I think whn it goes on a level of greatness then it might need to be a criteria.
I think Reggie Miller and Ewing and Malone and Bakley to name a few are great player but none of them got a ring during their playing days and so it you want to rate them on greatness then it might not be so great.
a person like Scalabine of the Celtics or Morrison of the Lakers who did not play during their championship run have rings and are we suppose to say they are greater or better player than the one I listed above.
Lets take Luke Walton of the Lakers he has a ring and if the Lakers stays healthy they will be in the mix for the next few years and let say they win 2 or 3 more championship and Luke had 3 or 4 rings so we consider him great or just fortunate to be on a great team?
Robert Horry had 7 rings is he greater than Jordan?
the point I am trying to make is when considering perhaps how great a player is you might want to see how many rings they might have but in no way should it be considered if a person is a great player.
I know that did not make sense but when you are judging a great player like MJ or Kobe or Bird or Magic or any other like Wilt, Jabbar, Shaq or Russells or any other that have rings and that are considered great then perhaps we can used rings as a measuring point or the argument of who better but in the average case then the rings counts does not matter for the plain simple fact that their are players of who have a rings and perhaps will get multiple rings and they are very marginal player but are fortunate enough to be on a good team
