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?
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:46 AM
lol why does con_alma even discuss sports?
Jun 10, 2011 11:46am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:46 AM
When Alex Rodriguez was signed for $252 million his agent Scoot Boras shopped the player based on his baseball production and marketability that would result in greater revenue for the interested franchises. That was the sale that was bought by the Yankees.
Jun 10, 2011 11:46am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:46 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.

This is pretty dumb. Take the Cubs for instance. They have some of the highest earning potential of any team in major league baseball simply because they are the Cubs. If earning potential were most important, the Cubs would be one of the top 5 teams in baseball every year. They aren't though.

Does this mean that Brady Quinn or Tim Tebow are better than Aaron Rogers because they sign more endorsement deals? Or that guards are better than big men in the NBA because they are more marketable?

This whole concept is dumb, primarily because we are really talking about two different issues. You're looking at this from a business perspective, we're looking at it from a fans perspective. It's the same reason I can't stand Colin Cowherd, because he's not a fan, he only views sports as a business to be bet on.
Jun 10, 2011 11:46am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:50 AM
dwccrew;797510 wrote: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.


I don't dispute that at all. It is indeed a supporting factor. The overall greatness still comes down unequal comparatives being involved making the answer of who's better subjective. The importance of a championship to one person isn't as impacting to another.

The championships earned are weighted differently in coming to the conclusion. One weighting it heavier or lighter doesn't make it overrated or underrated. Does it?
Jun 10, 2011 11:50am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:54 AM
Con_Alma;797514 wrote:When Alex Rodriguez was signed for $252 million his agent Scoot Boras shopped the player based on his baseball production and marketability that would result in greater revenue for the interested franchises. That was the sale that was bought by the Yankees.

No, he gets a percentage of that money, he shopped A Rod for a bigger pay day for himself, not for the team. Nice try.
Jun 10, 2011 11:54am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:58 AM
krambman;797516 wrote:This is pretty dumb. Take the Cubs for instance. They have some of the highest earning potential of any team in major league baseball simply because they are the Cubs. If earning potential were most important, the Cubs would be one of the top 5 teams in baseball every year.

It may be dumb but it's reality. The Cubs are one of MLB's best franchises because they bring in the coin. That's reality. They are a better franchise than the South siders.
krambman wrote:...Does this mean that Brady Quinn or Tim Tebow are better than Aaron Rogers because they sign more endorsement deals? Or that guards are better than big men in the NBA because they are more marketable?...
It's not always that clear. It can also depend on what role or value that player brings to the team. individual endorsement deals don't mean squat to me. If a player makes the team better performance wise it should increase the value to the owner from an entertainment perspective.
krambman wrote:... You're looking at this from a business perspective, we're looking at it from a fans perspective. ...
I'm looking at it from the perspective of whether a championship is overrated in any one individuals mind when determining how good any one player is and my point is it's subjective...meaning it isn't overrated or underrated. That was the question wasn't it?
Jun 10, 2011 11:58am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 11:59 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;797531 wrote:No, he gets a percentage of that money, he shopped A Rod for a bigger pay day for himself, not for the team. Nice try.
Yes, im very aware of how an agent is paid. The presentation he gave to multiple franchises was based on what Rodriguez would earn the franchise, how much he would increase their value through a variety of factors.
Jun 10, 2011 11:59am
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:03 PM
karen lotz;797449 wrote: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...

Whoa, whoa, whoa... where did I EVER state that he should be "considered amongst the greats in sports history"?! I only stated that he is one of the most underrated athletes in sports history. The guy did nothing but hit pressure-clutch shots and won, what, 7 NBA championships?! People act as if he just haphazardly stumbled upon these championships. NO! He was a crucial element to those teams!

If you needed a point, Horry could give you that. If you needed a clutch shot, I'm not sure there was a better clutch-shooter in the NBA. The guy was a role-player and a KEY one at that (aka one of the best; and therefore why he's one of the most underrated athletes in sports history. Never receives the rightful amount of praise he deserves/ed).
Jun 10, 2011 12:03pm
C

captvern

Senior Member

833 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:05 PM
overrated in team sports
Jun 10, 2011 12:05pm
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:06 PM
j_crazy;797453 wrote: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.

He never had a running game. He only had DECENT wide receivers in the early part of his career. And he's team's were horrendous towards the later part of his career.

Never had a good defense. Never had a good running game to support him.

Now, look at Montana, he had arguably the best wide receiver ever to play the game, phenomenal defenses, and terrific running games.

Elway... never won his rings until he had Davis (a GREAT runningback that was cut short due to significant injuries) and a staunch defense.
Jun 10, 2011 12:06pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:19 PM
Lol...earning potential is no factor in determining who is a better player.
Jun 10, 2011 12:19pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:20 PM
se-alum;797591 wrote:Lol...earning potential is no factor in determining who is a better player.


Would you hire a player that wouldn't make your team better and thus not make you money?
Jun 10, 2011 12:20pm
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:35 PM
Con_Alma;797594 wrote:Would you hire a player that wouldn't make your team better and thus not make you money?

Do players ever get hired that won't make the team better? And you never responded to the figures I pointed out.
Jun 10, 2011 12:35pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:42 PM
friendfromlowry;797626 wrote:Do players ever get hired that won't make the team better? And you never responded to the figures I pointed out.
Not intentionally...at least I hope not. Lol.

Sorry if I didn't respond about figures. I'll go back and look for them.
Jun 10, 2011 12:42pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Jun 10, 2011 12:57 PM
There are times a player is signed in sports that dont necessarily make the team better. Sometimes it is an economical decision if you have a team player with a hefty contract with production that doesnt measure up. A team may trade him, or release him, and replace with a guy maybe not as good but freees up money...which in turn can help the team get better down the road by having more money.

