I realize this may contradict what I previously wrote in a recent article. But after some thought, I am even unsure myself.
I wrote about the importance of winning the NBA championship over winning the NBA MVP award. My initial take was that the title was the defining moment in a player's career. With basketball being a team sport, I felt that the MVP award was overrated. I still do feel this way.
BUT, I think the NBA title also can be overrated. It in many cases DOES NOT define a career.
For some it does, however.
Robert Horry for instance, has six rings. He has never been the main man to lead his team, but he has hit several big shots over his career to help his teams win when they needed him the most.
Since 1980, only eight teams have won NBA championships. EIGHT! San Antonio, Miami, Detroit, LA Lakers, Chicago, Houston, Boston and Philly.
EIGHT! That leaves a lot of great players that were not on those teams off the list.
But that in no way makes them less of a player. With a guy by the name of MJ doing his thing, many great players never sniffed a title.
At center: Patrick Ewing. At power forward: Karl Malone. At small forward: Charles Barkley. At shooting guard: Reggie Miller. At point guard: John Stockton. Coming off the bench: Allen Iverson, Chris Mullin, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, and Jason Kidd.
That would be one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever assembled that NEVER won an NBA championship. I think they would have little or no trouble taking on the likes of Danny Ferry, Bill Wennington, Chris Jent, BJ Armstrong, and Beno Udrih. Together, that team has a combined ten titles between them.
All of those players got their rings riding the coattails of different NBA superstars. When you think of the Chicago Bulls, immediately you think of Jordan and Pippen. When you think of the Houston Rockets, your first thought is Hakeem Olajuwon. And when you are thinking about the Spurs, Tim Duncan is the man.
I get tired of hearing how athletes like John Elway needed to win the Super Bowl to define his career. He was great before and great after. Dan Marino never won the big one. Is he less of a quarterback because of that? Of course not.
I suppose by that thinking, Trent Dilfer will go down as one of the greatest. If Barry Sanders had the offensive line that Emmitt Smith had in Dallas, how many rings would he possibly have?
Titles and championships do not define the player. His play on the field is what will make people remember him, not a ring that is often times sold for the extra cash.
Titles, championships, and MVP awards are nice. But not winning those does not make a great athlete any less of a player.
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
7 months ago
It's an interesting question that doesn't just apply to the NBA. Is it more important to work together as a team and accomplish great things together? Or is it enough to have the talent and skills to succeed on your own, even if the team doesn't?
I guess a lot of it comes down to individuals and goals - what do the great players really want? In the end, is it the MVP title or the championship ring, or something in between, that will give them what they want? And what does that mean for the fans? Do we all want the same thing?
Very interesting point!
7 months ago
I like your point but I disagree. I firmly believe that their is nothing more important, for the sake of the game, then to win a championship. Just because you may not be the superstar, or even start every game, doesnt mean its not an amazing feat to win a title. The MVP is completely overrated and while I give all the credit in the world to the winners of it, it almost never goes to a player who was on a considerably good team. I think it is much more important to be able to lead your team in the playoffs and win at least 1 ring, then it is to takeover on your own, and wi 2-3 MVP awards.
I love watching teams that share the ball constantly and do a great job of not letting anyone's star status get in the way of that. (Cough, cough, Celtics)
7 months ago
Interesting take on a tired discussion. I don't think championships can nullify a player's greatness, but it can definitely add to it. Tom Brady wouldn't be anywhere near who he is today without the championships. MVP's are kind of the same way, like Dirk the past few years. So what he got the MVP, he failed when it mattered. Championships have to be the more important category, with obvious exceptions for the guys who don't contribute much. Very good article, keep it up.
7 months ago
MVPs help because they can show that the player was a large part in his teams success, hence why it's the most VALUABLE player. Only one award in that catagory doesn't give a whole career perspective, but i think that those do help, also, i think that championships are important for star players, it shows that they can bring their team to the next level. you make a good argument, but you should remove lebron james and kevin garnett from your all-nba without a title team, lebron has plenty of time left and garnett is at least going to sniff an nba title this year. but you make very good points in your article and it made me think. keep up the good articles
7 months ago
In my humble opinion, in the NFL, NBA, etc, championships are very important - but for the team, not the individual players. I mostly agree with Steve, but I would be more inclined to say that personal awards and championships are important for different reasons. When a team comes together to win a championship it is a demonstration of cohesiveness and coaching skills. The individuals matter, and sometimes one player is the centerpiece of the team, but it is the team that wins. Things like the MVP in the NBA are a way to acknowledge a player individually - and that's important too. Although I see your point with this article and I really enjoyed it, I have to disagree for a few reasons: Championships and personal awards both give the players something to strive for, and therefore a reason to play better. Championships are the ultimate reward - the big game. Give people a goal, and they'll work for it. Then there are the fans. Fans are the reason for the game. Without the awards and the championships, it would be alot less fun to watch. We like to watch the best of the best compete. If you look at the ratings for the Superbowl alone you can see - even casual followers watch the Superbowl. Why? Because it's the SUPERBOWL! Which brings me to my next reason - professional sports make money. That's the sole reason for their existence. They make money off of us, the fans. We watch, advertisers spend money, networks pay to air the games, we spend money on team paraphernalia, teams profit, and the cycle continues. Stand out players draw attention and revenue, so stand out players are rewarded as well.
To sum it up - we're talking about sports, a competition - there has to be a winner, there has to be a loser, and there has to be a prize.
I know that in the article you were referring more to the effect it has on the legacy of a player, and I do agree with you to some extent in that regard - but I don't think that you can call championships overrated or negate their significance because there are great players who never won and mediocre ones who did. There's alot of different factors that go into it, and all of them are important.
7 months ago
Great article here Danny.
You're right—it's really easy to write off players like Karl Malone as not being in the "elite" all time class even though they surely are, as when the Bulls were at their finest there was simply no way of beating them. We shouldn't hold that against the Jazz, as they very well might have been able to take down some of the teams that won before or since the Jordan era (the Riley/Shaq/Dwade heat, anyone?)
I particularly like the Elway/Marino point. It's just a ring after all. You give that offensive line and Terrell Davis to Dan Marino at the end of his career and he also would have won a championship.
What I hate more than anything is when players at the very end of their career go somewhere new to "win a championship."
I mean, would we really have respected Karl Malone more if he won one during his final year with the Lakers, versus if he stuck with the team he played with throughout his career? Is Roger Clemens a "winner" because he went to the richest team in the league to get himself a ring?
To me, Dan Marino's more of a winner because he started his career as a Dolphin and finished as a Dolphin. I wouldn't hold him in higher esteem if he won a ring in his final career in the league with another team. In fact, I'd be inclined to think he was truly self absorbed and respect him less.
write a new comment