Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Are Championships Overrater?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Are Championships Overrater?
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 10, 2011 10:37 AM
I was watching the trailer for the new movie Bad Teacher and in it Jason Segel's character gets into an argument with a kid about whether or not LeBron will ever be better than Jordan and he said that the only argument he needs for Jordan is that Jordan has six championships.

This got me thinking.

Are championships overrated when talking about the legacy of an individual athlete? I don't want this to turn into a LeBron vs. Jordan vs. Kobe argument, I want this to remain more general than that. It seems like often when discussing an athlete's legacy, the number of championships they won seems to be the most important issue. Obviously in an individual sport like golf or tennis it should be, but in a team sport no one person can win a championship. Dan Marino is one of the best quarterbacks ever, but he never won a Super Bowl because he never had the talent around him that Joe Montana did.

So what say you Ohio Chatterers, how much importance should championships won be given when considering an individual athletes legacy?
Jun 10, 2011 10:37am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jun 10, 2011 10:57 AM
Marino had a lot more talent around him than given credit for. He often, not unlike another regular season superhero Manning, flat out sucked in those playoffs losses.

Jordan has 6, Kobe has 5....Leboob has 0...There is something missing there. I'm not saying Jordan is the best because he has 6 (I'd say that because I've watched all 3 play), but without at least 2-3 rings Lebron is not even in that debate. In fact, he may be laying that silly debate to rest with these finals right now. Take it a step further, and Jordan is 6-0 in the finals, Kobe 5-1?....and Leboob heading to 0-3.
Jun 10, 2011 10:57am
karen lotz's avatar

karen lotz

TuTu Train

22,284 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:03 AM
You can't go just on titles in team sports. What was Robert Horry's TEAM'S record in Finals?
Jun 10, 2011 11:03am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:04 AM
Comparing athletes is based on subjective opinion. The weight of a championship earned to one person may be greater than to the opinion of another. The entire premise is opinion.

A championship earned is neither underrated nor "overrated" in an any one individual's opinion.

The goal of the sports entertainment industry is to earn money. If I were evaluating a player it would be based on his earning potential while performing. Sometimes a championship provides greater revenue. There are other cases whereby athletes make a franchise tremendous revenue without ever winning the big on.
Jun 10, 2011 11:04am
OSH's avatar

OSH

Kosh B'Gosh

4,145 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:06 AM
Bill Russell, 11 championships in a 13 year career. Never lost (if I recall correctly).
Jun 10, 2011 11:06am
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:07 AM
gut;797394 wrote:Marino had a lot more talent around him than given credit for.
Bullshit.
Jun 10, 2011 11:07am
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:08 AM
karen lotz;797404 wrote:You can't go just on titles in team sports. What was Robert Horry's TEAM'S record in Finals?

Robert Horry might be one of THE most underrated players in sports history.
Jun 10, 2011 11:08am
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:10 AM
Scarlet_Buckeye;797415 wrote:Robert Horry might be one of THE most underrated players in sports history.

I swear from reading your posts, you know absolutely nothing about sports.
Jun 10, 2011 11:10am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:14 AM
gut;797394 wrote:Marino had a lot more talent around him than given credit for. He often, not unlike another regular season superhero Manning, flat out sucked in those playoffs losses.

Jordan has 6, Kobe has 5....Leboob has 0...There is something missing there. I'm not saying Jordan is the best because he has 6 (I'd say that because I've watched all 3 play), but without at least 2-3 rings Lebron is not even in that debate. In fact, he may be laying that silly debate to rest with these finals right now. Take it a step further, and Jordan is 6-0 in the finals, Kobe 5-1?....and Leboob heading to 0-3.


Pretty sure this is only Lebron's second appearance in the finals, making him 0-2 (if the Heat lose the series).
Jun 10, 2011 11:14am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:19 AM
Con_Alma;797407 wrote:Comparing athletes is based on subjective opinion. The weight of a championship earned to one person may be greater than to the opinion of another. The entire premise is opinion.

A championship earned is neither underrated nor "overrated" in an any one individual's opinion.

The goal of the sports entertainment industry is to earn money. If I were evaluating a player it would be based on his earning potential while performing. Sometimes a championship provides greater revenue. There are other cases whereby athletes make a franchise tremendous revenue without ever winning the big on.

gtfo....seriously. We're not talking about stocks here. We're talking about the skill and legacy of a player on the court, not return on investment. please just stfu and get out.
Jun 10, 2011 11:19am
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:20 AM
I think it depends on the sport.

I believe in hoops, more than any other sport, you need to win championships to validate an amazing career. The reason is because one person can dominate and carry a team more in hoops than in other sports.

