Options
Do championship rings measure the greatness of a player?
hammer1
Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
There are fringe players, who are one step away from the minors or the practice squad who have multiple rings vis-à-vis thousands of All Stars, and All Pros who have none.
Poll vote is anonymous
Do championship rings measure the greatness of a player?
This is a private poll: no-one will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
I voted means a little. If anyone thinks Brady doesn’t deserve the lions share of the credit for the come from behind victory against Atlanta in the Super Bowl then your out of your mind, on the other hand I don’t believe he deserves the same credit for the Super Bowl won against the Seahawks
In team sports, absolutely nothing in general, very little to the extent they can be used in comparisons of players with similar opportunities.
In individual sports, they mean everything.
ETA: How's that for choosing three of the four answers
Given the context, I actually selected 'Absolutely Nothing'.
Means a lot. Great players elevate everyone around them. See Tom Brady.
Dave
A player can be great without rings, but if he wants to be on another level of greatness then the rings are a must have. There are different levels of greatness, and if you want to be on the penthouse suite level, then you better have those rings, otherwise enjoy your stay at the roach motel.
"Means a lot" is the correct answer.
Please don't get me started on a dissertation. Just accept this as the correct answer.
Thank you!
You're wrong
I’m Hoping Dallas will be along soon to talk down to you and eloquently tell you how stupid you are for thinking the way you do so you can bust out a lengthy SteveK special with the dissertation 😂😂😂
Yogi Berra is 10x the man Mike Trout will ever be.
As far as football goes, lets hear it for the seldom credited front offensive linemen who allow by protection, Brady and other "Great" QBs to be great. In other words they,O/L, are a level of greatness as well.
Means a lot.
Doesn't provide exemplary status from being a d!ck and can easily be overseen.
Ask Bill Russell, Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan....They mean everything.
Ask Ernie Banks....well not that much
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Everyone plays a role, nobody that has a clue would dispute that however the thing that intellectual weirdos like Dallas fail to grasp is that regardless of the intangibles the Player still has to make plays, so he has great receivers? Great if he throws the ball over his head then what good does the receiver do? If he senses pressure and craps his pants what good is he in that situation? I could go on but guys like Dallas will still say he likes Ken Anderson above a first ballot HOF like Brady, and that’s fine he can hang out by himself shaking his head at everyone that thinks differently than him. Anderson is not in the HOF because everyone that voted over the decades and passed him over was an idiot I guess.
No... A player does not choose his or her teammates. Think of someone like Ernie Banks in that he was a great player... Was Mr. Chicago and did not have a ring that falls within the question. He was a terrific player and nothing diminishes that.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
what says a lot to me is that the awards for a particular League are voted on based on the regular season performances.
To me it means nothing.
Most of my experience is with basebal. There are many great players who never got to pay on a championship team. They have to have the supporting players around them, and even if you are good, you often need to get some breaks to win it all.
Walter Johnson barely made a victory in a World Series, He was at the end of his career when the Senators won. If they had not won that World Series, would he have been any less of a player? Ditto from Grover Cleveland Alexander who was on a champianship Cardnals team at the end of his career.
Hank Aaron was on a team that won it all once. Robin Roberts never won a WS, and would have had a better won-loss record if he had played on better teams. Ted Williams never played on a WS winner. Some poeple think he's the best hitter of all time.
It varies a little based on sport.
In basketball, they mean a fair amount. Not everything - no, Robert Horry, Sam Jones, and Bill Russell were not better players than Michael Jordan despite having more rings. But with so few guys playing, and superstars able to be so dominant rings matter a good amount.
Baseball? Very little. You've got 24+ teammates. If you're a starting pitcher, you don't even play nearly 80% of the games, and you need to help to win the games you DO play (especially in the AL where pitchers don't even hit). Even more for a reliever.
