How do you take championships into consideration when discussing all-time greats?

[Sticksboi05]

What value do you put into winning titles when you are talking about where players rank in their sport?

No poll this time.

[KingGibbs]

Dan Marino

Dan Fouts

Charles Barkley

Karl Malone

John Stockton

Warren Moon

See where I'm going with this?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Barry Sanders....nuff said.

[HeluCopter29]

I don't. Sports are a team game and while being a great player helps you and your team win, it still takes a strong supporting cast.

That's why the argument that Eli Manning is an elite QB because he has two rings is an argument that either mentally deficient people or homer Giants fans make.

[PeterMP]

In my opinion, if you just watch the game, Dan Marino is the best QB I've ever seen.

I can't speak to his leadership or his preparation, his clutch or his ability to run different offenses because I don't/can't "see" any of that.

However, when the ball was snapped and he was getting ready to pass there hasn't been anybody better than Marino IMO.

[Reic]

Championships are won on by teams in team sports.

Its what the players do on the field/court/pitch/rink that matters, and if their team hoists a trophy, good on them.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I place more emphasis on them with sports like basketball and football. If you have an all time great QB like a Marino or an all time great center like Kareem...they play a giant role on those teams, moreso than a HoF hitter or pitcher on a baseball team. Look at what happened with the Cavs when LeBron left, they went from a deep playoff team to being one of the worst teams in the league.

In baseball, if you have a star pitcher or hitter, they don't get to impose their will on a season as much as stars in the other sports. A pitcher gets every 5th day...a good example would be the year Steve Carlton won 27 games and the Phillies won a total of 59 games. A hitter gets 4 at bats per game, usually...it's not like football or basketball when you can highlight a star and make them be a true game breaker.

I don't think a lot of people look at a guy like Ted Williams and knock his career cause he didn't win a World Series the same way Marino is usually brought up as an afterthought in all time great QB conversations.

[MattFancy]

I think it helps, but its not the end all be all. KingGibbs' list is a perfect example. There are some great players that never won a title. I think especially in a sport like football or baseball, it takes more than 1 really good player to win a title.

[IONTOP]

I usually give the player 52 points for winning a championship on average... Less if they just rode the bench, more (up to 77 points) if they carried their team...

[Bang]

It depends on the sport.

Rings matter more for a quarterback than for a pitcher, for example.

For a ringless QB to be discussed in this context he has to be one of the absolute very best, like Marino or Tarkenton who retired with every record, But you also have to include a guy like Troy Aikman who holds no records, but led 3 dominant super bowl teams.

A pitcher can labor on bad teams his whole career,, see Nolan Ryan ..Who I think may have won a ring as a rookie with the 69 Mets.. but not sure. either way, he spent the overwhelming majority of his career on bad teams who never sniffed the postseason. But he was no less dominant, and definitely one of the best of all time. Or even on great teams, like Smoltz or Avery on the Braves, who just couldn't close the deal as many times as they should or could have.

There's a very long list of all time great baseball players with no championships.

It's a case by case thing.

~Bang

[artmonkforHOF]

Counting championships is the easiest tool to measure greatness in sports, but not the only one.

3 rings are better than 2 rings, but not every player who has one more ring than another player is necessarily the better player.

No one in there right mind would say Robert Horry was a better basketball palyer than Barkley, Ewing, Karl Malone or even Dominique Wilkins, but he has 7 more rings than any of those guys have.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In the NBA, it matters some. Certainly more than in any other sport. But not as much as talking heads say. Nearly every player who could lay claim to "Best Player in the League" at any moment won a title as the alpha dog on his team.

In MLB, it matters not at all.

In the NFL, it matters a teeny tiny bit for QBs. Just a smidge.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 11:03 AM ----------

Counting championships is the easiest tool to measure greatness in sports, but not the only one.

It's also generally the dumbest tool.

[Sticksboi05]

In the NBA' date=' it matters some. Certainly more than in any other sport. But not as much as talking heads say. Nearly every player who could lay claim to "Best Player in the League" at any moment won a title as the alpha dog on his team.

In MLB, it matters not at all.

