Why determine a player's skills by rings?

Question

It's like saying Robert Horry is better than Kobe Bryant.

You can get rings while sitting on the bench your entire career and count on the superstars on your team.

I think that instead of rings it should be Finals MVP's,at least that shows you were the main reason the team won.

Answer 1

John Stockton never won a ring. So did Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Elgin Baylor, and Karl Malone. I put John Stockton 1st to emphasize on him. I think he is the best PG who never won a championship. He is very well rounded. He's like a Steve Nash with less show boating (though I'm not saying Nash is a show boater), more accurate passes, and defense.  

Answer 2

I've argued this point numerous times;  which is why I continue to argue that T-Mac is one of the top 2 SG in the league.  Individual stats and personal analysis should be more of a determaining factor in how good a player is.

Answer 3

Yea ur right. Look at John Sally he was always on the bench but he found himslf on a championship team always

Answer 4

maybe regarding to experience. its just a plus...doenst meen that if u hav more rings than another player you r better

Answer 5

why determine someones net worth by the amount they have in savings institutions, real estate, and other valuable assets...hmmm?

Answer 6

Players skills should be determined by a combo of stats and team wins in the regular season and post season.  Anyone can be lucky by scoring the most points in the finals and snag the finals MVP depending on matchups.

Don't say that because Kobe didn't win a Finals MVP and Pierce won one, that alone makes Pierce the better player.