I really hate it when people judge players by how many championships they have.

[WarioVsMooChicken]

I know this is sort of unrelated but I keep hearing this subject come up.

Basketball, Football, etc are TEAM games. The result of the game, win or lose, are almost always the result of the play of atleast 7 or 8 players. I don't see how someone can judge a single player but the outcome of multiple players. That would be like judging a person based on what country he is from.

I don't mind people debating over who are the best players, but I think the number of championships is a stupid argument. If you do that, you're ignoring the aspect of the sports being TEAM games.

Agree or am I crazy for thinking this?

[Muttley]

Robert Horry >>>>>>>>>> Charles Barkley

[BobCatsFanInTx]

Wario I have felt the same way as you do for a long time. When a team has a prolific talent it many times overshadows the contribution of their teammates. I have no problem with singing the praises of a great athlete but to ignore the contributions of the other guys/gals who busted their humps is really disrespectful to those players.

On a side not I am sure Micheal Jordan who was on one of the most complete NBA teams of all time would agree with us. In the beginning of MJ's career he may have let ego overshadow team but as he matured and found winning a championship hard to come by he became a great teammate along with being the star player he was. Yes he still had to be surrounded by many talented players but if he would have let ego overtake him I think the Bulls would have failed.

Lebron James may be the best basketball player the NBA has seen since MJ but with a solid supporting cast he has blossomed as more than a one man show.

The Lakers and Celtics of the 80's had many players sharing star or superstar status but you have to wonder if some of those players would have had half the careers they had if they didn't have eachother.

The Utah Jazz had Stockton and Malone and they enjoyed great success but they never accomplished the goal of winning a championship. I am sure neither would take away from the other complimentary players that the team had despite their never having won it all. Greatness should not be measured simply by winning championships.

Dan Marino never enjoyed a championship but his greatness should not be questioned because of that. What can be debated is whether Marino ever had the right supporting cast. He made the SuperBowl one season but lost. Does that somehow mean he is a failure or that the season they had is a total loss? The Vikings and Bills lost numerous championship games, does that mean they are losers or failures? In my thinking if you can persevere and return to the title games that alone makes you and your teams somewhat of a winner.

In the end there is not a great player who has ever won a title that does not realize that they would not have enjoyed the title without some serious help. Many people like to get caught up in the fact that the Celtics now have three stars but I am sure all three players would be the first to say they could not have won a title without the help of many guys. Even players that don't get to play are playing a role in a teams success that we can not see nor appreciate.

One thing I love about Larry Browns style of coaching is that it fully emphasizes the aspect of team. We are seeing that pay off now. When he was in Detroit he was not loaded with Super Mega Stars but he got the most of every player on the Pistons team. So with all that said I believe it is the media and fans that get star struck and overlook the overall team part of sports. The guys who play the games will never make the mistake of thinking they are all that matters. Those guys who think they are the sh*t don't ever enjoy true greatness and that comes from being a team player.