In the NFL, it matters a teeny tiny bit for QBs. Just a smidge.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 11:03 AM ----------

It's also generally the dumbest tool.

I agree, I think they are given far too much value. It's as much a matter of luck and circumstance as it is how good you were.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

A pitcher can labor on bad teams his whole career,, see Nolan Ryan

He was on the '69 Mets.

He is also the single-most over-rated athlete in the history of the universe. The guy was a physical marvel, but didn't become a good pitcher until he was in his 40s.

[IONTOP]

He was on the '69 Mets.

He is also the single-most over-rated athlete in the history of the universe. The guy was a physical marvel' date=' but didn't become a good pitcher until he was in his 40s.[/quote']

but he beat the **** out of Robin Ventura...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, I'm increasingly of the opinion that championships are over-rated.

The Giants are in the midsts of some kind of bizarre mini-dynasty right now, and they might be the 12th or 15th best team in the NFL.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 11:08 AM ----------

but he beat the **** out of Robin Ventura...

I think of him as being a peer to Paul Bunyon, not Sandy Koufax.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

To me championships are fun to use as tie-breakers when other things are equal between two players.

Player A and Player B were both the best players on their respective teams and put up very similar statistics. Player A won 4 titles and Player B won 1...stuff like that.

[Warhead36]

It matters, to some extent. It depends on the context.

In the NFL I don't look at championships as much as, how much they got their team to the playoffs and in contention. Yeah Marino never won a ring, but pretty much every year he was in Miami the Dolphins had a shot. All you can do is get your team there, then after that just hope and pray the stars align and you can get lucky and win. Unfortunately Marino never got that extra little push of luck to get him a ring.

In the NBA I think championships matter more because individual players have so much more impact on the game. But it isn't the end all be all. Dirk has more rings than Barkley but I'd rank Barkley ahead of Dirk.

[mcsluggo]

i think it is without question the single most over-relied upon and over emphasised statistic (in team sports)

[ixcuincle]

Take em away if they doped up Armstrong-style

allegedly

[amm0409]

I think rings matter, but there are plenty of unbelievable players without a ring. Marino, B. Sanders come to mind.

But the ones that were special players and have rings A.K.A MJ well nuff said. But then there are guys like B. Russell Plenty of rings, but some would put others ahead of him sooo.... Iv thought Tom Brady was overrated and his got 3 superbowls. Some people just look at the rings, I look at everything.

I do look at the rings, or even Finals, if they made it to the Superbowl and how they performed.

So its up and down. I think it helps having a ring to your name though for argument sake.

Guess Im back and forth or just depends.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 05:17 PM ----------

The Giants are in the midsts of some kind of bizarre mini-dynasty right now' date=' and they might be the 12th or 15th best team in the NFL.[/quote']

I can agree with that. I didn't know who to route for. Didn't want Brady to get another, and then I had to route for Giants? Think I was doing that just cause people would start thinking like what you said, and then are they going to put Eli and Brady in the same context? Hahaha

[zoony]

For leadership positions I think it is very important, like qb for example. For positions like RB and de, not so much

As for basketball, I think it's much more important. Each player on the court is responsible for 20 percent of everything that happens. A truly special talent SHOULD be able to take over the court and will his team forward. Especially before the zone defense was legal

[Sticksboi05]

For leadership positions I think it is very important, like qb for example. For positions like RB and de, not so much

As for basketball, I think it's much more important. Each player on the court is responsible for 20 percent of everything that happens. A truly special talent SHOULD be able to take over the court and will his team forward. Especially before the zone defense was legal

You need a supporting cast to win, on matter how good you are.

[amm0409]

You need a supporting cast to win, on matter how good you are.

Dallas Mavericks

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 06:01 PM ----------

For leadership positions I think it is very importantl

I agree with your assessment, one player can take over a B-Ball game

[Trippster]

If you buy into the theory that a quarterback has to win a championship to be an all-time great, then you are saying that Mark Rypien and Jeff Hostetler had better careers than Dan Marino. That is rubbish! IMHO Dan Marino is the greatest quarterback to ever play the game.