Are Championships Overrated When Ranking?

dasiegel · 09-04-2018, 11:20 AM

I love listening to sports talk radio and all the sports debate shows but man some of the arguments on who is better than who drive me nuts. The argument always comes down to who has more championships.

To me that is a method of dividing the best of the best from each other but it doesn't tell the whole picture. It doesn't even tell most of the picture.

I think that we all agree that the end goal is to win and winning means something. On one hand. that is why I feel a guy like Chauncey Billups is a HOF'er whether he is in or not. Because to me, he was the best player and the leader on a team that was dominant for about 5 years and beat a Shaq/Kobe Laker team nobody ever expected them to beat.

But there is a long list of guys who never won a title: Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Ewing, Miller, Baylor, etc. There is another list of guys who won a title later in their careers as role players or second/third tier stars like Robinson, Mourning, Payton, Kidd, etc.

Deciding who is better Jason Kidd or Allen Iverson for example I'm sure can go either way depending on who you ask. But Kidd's title as a solid semi-star on Dallas should not be the tie breaker. He was a nice part of that team but that was Dirk's team. He was a steady PG with great leadership but he was about the 7th offensive option on that team. I think you would have to ask who could do more statistically, who could get a team further with less, who could take over a game more, etc.

Carrying a team for your whole career and never winning should still mean a lot. If you get to the Finals but can't get over the hump as a team it doesn't usually mean the player was not as good as another player, but the team wasn't as good as the other team. Lebron is better than everyone on the Warriors but the Cavs usually weren't.

As a fan and as a "who's better" ranker, I would take a guy like Barkley over a guy like Pierce (even though I like them both a lot) and not just take the guy with the ring. There are way too many other factors when saying who was a better player.

View Poll Results: When deciding who is better which is MOST important to you
Rings	29	35.80%
Stats	25	30.86%
Ability to be a franchise player	16	19.75%
How much help they had	6	7.41%
Other, if so please post	5	6.17%
Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll

09-04-2018, 11:20 AM	#1
dasiegel Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 27,556	Are Championships Overrated When Ranking? I love listening to sports talk radio and all the sports debate shows but man some of the arguments on who is better than who drive me nuts. The argument always comes down to who has more championships. To me that is a method of dividing the best of the best from each other but it doesn't tell the whole picture. It doesn't even tell most of the picture. I think that we all agree that the end goal is to win and winning means something. On one hand. that is why I feel a guy like Chauncey Billups is a HOF'er whether he is in or not. Because to me, he was the best player and the leader on a team that was dominant for about 5 years and beat a Shaq/Kobe Laker team nobody ever expected them to beat. But there is a long list of guys who never won a title: Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Ewing, Miller, Baylor, etc. There is another list of guys who won a title later in their careers as role players or second/third tier stars like Robinson, Mourning, Payton, Kidd, etc. Deciding who is better Jason Kidd or Allen Iverson for example I'm sure can go either way depending on who you ask. But Kidd's title as a solid semi-star on Dallas should not be the tie breaker. He was a nice part of that team but that was Dirk's team. He was a steady PG with great leadership but he was about the 7th offensive option on that team. I think you would have to ask who could do more statistically, who could get a team further with less, who could take over a game more, etc. Carrying a team for your whole career and never winning should still mean a lot. If you get to the Finals but can't get over the hump as a team it doesn't usually mean the player was not as good as another player, but the team wasn't as good as the other team. Lebron is better than everyone on the Warriors but the Cavs usually weren't. As a fan and as a "who's better" ranker, I would take a guy like Barkley over a guy like Pierce (even though I like them both a lot) and not just take the guy with the ring. There are way too many other factors when saying who was a better player. __________________ Board man. Board man gets paid.