If you truly are a clutch player, if you truly are a big game player, if you truly are one of the greatest of all time I think you gotta win some championships to really elevate yourself to the top of th elist of greatest of all time. One great hoops player can dominate on BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOOR>

In football and baseball there are just too many other variables to consider. You can be the best hitter of all time but get pitched around in spots. You acn be the best pitcher of all time but you only get to pitch every few games.


Now this isnt to say that Robert Whorey is better than a Labrum James, or Dirk Diggler Nowitski because he won titles. It means if you are an elite player, and want to be considered one of the best of all time, you better be winning a title.
Jun 10, 2011 11:20am
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:21 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;797443 wrote:gtfo....seriously. We're not talking about stocks here. We're talking about the skill and legacy of a player on the court, not return on investment. please just stfu and get out.

lol gotta love con alma
Jun 10, 2011 11:21am
karen lotz's avatar

karen lotz

TuTu Train

22,284 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:22 AM
Scarlet_Buckeye;797415 wrote:Robert Horry might be one of THE most underrated players in sports history.


Yeah you are right. Hard to imagine someone who had career averages of 7 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists wouldn't be considered amongst the greats IN SPORTS HISTORY...
Jun 10, 2011 11:22am
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:23 AM
marino never had anywhere near a complete team. I'm not trying to justify the argument because manning won with a subpar defense.

marino had a good offense early in his career and a good defense late. never both in the same year.
Jun 10, 2011 11:23am
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:24 AM
thavoice;797444 wrote:I think it depends on the sport.

I believe in hoops, more than any other sport, you need to win championships to validate an amazing career. The reason is because one person can dominate and carry a team more in hoops than in other sports.

If you truly are a clutch player, if you truly are a big game player, if you truly are one of the greatest of all time I think you gotta win some championships to really elevate yourself to the top of th elist of greatest of all time. One great hoops player can dominate on BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOOR>

In football and baseball there are just too many other variables to consider. You can be the best hitter of all time but get pitched around in spots. You acn be the best pitcher of all time but you only get to pitch every few games.

I agree with this. In football and baseball, you could be an absolute stud but it doesn't make that much of a difference. Barry Sanders comes to mind. He is easily one of the best running backs ever...but he couldn't carry the Lions himself. You could be the best pitcher ever, but be in a crappy rotation and your team never makes it out of the first round of the playoffs.

But basketball is different. There are fewer players on the floor. You can literally carry your team yourself. I think you need championships in basketball. But comparing that need to other sports is apples to oranges.
Jun 10, 2011 11:24am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:25 AM
Con_Alma;797407 wrote:Comparing athletes is based on subjective opinion. The weight of a championship earned to one person may be greater than to the opinion of another. The entire premise is opinion.

A championship earned is neither underrated nor "overrated" in an any one individual's opinion.

The goal of the sports entertainment industry is to earn money. If I were evaluating a player it would be based on his earning potential while performing. Sometimes a championship provides greater revenue. There are other cases whereby athletes make a franchise tremendous revenue without ever winning the big on.

Earning potential? Please! So how do you compare that since players make much more money now than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago? Get outta here with that BS theory.
Jun 10, 2011 11:25am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:27 AM
dwccrew;797457 wrote:Earning potential? Please! So how do you compare that since players make much more money now than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago? Get outta here with that BS theory.

+1
Jun 10, 2011 11:27am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:27 AM
thavoice;797444 wrote:I think it depends on the sport.

I believe in hoops, more than any other sport, you need to win championships to validate an amazing career. The reason is because one person can dominate and carry a team more in hoops than in other sports.

If you truly are a clutch player, if you truly are a big game player, if you truly are one of the greatest of all time I think you gotta win some championships to really elevate yourself to the top of th elist of greatest of all time. One great hoops player can dominate on BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOOR>

In football and baseball there are just too many other variables to consider. You can be the best hitter of all time but get pitched around in spots. You acn be the best pitcher of all time but you only get to pitch every few games.


Now this isnt to say that Robert Whorey is better than a Labrum James, or Dirk Diggler Nowitski because he won titles. It means if you are an elite player, and want to be considered one of the best of all time, you better be winning a title.

I agree with this. I think that for team sports basketball is the one where championships can carry more weight, because there are only five players on the floor at a team and one player can make a huge difference (just look at the Cavs last year with LeBron and the Cavs this year without him). In other team sports it really is all about the team. You could make an argument that Brady is better than Manning because he won more rings, and often Manning cost his team playoff games, however, Manning's defense also put him in a position where he needed to do something to win far more often than Brady did. If you look back at all of Brady's great post season wins, all he had to do was get his team in field goal range to win. Yes, Manning may have cost his team some playoff wins, but often it was because his margin for error was so much smaller than Brady's.