Hockey is kind of in the middle - a goalie can practically win a Cup by himself but obviously still needs help. But superstars in hockey really, truly do make the guys around them better. Rob Brown scored 49 goals playing with Mario Lemieux. Justin Abdelkader scored 23 playing with Pavel Datsyuk,
Football is down there with baseball. Joe Thomas was an all-time great at LT but never even sniffed a ring. Not his fault the other 52 guys on the roster were awful. Quarterbacks can help a lot but still need help. Like Giselle said, they can't catch the ball, too.
That's a bit harsh. He was passed over by people who think rings mean a lot. Some of them may have been idiots, but they were all wrong.
Comp%: 63.2, TD%: 4.6, INT %: 2.1, Yds/Att.: 7.0, Rating: 90.5
Comp%: 65.3, TD%: 4.6%, INT%: 1.5%, Yds/Att.: 7.2, Rating: 95.6
Comp. %: 64.1, TD%: 5.5, INT %: 1.8, Yds/Att.: 7.5, Rating: 97.4
The stats above all belong to Tom Brady. They represent his stats in the regular season, playoffs, and Super Bowl. Does Brady have great stats in the Super Bowl? Yes. Are the meaningfully different than his stats in the regular season or the playoffs? You tell me. Without looking anything up, can you tell which stat line goes with which games? No, you can't.
Give Tom Brady the chance to play a game that other QBs don't get the chance to play and, to the shock of absolutely nobody who puts three seconds of thought into it, he plays as well as Tom Brady in that game. How does this ADD anything to the case that Tom Brady is great? He plays 309 games at his level and we don't have enough information to evaluate his place in the pantheon. But let him play 9 more games, at exactly the same level, and now we know? I don't know if believing that makes anyone an idiot, but it insults my intelligence to expect me to believe it.
Mean more in basketball, as one player can make more of difference on a 5 man team. Other sports are much less influenced by one player, no matter how great he may be. I would say means little.
Just guessing I would say:
3) is regular season
2) is playoffs
1) is SB's
You're 1 for 3. Since the distinction between them is random, that's the expected result.
Truly great players not only make the team better, but they attract other players to the team who want to play with them, win championships, and professionally make them more money.
Baseball was mentioned sort of as a sport whereby a great player doesn't have a discernible effect on the rest of the team. That simply isn't true. A killer batting fourth will allow the third batter, perhaps even the second batter to see better pitches such as straight fastballs for various tactical reasons. A leadoff batter who has a high on base percentage, gets on base, steals bases, disrupts the pitcher especially because the pitcher then has to pitch from the stretch, all of which allows the batters after he gets on base to see better pitches. Hence great players in the lineup help others to be better which increases the chances of winning championships.
Pitchers help their team batters as well. If you know your pitcher is going to hold the opponent down in runs, you can relax a bit more at the plate, and a relaxed batter usually hits better.
I could go on and on with examples but to believe that a great player on a baseball team doesn't have any effect on the other players is sheer nonsense. If that so-called great player doesn't have any effect, perhaps that player really wasn't all that great.
Football examples are too easy, and basketball examples are easier still.
Again, championship rings do mean a lot to measure a player's greatness. Doesn't necessarily have to be a lot of rings. But with few exceptions such as a Ted Williams or Dan Marino, considering the mentioned influence that a great player normally has on his teammates, a truly great player, when it comes to measuring greatness, really should have at least one ring over his long career.
For the true GOAT contenders, sure it is important. LeBron picks up points vs Jordan for his performance with the Cavs vs GS. An NBA player can carry a team though the playoffs. To a bit lesser extant so can a starting pitcher. Verlander withh is 0-6 WS record has done no favors to his legacy.
As much as I don't want to give Tom Brady the GOAT title, and not because I don't like Perk,
, it is difficult to ignore the handfuls of rings that his team has earned over a number of years and numerous roster changes.
I do recall Giselle commenting after a notably poor performance the Brady can only throw the ball, but cannot catch it.
