Distinguish between the absolute best players and franchises.

Players at the tier below Lebron, KD, Curry and Giannis should not be judged by rings specifically or exclusively. Ie- dame and Gil shouldn’t be judged by rings.

Teams should only be judged by rings

[JoeyGsShoulders]

I kind of think of rings as an aggregate stat. Who won is basically an indication of defence, offence, strength of competition, injuries, etc. for a year.

My problem in looking at rings is, as an aggregate stat, they aren't really aggregating the single player. Even if what some people are saying where a player is 1/5th (no love for bench players?), I'm still correlating a player's legacy to something they had 1/5th contribution over.

If we think "no, no, the best player is worth more than 1/5th" I can buy that. But how much more? Do we really think the best player is equal to two players on an otherwise championship team? Then what happens if the other team has another player, maybe on the same tier (as you expect most teams in the upper echelon of the league do). Does player one who is best = 1.7 and player 2 = 1.4? How can I measure that? Do I resort back to individual stats?

If we want to use rings to reflect individual talent instead of aggregate team stats, then we probably need to look to context to help balance, and the context will almost invariably come back to how good the team was, how good the competition was, how good the player was (individual stats), and injuries, which will likely make rings look a lot less important anyways.

[Myth]

They talk about how ridiculous it is to evaluate somebody based on rings, but in the same discussion call out Dame for rotting away in Portland. They’re kind of doing the same thing they are criticizing others of doing.

[Stalwart]

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

that's because if you take away his team won rings he's not a top 25 player

I don't know about that. He would still have 5 MVPs. He'd still be the 2nd greatest rebounder ever and a top 5 defensive player ever.

[Pachinko_]

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.

An average role player will not make enough for a single lifetime. Not sure what you're talking about. They might make 20-40 million. A mansion, plane and Yaht alone would go for multiples of that. And that's without anything else. A role player would then have to budget that for the rest of their lives after they retire in their 30s.

Sent from my SM-S908W using RealGM mobile app

Well he did say "If not spent foolishly".
By your logic all the rest of us won't even make enough for 3 months, and yet here we are, still paying our bills.

[Tripod]

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.

An average role player will not make enough for a single lifetime. Not sure what you're talking about. They might make 20-40 million. A mansion, plane and Yaht alone would go for multiples of that. And that's without anything else. A role player would then have to budget that for the rest of their lives after they retire in their 30s.

Sent from my SM-S908W using RealGM mobile app

Here is a thought....don't live in a mansion. Don't get a plane or yacht.

Oh, and why does a player have to never work again in their early 30's? Go get a job. They have name recognition so would likely get opportunities others wouldn't. Or take 3-4 years and get an education. Or explore the arts. Or...

Lots of opportunities to keep earning money as a former NBA athlete.

[Jables]

It's the entire reason the sport is played, you need a ring to be great unless there's some context. Barkley being the same age as MJ means he kinda gets a pass. Elgin Baylor didn't win a ring but averaged 40 points in a finals series, making finals 7-8 times and losing is sad but the Celtics had too many good players, West went 1-8 too.

In my opinion with someone like Chris Paul, he's been on like 3 teams considered contenders, the one in his prime where he was the best player was the least successful. Yes some great teams in his time, but there were chances and he didn't lift enough to convince me to think he's a true legend, Idgaf about his position in top 10 PG rankings, or Iversons.

[FJS]

Ring are important, but there's rings and rings.

Every year somebody wins a ring, but some are cheaper than other. Some years 2 teams are worth of a ring, and other years no one is really a strong team.

For example, Warriors at 2016 was way better than Warriors at 2022. One doesn't have a ring, the other one have it. And it doesn't mean a thing.

[TheWhiteMamba]

If you're top-10 in the NBA you're supposed to try to win without joining forces with other top-10 players.
When LBJ left Cleveland he was arguably the best player in the league, he joined a Top-5 (at worst, personally I had him Top-3 player in Wade, as the MVP chart of that year) and a Top-15/20 player in Bosh (he was a beast in Toronto, 24pts 10.8reb 2.4ast 1blk per game), he clearly took a shortcut to win, and he choked in the finals the first year. Wade's health and CB regressing made the Heatles less of an uberduperteam, and so I still put those two rings in Miami higher than each one of KD's in Golden State. We can't forget that at least LeBron was quitting a team that failed to put around him a great supporting cast.

KD's won a couple in a team that had probably the best shooting backcourt ever (in the history of the nba) and a well oiled machine, his arrival at the bay, instantly made them superprohibitive favourites, and when they were healthy, we sure had it clear it wasn't an exaggeration to say that it was almost UNFAIR. He quitted an OKC team with several other good or great players, sure you can tell me WB wasn't easy to play with, but I assure you every one will take prime WB over Larry Hughes, no doubt.

As NBA fans, I feel like we should penalize players when they choose an UNFAIR / EASY path to win, at least when they're in their prime and TOP-10 in the league. I'm perfectly fine when a superstar in his, after multiple years of service for their city, choose to leave for a better but not unfair team (at the time, I would not have criticized Lebron had he left for a team with less MVP caliber players to team up, avoiding the decision). I'm also perfectly fine with superstar over their prime and a narrow window, that never won a ring and choose to team up (Boston's big three for example).