A Career Without the Cherry on Top?

I'm disgusted and appalled when an athlete's greatness, be it in any sport, is called into question because he or she has no championships to his name.

The NBA Championship Ring has fired up a huge debate within the league.

Can a player be considered a great even if he doesn't have the words, "NBA Championship" on the list of his achievements?

Firstly, let me say that there are a ton of mediocre and sub-par players within the league that own a ring or two. There are also a number of superstars and future Hall-of-Famers who don't own a ring.

In many arguments that are debated within Bleacher Report, many writers and readers use the argument, "Adam Morrison has a ring. Does that mean he's better than Allen Iverson? Steve Nash? Jason Kidd?"

Obviously not. Look at Morrison's impact for his team compared to the other three mentioned above; dude hardly even plays for the Lakers anymore.

The number of variables that show up during a run to the NBA Finals, and possibly a ring, is astronomical. Injuries to key players, scheduling, trades, team chemistry, and opponent quality all can alter a run to the Larry O'Brien Trophy.

But to judge a player through factors that are beyond his control is just unfair.

A prime example of this is Robert Horry's hip check on Steve Nash in the 2007 Playoffs, which led to the suspension of stars Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw, destroying Phoenix's hopes for a Championship banner being raised at the beginning of the 2007-08 season.

Nash was coming off his most complete statistical season of his career, averaging 18.6 ppg and 11.6 apg. But you can't stop two immature young men from getting passionate over their teammate's injury with statistics.

Nash's teammates lost the series with their personality, and it was a factor that was beyond Nash's control. It was his best chance of winning a 'ship with such a talented squad, but now, Nash is destined to end his career without the ring. But even though Nash has only risen to his full potential in the last half-decade, no one can question his Hall-of-Fame credentials.

A player's greatness should be based on his skill in all parts of the game.

Consistency, performance in critical games, and his ability to make his teammates better are what I consider the correct criteria to determining a player's worth.

Yes, winning is special, having a ring on your finger is the cherry on top, and most players with individual accolades, such as Allen Iverson, would trade them for that elusive championship, but don't be ignorant and have outrageous claims that you can't be an immortal without a championship.

Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and Karl Malone were some of the greatest players to ever play on the NBA hardwood, but ended their careers without a ring on their finger.

Their careers are no less remarkable or impactful as Scottie Pippen or James Worthy. They have the respect and admiration of those that played with and against them, as well as those who have watched them play throughout their heyday.

When you play NBA games on your PS3 or Xbox 360, don't you ever want to control a team and win a championship, just so a player on that team can retire (in fantasy), knowing that he won a championship? Maybe I'm just weird; I don't know, but in my opinion, it's these kinds of gestures that prove greatness, helping them win a ring so that the debate over their greatness stops.

What's your opinion? Do you ever play association mode on 2k10 and controlling the Suns or 76ers just to help Steve or A.I win a 'ship?