I dont know NBA much, but did trading away Carmelo make Denver a better team right off the bat? Straight up did they get a guy who made them better than what Melo did?
Jun 10, 2011 12:57pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 1:11 PM
friendfromlowry;797508 wrote: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.
The point is that when determining the greatness or legacy of a player championships are neither underrated or overrated. The legacy and greatness is primarily individually subjective and the impact of having won a championship or not is based on that person's individual beliefs.

To answer your question directly you need to consider the entire sentence relating butts in the seats.
Con_Alma wrote:...The great entertainer's put rear ends in the seats and sell the franchise in a variety of ways. ...
It's not just attendance but the value a player can bring by his skills in entertaining that matters.

I couldn't find 2009-2010 but here's the 2008 top 10 values according to Forbes.

1 Los Angeles Lakers Jerry Buss, Philip Anschutz
2 New York Knicks
3 Chicago Bulls
4 Detroit Pistons
5 Cleveland Cavaliers
6 Houston Rockets
7 Dallas Mavericks
8 Boston Celtics
9 Phoenix Suns
10 San Antonio Spurs

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/12/09/team.values.ap/index.html
Jun 10, 2011 1:11pm
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Jun 10, 2011 1:44 PM
thavoice;797665 wrote:I dont know NBA much, but did trading away Carmelo make Denver a better team right off the bat? Straight up did they get a guy who made them better than what Melo did?

To answer your question, no, they did not. But it's also different when your team is handcuffed like Denver was. If Carmelo wasn't about to be a free agent, and was happy in Denver, then I don't think the Nuggets dare dream of trading him. But, he made it pretty clear he wouldn't be returning to the team, so they had to get something for nothing to avoid looking like another Cleveland. I guess the point is, the Nuggets made that deal and didn't get a player who was near talented in return, but in theory now their 2011-2012 team will do better than had they never made a move.
Jun 10, 2011 1:44pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jun 10, 2011 2:17 PM
They shouldn't be important at all, but Kobe fans couldn't come up with another argument.
Jun 10, 2011 2:17pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jun 10, 2011 2:35 PM
Con_Alma;797594 wrote:Would you hire a player that wouldn't make your team better and thus not make you money?
Not purposefully, but that still has nothing to do w/ the playing ability of one person over another when comparing legacies. I've never heard someone say, Player A and Player B are very similar when it comes to ability, but since Player B is more easily marketable, that makes him the better player.
Jun 10, 2011 2:35pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 2:41 PM
se-alum;797807 wrote:... Player A and Player B are very similar when it comes to ability, but since Player B is more easily marketable, that makes him the better player.
Nor have I. They are hired in the entertainment industry. They are not paid more than another athlete if they are not perceived to be worth more. Their abilities athletically translate into entertainment value. A lesser athlete is not as entertaining mostly because the impact on the team relate to less success.

Again, the point is that when evaluating players compared to other players it's subjective. That leads me to believe that during that process it's opinion based and that opinion is relevant to that individual making the inclusion of championship in that process neither over nor underrated.
Jun 10, 2011 2:41pm
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Jun 10, 2011 3:30 PM
Con_Alma;797809 wrote:Nor have I. They are hired in the entertainment industry. They are not paid more than another athlete if they are not perceived to be worth more. Their abilities athletically translate into entertainment value. A lesser athlete is not as entertaining mostly because the impact on the team relate to less success.

Again, the point is that when evaluating players compared to other players it's subjective. That leads me to believe that during that process it's opinion based and that opinion is relevant to that individual making the inclusion of championship in that process neither over nor underrated.
Thank you for ruining this thread. You are clearly not a fan of any team.
Jun 10, 2011 3:30pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 3:49 PM
Raw Dawgin' it;797855 wrote:... You are clearly not a fan of any team.
I would probably agree that I am not a fanatic. I do enjoy several sports and watch them regularly. I also have several teams I like keeping track of more than others.

For anyone to suggest, however, in any way that sports are anything more than another form of entertainment, whether they are a "fan" or not, is a loss of perspective regarding what pro sports are.
Jun 10, 2011 3:49pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jun 10, 2011 3:52 PM
Con_Alma;797809 wrote:Nor have I. They are hired in the entertainment industry. They are not paid more than another athlete if they are not perceived to be worth more. Their abilities athletically translate into entertainment value. A lesser athlete is not as entertaining mostly because the impact on the team relate to less success.

Again, the point is that when evaluating players compared to other players it's subjective. That leads me to believe that during that process it's opinion based and that opinion is relevant to that individual making the inclusion of championship in that process neither over nor underrated.
Lol.....if your ramblings make sense to you than more power to ya.
Jun 10, 2011 3:52pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 10, 2011 3:54 PM
se-alum;797890 wrote:Lol.....if your ramblings make sense to you than more power to ya.
Hey, thanks for the wishful thoughts!
Jun 10, 2011 3:54pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 10, 2011 5:27 PM
Anyway, we all know con_alma's thoughts, let's get back to topic.

No, I do not think championships are overrated. The playoffs and finals are when the pressure is on the most. It says a lot about an athlete depending on how he responds to the pressure. It's a lot easier going through the regular season without the fear of failure, because if you fail, you will at least have another shot to redeem yourself in the next game. In the playoffs/finals every possession, at bat, etc can make or break it for your team. That's why in my opinion, in whatever sport, you see some guys plow through the regular season with crazy numbers, and fold under pressure in the playoffs, because they know there are bigger consequences to failing when it matters most.
Jun 10, 2011 5:27pm