I think championships can be an important indicator, but I feel like the media especially wants them to be the only indicator, or at least the most important indicator.
Jun 10, 2011 11:27am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:27 AM
thavoice;797444 wrote:I think it depends on the sport.

I believe in hoops, more than any other sport, you need to win championships to validate an amazing career. The reason is because one person can dominate and carry a team more in hoops than in other sports.

If you truly are a clutch player, if you truly are a big game player, if you truly are one of the greatest of all time I think you gotta win some championships to really elevate yourself to the top of th elist of greatest of all time. One great hoops player can dominate on BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOOR>

In football and baseball there are just too many other variables to consider. You can be the best hitter of all time but get pitched around in spots. You acn be the best pitcher of all time but you only get to pitch every few games.


Now this isnt to say that Robert Whorey is better than a Labrum James, or Dirk Diggler Nowitski because he won titles. It means if you are an elite player, and want to be considered one of the best of all time, you better be winning a title.
I agree but again it's is opinion.

There are many great skilled players that have made others around them even better and thus making the team better than they would have been without them. They may have been truly great players but never won a championship.

A single player can impact the game of baseball and basketball more than a single great player can impact football. What weight does winning a championship have in determining how good a player is versus another?

It's subjective. It isn't underrated or overrated in one person's mind.
Jun 10, 2011 11:27am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:30 AM
dwccrew;797457 wrote:Earning potential? Please! So how do you compare that since players make much more money now than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago? Get outta here with that BS theory.


Earning potential for the owner was what I was speaking of. A player is hired to make money for the owner by entertaining. I don't care how much the player made. The great entertainer's put rear ends in the seats and sell the franchise in a variety of ways. At the end of the day what* they earn the franchise is what matters. It's what they are paid to do. It ain't a theory.
Jun 10, 2011 11:30am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:33 AM
Con_Alma;797471 wrote:Earning potential for the owner was what I was speaking of. A player is hired to make money for the owner by entertaining. I don't care how much the player made. The great entertainer's put rear ends in the seats and sell the franchise in a variety of ways. At the end of the day they earn the franchise is what matters. It's what they are paid to do. It ain't a theory.

It's still bullshit. Franchises license and sell merchendise a lot more now than they did years ago. More media outlets, easier ways to get it shipped out/advertised. Sorry, but that logic is shit. So since LJ makes more money for the owners of the team he plays for he is better than Bill Russell, a man that has 11 championship rings? GTFO
Jun 10, 2011 11:33am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:41 AM
dwccrew;797479 wrote:It's still bullshit. Franchises license and sell merchendise a lot more now than they did years ago. More media outlets, easier ways to get it shipped out/advertised. Sorry, but that logic is shit. So since LJ makes more money for the owners of the team he plays for he is better than Bill Russell, a man that has 11 championship rings? GTFO

It's tough to say which is why it's subjective. Would Russell at his peak be a better hire today than James in today's market? It's not a definitive answer. Could one be a better draw than the other? It's a debatable question.

The answer is opinion based which is why I believe the weighting of a championship isn't either underrated or overrated in the person's mind who answers.
Jun 10, 2011 11:41am
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:45 AM
Con_Alma;797471 wrote:Earning potential for the owner was what I was speaking of. A player is hired to make money for the owner by entertaining. I don't care how much the player made. The great entertainer's put rear ends in the seats and sell the franchise in a variety of ways. At the end of the day they earn the franchise is what matters. It's what they are paid to do. It ain't a theory.

Here are the attendance rankings for 2011:
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

So the immediate red flag with your theory is that the Blazers and Cavs are ranked #2 and #3. You're proposing that the players on the Cavs and Blazers are better entertainers than anyone on the Heat, Magic, Lakers, Celtics, Mavs, Thunder, etc.
Jun 10, 2011 11:45am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:45 AM
Con_Alma;797497 wrote:It's tough to say which is why it's subjective. Would Russell at his peak be a better hire today than James in today's market? It's not a definitive answer. Could one be a better draw than the other? It's a debatable question.

The answer is opinion based which is why I believe the weighting of a championship isn't either underrated or overrated in the person's mind who answers.

While I sort of agree that it is subjective and opinion when debating the greatness of players; championship numbers is quantitative evidence that helps support ones argument when determining how great a player was IMO.
Jun 10, 2011 11:45am