Why Championships Matter

When we evaluate a player, to determine where they rank all time among the many Greats in NBA History, we all each have our own set of criteria, or rules, in which we use to rank players. Truth be told, there isn’t really a wrong way to evaluate a player or properly rank them. Some people may use MVPs, or other accolades, to say one player is better than another. Others may find value in longevity, stats or Playoff performance. Anything from efficiency, playoff rising, skillset, and even competition can be weighed in a debate about the All Time Greats. But as of late, a number of fans like to make the case that winning Championships are simply “team accomplishments” and should be dismissed or hold zero value when ranking a player. Which is fine if you as the reader feel the same. However, I disagree with this thought process. I’m not saying any fan should ever compare players with a simple Ring count… but I believe that Championships and winning overall should be considered into these discussions, with context of course. Now allow me to elaborate.

To start, yes winning championships are, in a literal sense, a team accomplishment. There is no “I” in team, and in order for a player to win a championship in the NBA, they must have a good supporting cast, at the very least. Despite what some fans may tell you, no player in NBA History has ever won a championship by themselves (although you could argue Hakeem did in 94’ as well as Dirk in 11’). But in my opinion, this is not a valid reason to say winning championships shouldn’t matter. Because saying “winning is just a team accomplishment” has a major flaw; it assumes each player on the team contributed the same amount. Let’s take a look at the 2020 NBA Champions. The Los Angeles Lakers. This team was a great team especially defensively. LeBron James and Anthony Davis were the main contributors on the team, and they had good role players in Rondo, KCP, Caruso, Dwight Howard, Danny Green and others. With that being established, let’s play a hypothetical; Do the Lakers still win the championship if you take LeBron James off the team? The answer is clearly no. Another hypothetical; Do the Lakers still win the championship if you take Jared Dudley, Morris, or Kuzma off the team? The answer to that, is still yes. That’s because each player contributes a different amount, and obviously, the best players on the team, being LeBron and AD in this situation. Every team, regardless of construction or era, had what I like to call “The Man” (very few exceptions). The guy that leads the team. Galvanizes the troops, and takes over when all else fails. And in every championship run, there is many times where The Man needs to be the man and carry his team to the win. Great players can single-handedly win games or even entire playoff series. We’ve seen this in the 98’ NBA Finals by Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant in the 2009 NBA Finals, as well as LeBron James in almost every series during his 2018 playoff run. Because of this, Championships can’t be dismissed as just a “Team accomplishment” because the best players normally carry the majority of the load. 

Now next up, let’s discuss the context of winning and championships. Of course there are times, when a great player simply doesn’t have the supporting cast around him to compete for championships. Because we all follow the game, we can all know the situations that players are in, and sometimes it’s completely unfair to criticize a player for not winning. Some examples would be Bradley Beal in Washington. He hasn’t had much of any support on his team to compete at all since 2017. He’s been surrounded by horrible casts. Same with Russell Westbrook in 2017, or KG in his entire stint with the Timberwolves. In their situations, holding them for “not winning” is unfair. That’s where context comes into play. However, on the flip side, if you give a great player, a good supporting cast, competent to compete, then criticizing that great player for not winning, is COMPLETELY VALID. Examples of this would be, LeBron James in 2011 against the Mavericks. No excuse to lose for LeBron. Even Wade played relatively well, and the Heat did have a 2-1 lead. Kobe Bryant in the 2004 NBA Finals. His team was HEAVILY favored against the Detroit Pistons. But the Lakers would drop this series in five games, which was one of the biggest upsets in sports history. Something as recent as Kawhi Leonard vs the Nuggets during the 2020 playoffs. He COMPLETELY choked that series away, despite having a good team. So in situations where a great player, has a good team, there is no excuse to lose. As the leader of your team, given that your supporting cast is good, it’s your job to close the deal and lead your team to victory, and if you can’t, then as a leader of your team, you deserve most of the blame. A great way to understand this is to think of working at McDonald’s. Let’s say it’s a very busy day. You’re just a regular solid employee. Your coworkers (team) are also all solid employees. Then things start to get super hectic and everything starts going wrong. It gets so bad that the owner comes in to the store. Who is most likely going to get yelled at or fired? You or the Manager on shift that’s supposed to keep the store managed? The answer is obviously the Manager. Why? Because it’s his job to make sure everything gets done well and successfully. He has good employees, yet still managed to mess up that day. That’s very similar to how I view great players and winning. If you’re a great player, and your team surrounds you with a good supporting cast that should compete, and you don’t get the job done, then with this context, if you lose, I will hold that against you. If you’re a great player, but have a terrible supporting cast, then with this context, not winning, should not be held against you. 

Furthermore, I also believe winning championships should be considered when ranking a player, because it usually assesses a few key traits: ability to sacrifice, and the ability to lead. A great example of this is Michael Jordan. Back in the late 80s, Jordan was a scoring machine, putting up averages 37 a night in one season, and 35 for another. However, once Phil Jackson came, he convinced MJ that scoring 40 every night would never lead to winning championships. MJ needed to be a better leader, and to make his teammates better. In the 90s, Jordan’s scoring averages hovered around 32-33 instead of the 37 and 35s he was putting up earlier. He learned to sacrifice as the leader, to make his teammates better. Some players never truly learned that. There are times when the best player on the team must swallow his ego and take a backseat, and many can’t. Also, winning championships shows a certain amount of leadership ability. Normally the best player on a team, is tasked with being the leader. As a leader, you HAVE to bring out the very best in your teammates if you want to have any chance to win, given you have a good team around you. Chemistry is key in the game of basketball, and winning championships shows that you, as the leader of your team, we’re able to get your teammates in line, for the ultimate goal. 

In Conclusion, in my opinion, winning championships and just winning in general, under the right context should definitely matter and be weighed when discussing the all time greats in NBA History. Yes, it’s true that championships are team accomplishments, but not all parts of the team are equal, as the leader/best player on the team, you have to be the man when the high pressure situations arise, and you have to bring your teammates together. And if you’re able to do that, that should be talked about. The Goal above everything is to win the game ultimately. There is a reason why almost every player in everyone’s top ten list, has multiple championships. Obviously, you NEVER want to rank players by a simple ring count, but using championships, with context, is valid in my eyes.