Or maybe it was Michelle stating "when they block low...we throw high". Hell, it is late
At any rate, championships are the goal of every player and carry extra weight, but it is highly dependent on the sport and position.
I would still take marino over Brady and Montana.
I was just going by the fact that each step of the way the opposition gets better.
Means ALOT. In both team and individual sports.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Gayle Sayers and Dick Butkus beg to differ
"Rings don't plug holes"
Means a lot, doesn't mean everything.
There are exceptions as was noted.
Also of course means a lot more now than it did before the free agency era. I'm not sure with Sayers, but I would be sure with Butkus, that if they had played in this current free agency era. other top defensive player free agents would have loved to have played with Butkus, which would have increased the chances of the Bears winning a championship and Butkus getting a ring.
In tennis or golf...yep.....team sports? Less.
almost 50-50 split between top half and bottom.
Be interesting to see the tally if we didn't count the votes of the Patriot homers.
Yea hate to break it to you but it’s a lot more than just Patriots Homer’s buddy, there are quite a few NFL players, Coaches and Analysts that agree with the Patriots “Homer’s” FACT
AGREE!!!!
Sorry, but the more players that start on a team, the difficulty becomes much greater for one player to have enough impact to win a championship. Football and baseball teams must have multiple top quality players to be good enough to win championships. In those two sports, I feel that rings don't mean as much. Basketball players with only 5 players on the team can elevate their mates to championship level much easier.
In Golf it is every man for himself and no one plays defense. Still the debate is between Tiger and Jack.
So it goes.
So then for golf, is it total championships? How much more are the majors worth? Would they be the "rings" we speak of? Tiger is still playing so the jury is still out in my mind. If he does nothing further, I believe Jack is the one.
Great part about Golf is that you are never really done.
Woody is nearly 44 and the jury is still out. Hell...he could win the Open in Britain in 15 years and if it is his 19th major, he will get the GOAT accolades.
Concur with this astute observation.
perk- I like your honesty.
The OP question may be too vague.
Not to hijack the thread or the question, but for the record I'm going to amend my previous replies to relate to the following question:
Do championship rings help to measure the greatness of a player?
So i'm adding "help to" to the question to clarify my responses in which now the poll answer of "Means a lot" is more correct than it was before.
Mike Trout is still crying and you're still wrong if you have to change the question to make your answer fit.
Tom Watson almost (and, frankly, should have) won the British Open back in '09 at the ripe old age of 59. would have been the greatest achievement in the history of sports had it happened, but you know what they say about coming close. point being, woody ostensibly has 10-15 more competitive years left in him if he plays his cards right and his joints & bones hang in there. no reason to believe that can't happen (hasn't he taught us all to stop doubting him?), so i still put Jack's bar in range.
regardless of whether he hits/surpasses the mark or not, he's the goat of golf imo. maybe one day i'll lob two pennies into the forum and expound.
One player can definitely push his teammates to perform better. Heck, just look at Michael Jordan. Steve Kerr wasn't giving his best effort in practice, so Mike just took Steve aside and slapped him around. The next thing you know, Steve hits a clutch shot in the 1997 finals.
Looking at Vardon Trophies is an eye opener
I've been chipping away at a couple of rolls of pennies dissertation.
Not even close.
It's known as flexibility.
What is he ran an 11 minute mile afterwards?
What this forum needs is more dissertations. 🤣
tell you what, give me your choice.........then i will objectively compare it to an almost 60-yr-old man winning a major championship against the world's greatest golfers. guys, mind you, who were anywhere from 15-40 years younger and hit the ball 40-50 yards farther off the tee & used 4-5 clubs less into greens on average. if you know anything about golf -- and i will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you do -- then no one needs to explain to you what a disadvantage Watson had on every single hole.............and still almost pulled off the unthinkable.
if you can even sniff that, i'll gladly tip my cap........but you won't be able to
You should be a world class gymnast then
Greatest achievement is Perk going off to work when there is a new Brady thread.
You could be a contortionist. 🤣