Chi-Town Bully
New member
If you a star in the NFL and the MLB then it's stats but a star in the NBA the rings are more important
Last edited:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
playmaker88
New member
I judges them on Skills.. effectiveness/ impact..the when and how of those stats.. rings tell you just how effective that person is ultimately when you get to the upper summit of the elite teh rings area great measure of all things mentioned
Last edited:
Two players to consider in this argument are Kevin Love and Derek Fisher.
Kevin Love has incredible stats, but is on a losing team already planning on the draft lottery. Derek Fisher does not have the best stats among active point guards, but he has 5 rings going for a 6th, which is funny because he gets left out of a lot of conversations concerning Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant when he will have the same amount of rings.
its over: 2012 makes a great point, it's all about the impact on the team and its success. A year or so before they won the championship, the Saints missed the playoffs completely, while Drew Brees was on pace to break Marino's single season yardage records. He had over 5,000, but not enough to break it, which is fine and dandy, but his team missed the playoffs. Tom Brady had the best season of a quarterback in years, but hasn't won a Super Bowl in almost ten years.
On the same token, Mark Madsen was a second string center to Shaquille O'Neal on those championship teams, and has two rings to show for it, but averaged 3 points and 2 rebounds on 11 minutes of play. There are a lot of backup players with more rings than starters right now.
Kevin Love has incredible stats, but is on a losing team already planning on the draft lottery. Derek Fisher does not have the best stats among active point guards, but he has 5 rings going for a 6th, which is funny because he gets left out of a lot of conversations concerning Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant when he will have the same amount of rings.
its over: 2012 makes a great point, it's all about the impact on the team and its success. A year or so before they won the championship, the Saints missed the playoffs completely, while Drew Brees was on pace to break Marino's single season yardage records. He had over 5,000, but not enough to break it, which is fine and dandy, but his team missed the playoffs. Tom Brady had the best season of a quarterback in years, but hasn't won a Super Bowl in almost ten years.
On the same token, Mark Madsen was a second string center to Shaquille O'Neal on those championship teams, and has two rings to show for it, but averaged 3 points and 2 rebounds on 11 minutes of play. There are a lot of backup players with more rings than starters right now.
Last edited:
bow to royalty
New member
I get what you're saying about some positions being more impact positions, but let's say you're comparing players at the same position.
The Drew Brees example is why I believe in stats more. When Drew Brees went off that season I think the Saints finished 8-8 or 7-9, and his final pass was incomplete but had it been caught he would have gotten the record. So his team didn't make it to the playoffs, but all he can do as a QB is his job. Go out there, move the ball, put up points, limit turnovers. If he did that, but the team still lost, can we fault him as a player?
Same as when a QB throws the go-ahead TD with 1 minute left in the game. But then the defense lets the other team drive downfield and gives up a TD to lose. Both QB's did the same thing (go ahead TD with their last posession), yet one is faulted (for losing) while the other is praised for a clutch come from behind drive for the win.
The Drew Brees example is why I believe in stats more. When Drew Brees went off that season I think the Saints finished 8-8 or 7-9, and his final pass was incomplete but had it been caught he would have gotten the record. So his team didn't make it to the playoffs, but all he can do as a QB is his job. Go out there, move the ball, put up points, limit turnovers. If he did that, but the team still lost, can we fault him as a player?
Same as when a QB throws the go-ahead TD with 1 minute left in the game. But then the defense lets the other team drive downfield and gives up a TD to lose. Both QB's did the same thing (go ahead TD with their last posession), yet one is faulted (for losing) while the other is praised for a clutch come from behind drive for the win.
Last edited:
infamous118
New member
......both?
Last edited:
infamous118;2263640 said:......both?
^^^^^^^^
Both. Not only stats and rings, but also personal accomplishments. It's the total package. You can't just disregard rings. Also using common sense and context.
Context is very important. That's what most idiots refuse to do when discussing the ring debate. They bring up silly shit like "Robert Horry and Derek Fisher got x amount rings, do that make them better than Jordan?!" as if anybody is getting them confused with Jordan. It's a weak argument used to prop up ringless superstars over proven superstar WINNERS.
Last edited:
NothingButTheTruth
New member
For basketball:
Skills first and foremost aka the eye test. Things like handle, basketball IQ, mid-range jumpshot, short-range, 3pt, 1v1 defense, team defense, passing, leadership, make his teammates better aka play up to his level of intensity, work ethic, rebounding (rebound formula), clutch, ability to take over a game, killer instinct etc. Also, how well he looks (not stats) against the so called other great players in the league at the time.
...Then stats and rings/accomplishments go hand in hand aka they hold the same weight, depending on what role he played in those rings (if he won any), and how good the team was during his reign of super stardom.
Skills first and foremost aka the eye test. Things like handle, basketball IQ, mid-range jumpshot, short-range, 3pt, 1v1 defense, team defense, passing, leadership, make his teammates better aka play up to his level of intensity, work ethic, rebounding (rebound formula), clutch, ability to take over a game, killer instinct etc. Also, how well he looks (not stats) against the so called other great players in the league at the time.
...Then stats and rings/accomplishments go hand in hand aka they hold the same weight, depending on what role he played in those rings (if he won any), and how good the team was during his reign of super stardom.
Last edited:
i go with the eye test. nh. Mitch Richmond was good. and he put up big numbers. but watching him, i didn't feel like it was greatness.
Jimmy Smith put up ridiculous receiving numbers with the jaguars, but same thing. When watching him i didn't feel like he was an amazing talent.
So sometimes you have to judge them on things other than titles and stats.
Jimmy Smith put up ridiculous receiving numbers with the jaguars, but same thing. When watching him i didn't feel like he was an amazing talent.
So sometimes you have to judge them on things other than titles and stats.
Last edited:
playmaker88
New member
NothingButTheTruth;2263721 said:For basketball:
Skills first and foremost aka the eye test. Things like handle, basketball IQ, mid-range jumpshot, short-range, 3pt, 1v1 defense, team defense, passing, leadership, make his teammates better aka play up to his level of intensity, work ethic, rebounding (rebound formula), clutch, ability to take over a game, killer instinct etc. Also, how well he looks (not stats) against the so called other great players in the league at the time.
...Then stats and rings/accomplishments go hand in hand aka they hold the same weight, depending on what role he played in those rings (if he won any), and how good the team was during his reign of super stardom.
Agreed .. as i say go to the video tape.
Last edited:
[Trillmatic]
New member
Stats...cuz it takes a team to win rings. Lol@ all these long winded answers haha.
Last edited:
bow to royalty
New member
You don't hafta choose just one. Said which do you think is most important?
Last edited:
G.R.I.P. Money $$$
New member
stats...then rings..
Last edited:
newOldSchool
New member
rap doctor;2263413 said:stats and their impact on the game.....Ill never understand how a ring makes one player better than another in a team sport
If a player was a key component in winning championships for team it adds to his status as a player. If a player lead his team to a championship it can take him from great to legend.
Last edited:
[Trillmatic]
New member
when doesnt it? lolwoah316;2265763 said:Neither. I judge em on how good they are, and that dosen't always show up in stats
Last edited:
newOldSchool;2265937 said:If a player was a key component in winning championships for team it adds to his status as a player. If a player lead his team to a championship it can take him from great to legend.
word to jordan, bird, and magic etc etc
Last edited:
