Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more rings"

[sonak]

Steve Kerr was a great three-point specialist during his career. He finished his time in the NBA with a whopping five championship rings, three with the '96-'98 Chicago Bulls and two more with the Spurs after that.The so-called "basketball legend" Larry Bird, in his whole career, had only three rings with the Boston Celtics. Kerr was obviously the better player due to his ability to win when it mattered.



As stupid as this sounds, this argument has been laid out in the wake of Kobe winning his fifth title to LeBron's zero, in spite of James' statistical superiority. It's advanced in other sports too, in terms of Brady vs. Manning, and countless other comparisons. The concept of "team sports" appears to be lost on those making the argument, as a thousand factors go into winning a title, including eras of expansion teams, luck, officiating, injuries, quality of opposition, free agency, etc. Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing were all great players who never won a ring.

Kobe wasn't even the best player on the team when three of his rings were won, Shaq was. Any benchwarmer can win a title if his teammates do the work.


Bottom line: when comparing players, it's the play on the field or court, not the championship count.

 

[Michael Chris]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

I'm so sad that Kerr is leaving the Suns.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

To be fair, Kobe has had a longer, more consistent career than Lebron at this point. Also, Kobe was, at worst, the second best player on the team. Kerr never was. Championships aren't the only thing that matter (I loved Allen Iverson as a player, for example), but it's always a dark spot if you can't win one.

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

As stupid as this sounds, this argument has been laid out in the wake of Kobe winning his fifth title to LeBron's zero, in spite of James' statistical superiority. It's advanced in other sports too, in terms of Brady vs. Manning, and countless other comparisons. The concept of "team sports" appears to be lost on those making the argument, as a thousand factors go into winning a title, including eras of expansion teams, luck, officiating, injuries, quality of opposition, free agency, etc. Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing were all great players who never won a ring.

Putting forth the argument that Steve Kerr was a greater player than Larry Bird because Kerr had 3 rings is specious at best if for no other reason that Kerr wasn't even a starter and played a role more like an expert filed goal kicker during his career. Anyone using this argument really doesn't understand NBA basketball.

But the argument that true greatness is measured by championship rings is one that resonates with me. Because there are only 5 players able to play at once, basketball games can be heavily influenced by one or two players. That's why a team like the Celtics could be a crap team one year and then pick up two players and win the championship the next (2008).

So yes, as the best and most important players on their respective teams for most of their years, the players you mention above (especially Barkley and Ewing) really don't deserve to be mentioned alongside their NBA peers who have won rings. The players who did win rings were able to play their best at the highest level (the Finals), when their teams needed it the most.

LeBron is still learning and those 2 MVP's are starting to look a little "Nash-esque", shall we say.

Kobe wasn't even the best player on the team when three of his rings were won, Shaq was.

I'm not going to get into a ridiculous debate about who the better player was between Kobe and Shaq; suffice it to say that they were of equal importance. The Lakers would not have won the 3 championships from '00-'02 without both.

Any benchwarmer can win a title if his teammates do the work.

(sigh) You do realize that there is a major difference between being one of the indispensable cogs in winning a championship and being a bench player who gets a ring just for being on the team, right?

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Well apparently my sarcasm went over your head, since of course I don't think Kerr was better than Bird, I was satirizing the argument by some put forth in the last few days about Kobe and his five rings versus other great players with less, and how stupid an argument number of rings is in determining greatness.


So, devoid of sarcasm here's my argument: There's a LOT that goes into winning a championship in pro team sports, and it's not the work of one player no matter how great, and there's a lot of luck involved. Barkley and Ewing both DID rise to the occasion, and took their teams to the NBA Finals. Ewing got sabotaged by a poor performance teammate John Starks whereas Barkley just had the misfortune to go up against a better team. The fact that a few bounces going a different way could have meant a ring for both should show how dumb this argument is.


Players should be judged against each other by performance and what they brought to the team, not rings.

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

So, devoid of sarcasm here's my argument: There's a LOT that goes into winning a championship in pro team sports, and it's not the work of one player no matter how great, and there's a lot of luck involved. Barkley and Ewing both DID rise to the occasion, and took their teams to the NBA Finals.

Oh, that was sarcasm? I thought you were just a really misinformed Steve Kerr fan.

"Almost" pretty much defined Ewing's career, didn't it. He was never the player he needed to be in order to elevate his team to the NBA's pinnacle. His penchant for falling away from the basket while in the key was only part of the problem. Ewing was never a dominant center at either end of the court. He had decent enough stats, but he jus was never a player who could inspire/lift his team above itself. Combination of an unwieldy skill set and lack of heart.

Barkley, your other "example" of greatness denied a championship by the hands of fate, was one of the most overrated players to ever win an MVP. The guy did nothing but play on offense and even did that in a selfish way. His "style" of offense drove a truly great player, Clyde Drexler, into early retirement.

Ewing got sabotaged by a poor performance teammate John Starks whereas Barkley just had the misfortune to go up against a better team. The fact that a few bounces going a different way could have meant a ring for both should show how dumb this argument is.

