How much should the number of "rings" matter in debating a player's greatness?

C

Craig S

New member
When you're arguing about greatness, or even about who is a better player between two guys, how important is the number of titles won by that player's team? Very important, or just something that you'd use as a tiebreaker, or not at all?
 
In any team sport - rings are meaningless unless you are the bonafide star of the team. And even then it shouldn't count towards how great you are individually. There are tons of great HOF players in all team sports that have never won a championship - so does that mean that anyone on a championship team is better than them?
 
Not at all. rings are a measure of team greatness not player greatness. The guy could have a lifetime average of .250 with 85 career home runs and 500 RBIs and have 8 rings because he has been constantly been traded to world series winning teams. Meanwhile, There is a guy on lets say, the Pirates, who has 500 Career home runs with a .330 lifetime average. In my opinion, Rings have no arguement on who is the better player.

When determining a teams greatness, thats when you can use the rings arguement
 
Not a whole lot, It's a nice team accomplishment, but it really has nothing to do with an individuals greatness. I mean Luis Sojo has 3 rings and Ernie Banks won none. Is Sojo better than Banks?
 
I can't stand when people use lack of rings to support an argument. Titles are a team accomplishment. Is Craig Counsell (2 rings) better than Barry Bonds (0 rings)??? The answer is HELL NO!!
 
I don't see a ring as a symbol of an individual's greatness. A ring is a team effort. From the pinch runner to your greatest star. A team effort heck it even represents the team's organization as a whole, Its not about one person at all. At least in my opinion.
 
Very little. Championships are a nice bonus, of course, but are very much a team effort, not the product of the efforts of one player. And a list of great players who never hoisted the trophy -- by either playing before such a thing existed, or by never getting the chance, or by being denied victory when on the stage -- is studded with well-known names.

Curiously, a LACK of championships seems to influence opinions, adversely, regarding various Yankees players over the decades. Players for no other team have to put up with that.
 
I like your tiebreaker idea. Winning the World Series may show that the player was able to lead his team to victory or perform well under pressure, but that is about all. Mostly, it is a matter of playing on a good team or not.

For example, nobody could ever say that Rod Carew was not a great player, but he never won the World Series (or even got there). By contrast, Tino Martinez played five years with the Yankees (1996-2001) and won 4 rings. No disrespect to Mr. Martinez, who was a fine player, but only an idiot would say Martinez is better than HOFer Carew.

It isn't Rod Carew's fault that his teams (the Twins and Angels) never quite made it past the ALCS. Conversely, Martinez did not single-handedly win the Yankees' four titles.
 
Back
Top