Why Winning an NBA Championship Proves Nothing

First, let me start off by congratulations the Los Angeles Lakers on winning the 2010 NBA Championship. I do not like the Lakers nor do I like any of their players, but they won, so congratulations.

Now the topic of discussion: NBA Championship = legacy.

I strongly disagree with that statement. In my opinion winning a ring just proves that you are the best team in the league that particular year (more or less).

Now when people compare great players they often say: Blank had 5 more rings than Blank 2! My question: So?

If a guy has more rings that in no way means he is the better player. His team might and probably is better, but not his skill level. When someone uses the championship argument against me, I say: Robert Horry has 7 rings, MJ has 6, who is the better player?

The answer is clear, MJ is better, but Horry has more rings. Now I will use another example that's closer to our hearts: Kobe vs. LeBron. I am not going into this too deep because I value my life, but bottom line is: LeBron is better than Kobe right now, but Kobe has 5 more rings. Now forget I ever used that example and let me move on.

If rings were everything, then Russell is the greatest player in history and MJ is sitting in the back behind KC Jones, Jim Loscutoff, Frank Ramsey Sam Jones, Satch Sanders, and on and on and on.

MJ is the greatest of all time, yet his ring count is five behind the leader. Now I know many of you will take my argument to mean that winning an NBA trophy means nothing, I'm not saying that. I am simply stating that a player's legacy cannot be defined by rings. A team's legacy can, but not that of an individual.

I look forward to reading your opinions on the topic and I am sure arguing with you on the subject...

Thank you.