There have been certain players I've rooted for (who I consider "great") to win a championship but I have come to the conclusion that if a player really does deserve to win one, he will. If he doesn't win one, he probably didn't deserve to.

I'm afraid Ewing and Barkley, two examples of supposedly great players (but with major flaws in their games), are never going to be placed on the same level as a Shaq, Tim Duncan, nor should they.

Players should be judged against each other by performance and what they brought to the team, not rings.

Players are judged by what they accomplish in the league with their teams not just by their individual stats. Ewing and Barkley ultimately were good at collecting individual stats while their teams never achieved true greatness. And yes, there are all sorts of factors, positive and negative, that go into winning a championship. But somehow the truly great figure it out, sometimes more than once.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Wow, you have tough standards. Both Barkley and Ewing basically averaged a career double-double and more than twenty PPG. (More impressive still when you realize that they both had long careers, so they went through the "stats drop off as the players get older" thing.) Each was also named one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players.


But I guess stats and NBA historians lie.


We'll just have to agree to disagree here. To me, in team sports championships just aren't a fair criteria for judging a player's greatness since too many factors are in the mix. If a team was failing because that supposedly great player kept choking at key times at championship level or something, that'd be a different story.

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Wow, you have tough standards. Both Barkley and Ewing basically averaged a career double-double and more than twenty PPG. (More impressive still when you realize that they both had long careers, so they went through the "stats drop off as the players get older" thing.) Each was also named one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players.

But I guess stats and NBA historians lie.

Stats may lie if one does not know any better than to accept them as a gauge of a player's true value. Both Ewing and Barkley put up impressive numbers on offense, both fell short when it came to doing the things that lift teams to championship level even once in their careers. So how serious should they be taken in comparison to others who have made that total commitment and to even "lesser" players who have done it?

If I'm putting together a team to play a 7th game for a championship, screw looking for a guy whose main claim to fame was averaging in double figures -- there are plenty of those, Allen Iverson, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins.

Rather than a Barkley and a Ewing, I'll take a Jack Sikma or Robert Parrish, or maybe even a Dennis Rodman. They are guys who didn't have Ewing and Barkley's offensive numbers, when it came to that moment that made the difference, had the poise, smarts, skill, and selflessness, to get their team the ultimate prize.

If a team was failing because that supposedly great player kept choking at key times at championship level or something, that'd be a different story.

You just described Barkley and Ewing. You know, you really should have picked some other guys to use in your example.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Says the guy who'd rather have Jack Sikma on his team than Charles Barkley or Patrick Ewing. I think you should research their playoff and NBA Finals numbers. There's no evidence of drop-off from Ewing or Barkley at a higher level of play, you're just asserting that using the argument that "Well they didn't win, therefore they must not have played well." I watched Barkley in the '93 playoffs and Ewing in the '94 playoffs when their teams almost won. They both played at a high level.

Michael Jordan scored 63 points in game two of the first round against the Celtics in '86. But the Bulls still lost, so obviously MJ "choked," because if he'd "risen to the occasion" then his team would've won.


Right?


And Barkley and Ewing didn't just "score in double figures." They were 20-10 guys (PPG and RPG) throughout their careers.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Just an addendum-some quick internet research confirms my memories are correct.


Barkley EXCELLED in the '93 Finals, averaging seven points and three rebounds MORE than his career average, and managed a TRIPLE DOUBLE when his team faced elimination in game 5.(In other words, the opposite of a choker).

So,.....

do you want to just admit that your "Barkley was a choker" argument isn't really based on anything approaching fact?

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Just an addendum-some quick internet research confirms my memories are correct.


Barkley EXCELLED in the '93 Finals, averaging seven points and three rebounds MORE than his career average, and managed a TRIPLE DOUBLE when his team faced elimination in game 5.(In other words, the opposite of a choker).

So,.....

do you want to just admit that your "Barkley was a choker" argument isn't really based on anything approaching fact?

How appropriate. Your opinion is based solely on stats which is what Barkley's entire career was about - offensive stats, that is. You do realize that the game is about more than just stats, right? I mean, if stats were that important, Chuck would have at least one ring, don't you think?

Barkley's career is based on empty offensive numbers. His selfish play and inability/refusal to play defense, cost his team championships.

As I wrote earlier, Barkley's style of play, that is, holding the ball in the low post in a ridiculously vain attempt at controlling the offense, cost Houston a shot at another championship and caused Cyde Drexler to retire from the NBA - a player who had won 2 rings.

In a recent book about Bird and Magic, a scene was described that took place during the Dream Team's run up to the gold. Most of the team were in the lockeroom discussing who was the best or most clutch. Naturally the conversation mostly involved Bird, MJ, and Magic. Anyway, at some point Barkley starts to talk some shit and Bird immediately tells Chuck to shut his yap because "you haven't won shit".

In fact, MJ used to disrespect Charles all the time after both had left the league. Jordan, like many of his peers, knew that Charles was never about winning - just upping his per game average just as you describe above. He played out of shape and did what he wanted to do on the court as opposed to doing what it took to win.

