A hot topic over the last several days in the NBA is the conversation about ring culture. In other words, there is a narrative that just because a certain player never won a ring, it means that they are not a Hall of Famer or a legend. It’s a silly argument since basketball is a team game, but individual greatness on a team that has never won a ring can still exist.
Advertisement
The ring culture debate got brought up again on a recent ESPN broadcast with Stephen A. Smith, Tracy McGrady, and Gilbert Arenas. Gil was upset with SAS, who heavily criticized LeBron James for saying something similar on Mind The Game, and claimed that Kobe Bryant would have frowned at LBJ’s words.
However, Arenas built up a solid argument to shut SAS down. “When did ring culture become a thing?” he asked. “When you talk about a team award, something that a structured needs to win, does not boost you in front of individual accomplishments. And when you used Kobe, ‘Would have have frowned upon what LeBron said,’ I would disagree with that.”
Gil then brought up how disrespectful the media was toward the Black Mamba when he was in the shadow of Shaquille O’Neal. “In real time, Kobe had three rings. Y’all wasn’t treating him like a three-ring player. You were treating him like a sidekick,” Gil stated. “He was considered a sidekick. He was considered a Robin. He was considered the next Pippen.”
To further drive home his point. Arenas reminded Smith and the rest of the sports media how Bryant was being compared to McGrady during the early 2000s, despite the fact that T-Mac had zero rings and Kobe had three. This basically proved that both McGrady and Kobe’s greatness were separate from the accomplishments they had in the team sport.
“In 2002, with three rings, we were still comparing T-Mac and Kobe. If you’re sitting there with three rings, and you’re still being compared to somebody who doesn’t have rings, what do you think happened?” Gil asked.
The other point he was driving at was how Kobe didn’t just want to win rings anymore with Shaq on the Lakers. He wanted “individual accomplishments” and to prove that he was the best player in the world, which is why the Mamba had his fallout with The Diesel.
“Because if it was about rings, there was no reason for the fallout with him and Shaq. The fallout is you only respect the driver of the car. No one respects the passengers of rings,” Arenas added.
Gil wasn’t done there yet either. He tried to destroy the entire idea of ring culture by claiming that no one really respects the second option ring winner.
“The second option ring, no one respects it. In history, no one has respected it. You got Scottie Pippen with six rings who is ranked on the all-time list 32. You got people that don’t have rings that are in front of him.”
It really is an interesting conversation. Gil makes many great points. If players were ranked based on titles alone, then Bill Russell would be at the top of the all-time list. Not saying that Russell wasn’t a great player, but if there were a fantasy draft tomorrow, he probably wouldn’t get selected in the top 25, maybe even the top 30.
On the other hand, competing in the NBA isn’t about individual accomplishments. It’s about winning rings. Sure, T-Mac has a basketball legacy. He was involved in one of the greatest scoring feats/comebacks in the history of sports, and his greatness was rightfully recognized by putting him in the Hall of Fame.
But McGrady never won a ring. Kobe and Shaq won titles together and separately. There’s no right answer to the argument. It’s just a matter of perspective. Ring culture seems to be a double-edged sword. Whichever end seems duller is probably the one you lean towards.
