Would you rather win a world championship or go into the Hall of Fame?

Estil · July 25, 2008 10:14PM

I think this too would be an interesting hypothetical debate. If given the choice between having a short career (no more than 4-5 years) and win a World Championship (or Super Bowl or NBA Finals or Stanley Cup or whatever) or being in the Hall of Fame and no championship, what would you choose?

Again, I'm probably in the minority (and in fact ten years ago I read an article that did this survey of MLB players; the championship beat HOF by a 2 to 1 margin), but I personally would rather be immortalized as one of the best of the best. Wouldn't that be better than just being a second stringer who happened to be in the right place at the right time?

HOWEVER, if we're taking UK basketball, then there's no question; I'll take helping hang a big blue National Champions banner over having my jersey hung in the rafters any day of the week!

stevek · July 25, 2008 11:45PM

Ginger or Maryann?

MantleMarisFordBerra · July 26, 2008 1:20AM

Now this is tough...I remember watching an Eric Dickerson interview a few years back and he was asked this, and he answered HOF was more important to him. I admired him for being honest and not giving the "PC" answer.

I mean, lots of guys we've never heard of have managed to luck out & be in the right place and the right time and have a ring. But legends like Williams, Cobb, & Banks never got a ring. Who gets more respect? The legends of course. I hate to say it, but I think I'd take HOF over a ring.

Estil · July 26, 2008 8:42AM

If it makes you feel any better you do get a ring for going into the HOF also.

bdunndchi · July 26, 2008 9:31AM

I think I would go with HOF myself.

thegemmintman · July 26, 2008 9:44AM

I know what Jeter would say, and I know what Arod would think.

edmundfitzgerald · July 26, 2008 9:46AM

<< Ginger or Maryann? >>

Maryann

Estil · July 26, 2008 10:10AM

<< I know what Jeter would say, and I know what Arod would think. >>

Jeter's already got four championships (plus two AL Championships and an AL Runner-Up); that doesn't count.

purduepete · July 26, 2008 12:29PM

I would say HOF. 30 years after you retired, people might remember you being on a World Series championship team. People definitely would remember you being a Hall-of-Famer though!

perkdog · July 26, 2008 12:34PM

World Championship

thegemmintman · July 26, 2008 1:35PM

<< 

<< I know what Jeter would say, and I know what Arod would think. >>

Jeter's already got four championships (plus two AL Championships and an AL Runner-Up); that doesn't count.

>>

True, but Jeter would say he'd take another WS over a HOF in a heartbeat

thenavarro · July 26, 2008 1:49PM

I would take a long career and a HOF over a world championship 100 times out of 100. Would probably have better financial security for myself and family from a long career over a short one, and would have better endorsement and future financial opportunities from appearance fees. Any run of the mill professional athlete can be a world champion if they happen to get put on a team that gets it done, whether they make a meaningful contribution or not, but not everyone can be one of the established greats of their field, admired by both fans and comrades as well. I realize that the politically correct answer is world champion (if a team sport), but the human nature and realistic answer is the same, a HOF legend.

Mike

ymarea · July 26, 2008 1:58PM

<< 

<< Ginger or Maryann? >>

Maryann

>>

I hate to be a spoiled sport, but this was not one of Mary Ann's finer moments. As for the OP, I'll take the world championship.

JackWESQ · July 26, 2008 3:27PM

Perhaps this is simply a distinction without a difference, but I think being a world champion is not not the same thing as being a member of a world championship team. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal. All world champions.

Mark Madsen (2 rings) and Stacey King (3 rings), both members of a world championship team.

As such, I'd rather be a member of the Hall of Fame because there's a greater chance of a player being a Mark Madsen/Stacey King than a Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, etc.

Also, from a monetary perspective, I would think a person would select being a member of the Hall of Fame. If their career started today he would, presumably, have made a significant amount of $$$ as his Hall of Fame membership would likely indicate that he was among the best players in his sport and compensated as such.

/s/ JackWESQ

Estil · January 9, 2010 6:09AM

<< 

<< 

<< I know what Jeter would say, and I know what Arod would think. >>

Jeter's already got four championships (plus two AL Championships and an AL Runner-Up); that doesn't count.

>>

True, but Jeter would say he'd take another WS over a HOF in a heartbeat

>>

Well, he has another WS title now.

Anyway, once again I hope people don't mind me bringing up another old topic but again, it is that time of year for HOF-debating and I think this would make for another good debate (HOF vs. championship).

On a related note, I remember one player (don't remember who) that said that having your jersey retired is an even greater honor than the HOF. With it now being exceptionally difficult for players to stay with one team (even if they really want to) long enough to warrant such an honor, I definitely can see what that player means.

Goot · January 9, 2010 6:31AM

<< 

Again, I'm probably in the minority (and in fact ten years ago I read an article that did this survey of MLB players; the championship beat HOF by a 2 to 1 margin), but I personally would rather be immortalized as one of the best of the best. Wouldn't that be better than just being a second stringer who happened to be in the right place at the right time?
>>

+1.

sagard · January 9, 2010 7:03AM

I'm a HoF "D" league hockey player. I preferred my commercial league team where I was lucky to get on the roster and we won the league. So I guess the championship does it for me.

bking · January 9, 2010 7:08AM

<< 

<< Ginger or Maryann? >>

Maryann

>>

Any day and twice on Sundays.....

Dboneesq · January 9, 2010 7:17AM

HOF

yawie99 · January 9, 2010 7:18AM

I hate losing, so gimme the ring.

PSACollector · January 9, 2010 7:49AM

hof

TomGshotput · January 9, 2010 8:03AM

<< I would say HOF. 30 years after you retired, people might remember you being on a World Series championship team. People definitely would remember you being a Hall-of-Famer though! >>

I don't care what people think or remember. I just want the salary that comes from being one of the best for a long time rather than a paltry few hundred thousand in bonus money

Tomi · January 9, 2010 8:05AM

Hall Of Fame. You can still do very well after you retire as a HOF'er. Do you think that people are going to care about paying for a Robert Horry auto after 7 basketball titles? Hell No.
HOF is for life. Many greats have never won a Super Bowl. Dan Marino comes to mind. I'm sure that there are many super bowl winners that would trade places with him and his accomplishments.

Estil · January 9, 2010 12:43PM

Don't forget Ernie Banks and Ryne Sandberg, who've never even made the World Series.

kingnascar · January 9, 2010 2:01PM

I would rather be in my HoF. This means that my career was consistently great and I just didn't have a lucky moment winning the championship. Kind of like Derrike Cope winning the 1990 Daytona 500 when Dale Earnhardt cut a tire on the last lap.

MCMLVTopps · January 10, 2010 12:20AM

A WS win consists of what you and your team did to win 4 out of 7 games.

A HOFer selection consists of your personal accomplishments during an entire pro ball effort, which spans many years.

Clearly the goal is to win a WS each year, but to be elected to the HOF is a much greater accomplishment. I'd rather have a plaque on the wall in Cooperstown honoring my efforts, that will be there for all time.

Would you rather win a world championship or go into the Hall of Fame?

Comments