His stats are impressive to the inexperienced, but if you knew what to watch for, it was obvious what an all time loser the Round Mound really was.

 

[Star Wolf]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Is Elgin Baylor a greater player because he finally won a ring in 1972? Even though he just suited up for the first 18 games.

Would Jordan have won any rings without Pippen? Kobe without Shaq or Pau? Shaq without Kobe or Wade?.....

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Yeah, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make. A lot goes into getting a ring, and it's not necessarily the best players who win them. It may seem an ironic point, but rings ARE overrated.



OK, here's an argument for Barkley that doesn't depend on stats: He came to a team in Phoenix that was playoff-caliber, but not championship caliber, and took them to the best record in the NBA and their first NBA Finals in seventeen years. Style of play aside, he DID have the ability to make the team he played on better, and not just pad his stats.

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Is Elgin Baylor a greater player because he finally won a ring in 1972? Even though he just suited up for the first 18 games.

Would Jordan have won any rings without Pippen? Kobe without Shaq or Pau? Shaq without Kobe or Wade?.....

My argument isn't that single players win championships, my argument is that teams WITHOUT great players do NOT win championships.

Also, my argument has nothing to do with players who simply have rings because they happened to be on the roster of a championship winning team (Elg in 1972). These players are/were by and large irrelevant to their teams' championships.

Rather, winning championships is a valid criteria for separating the NBA's greatest players generally because being you team's leader in winning a championship, requires taking on more responsibility as well as sacrificing parts of your game for the greater good. Sometimes as in the case of Magic Johnson in 1979, it requires an intangible that lifts a team to where that team never envisioned itself going.

 

[gblews]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Yeah, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make. A lot goes into getting a ring, and it's not necessarily the best players who win them. It may seem an ironic point, but rings ARE overrated.

See my response to Star Wolf.

OK, here's an argument for Barkley that doesn't depend on stats: He came to a team in Phoenix that was playoff-caliber, but not championship caliber,

And they still weren't championship caliber after Barkley joined them. Now, if your point is that you feel Barkley is a great player simply because he once played in the NBA Finals then my only comment would be, I'm not surprised.

But on the other hand, that does put him a notch above Steve Nash who is even more overrated than Charles.

Chuck could have been a great player but he sacrificed that for a high points per game average. Everything I hear him wax on self servingly (and using your argument) about how he doesn't mind not winning a championship, I can't help but think, yeah, compared to a 20 point career scoring average, whats a championship.

He is one of the all time NBA losers and the reasons go beyond not winning a championship. That was just a symptom of his problems.

BTW, are you from Philly? I have a friend who is from Philly and he defends Charles and Joe Fraizer like a pit bull at all times.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

No, I'm not from Philly. I was only bringing up Ewing and Barkley as examples of great players who never won an NBA title. I was just forced into defending Barkley since you attacked my premise that he was a great player.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

double post.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

And they still weren't championship caliber after Barkley joined them. Now, if your point is that you feel Barkley is a great player simply because he once played in the NBA Finals then my only comment would be, I'm not surprised.

But on the other hand, that does put him a notch above Steve Nash who is even more overrated than Charles.

Chuck could have been a great player but he sacrificed that for a high points per game average. Everything I hear him wax on self servingly (and using your argument) about how he doesn't mind not winning a championship, I can't help but think, yeah, compared to a 20 point career scoring average, whats a championship.

How is Nash more overrated than Barkley? Certainly it's difficult to compare the 2 players. As you've said, Barkley's career is all about upping his own personal stats. Meanwhile, Nash has to be one of the most unselfish point guards in the league today. His greatness lies in being able to make everyone around him look better. (Hence why Amare Stoudemire is now deluded into thinking he's worthy of $25 million a year. If he leaves the Suns, just watch his career crash & burn when he no longer has Nash feeding him passes.)

As for Kobe Bryant vs. LeBron James, it's tough to judge because James hasn't been in the league as long as Bryant. But certainly Bryant has demonstrated an ability to come through in a clutch and is just about the only player in the league today where you can even consider making Jordan comparisons. Bryant has an undeniable energy & hunger. When he's on, the Lakers are impossible to stop. OTOH, James seemed to totally blow the Cavs' playoff run this year and now only seems interested in getting a bigger salary going to the Knicks or the Nets.

And on the subject of Steve Kerr, I'm sad to see him leave Phoenix. I think they would have been smart to pay him a little more to keep him around and let Stoudemire seek his fortune elsewhere. In the meantime, I think the Suns need to make a serious run at Dirk Nowitzki.

 

[SmoothieX]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Steve Kerr replaces BJ Armstrong in the second Bull three-peat as the player who could nail a jump shot while still looking like he was 12 years old.

 

[Davros]

Re: Why Steve Kerr is better than Larry Bird-the whole stupid "more ri

Both of them sucked on the basis that neither of them were Denver Nuggets.

It's all about the home team loyalty baby.