Do We Place Too Much Importance on "Championships"

Do We Place Too Much Importance on "Championships"

This goes for all sports. I think championships are important "to an extent" but in some cases they should never be used to measure how great some one was or wasn't. I remember I was listening to a local sports program a couple of years back, and the radio host said that Tom Brady was better than Dan Marino, because he had superbowl rings. I laughed when he said that, because although Brady's a good player he's no where near the level of Marino. There are A LOT of reasons why certain players don't win titles in their careers, and for the most part it's usually because they weren't fortunate enough to have the right teammates. MJ won "one" playoff game before Pippen came along....as great as he was he still needed teammates. Anyways I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion to see how much emphasis you'll place on championships.

 

I used to think the same way. I just use "championships" as one of the advantages when comparing a player. If a player has the same skills and abilities then I'll go to championships. John Stockton arguably the best point guard ever in the NBA has no rings, yet he is considered one of the best PG's of all time.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If a player has the same skills and abilities then I'll go to championships.</div>

Why though? I mean one could say Montana was better than Marino, because he has rings, BUT Joe had a much better team around him (including the greatest reciever ever). Maybe we should look elsewhere when determining greatness.

 

Well, nba players, nba commentators, etc. all place a very high importance on the nba championship and rings. A great career without a ring is a sad thing to most people involved in the nba.

Only 1 team wins a championship a year. There could be 5 phenominal teams in 2025 and only one team wins a championship.

While in 2035 there could be a huge depletion of talent (who knows why), and still one team (no matter how terrible the league is) will win a championship.

There are so many factors involved that it can be really difficult to determine how valuable a player is in basketball terms, as a coach has a big impact, the other players willing to play a certain system, to be limited to certain "less glorious" roles, to help develop their teammates even at the cost of their own minutes, to take less money to get better teammates, to be friendly to teammates to just make them want to play ball with them.

 

<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why though? I mean one could say Montana was better than Marino, because he has rings, BUT Joe had a much better team around him (including the greatest reciever ever). Maybe we should look elsewhere when determining greatness.</div>

That is a great point.

 

would Jordan still be considered the greatest player of all time if he did not win a championship?

 

This is a great thread, Dream has made great points. I like the NFL allusions.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">would Jordan still be considered the greatest player of all time if he did not win a championship?</div>

probably not, there were many who criticized MJ early on his career for not being able to take his team to the promised land.

 

I also think there are way too many factors involved in winning a championship. For example, Payton and Kemp were both amazing players, but they were unlucky enough to go against one of the greatest teams of all-time in the '96 Bulls. Is it there fault for having drawn them in the Finals? I think it's a matter of luck, teammates, and most of all, MANAGEMENT. It all starts with the management's decisions. For example, many HOF type players can have amazing careers but due to thier team having incompetent managers and thus being surrounded by players that aren't that good (see A.I in Philly and KG in 'Sota), they are stuck in the mud trying to get a championship. Situations and placements shape up everything. For example, I doubt Tim Duncan would have had the luck he had (winning a championship in his second year) had it not been the Spurs who had picked him.

Championships often take YEARS to build up to (see Jordan's Bulls pre 1991, Shaq-Kobe Lakers pre-2000, 2004 Pistons after trade for Rip). Peices are organized, but something like a championship doesn't happen over night. Cores need to be kept for a long time and you often have to trust in and maintain one (or two, or even three) reliable peices in order to build a championship contender. Once you build that contender, it's just a matter of experience and execution that takes you over the hump.

 

Yes, way too much importance is placed on championshiops in team sports. One man can only do so much. Championships are a result of so much luck and timing with who you get to play with.

 

<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why though? I mean one could say Montana was better than Marino, because he has rings, BUT Joe had a much better team around him (including the greatest reciever ever). Maybe we should look elsewhere when determining greatness.</div>

I agree with you. Its stupid saying "oh Dan Marino isnt as good as Joe Montana, because Montana has a championship", while true, its not a reflection of an individuals own performance, in a team sport, it takes a team effort to win, even if Montana was instrumental in winning the championship, he could'nt have done it if his recievers wernt catching passes or if his line were letting defenders through etc.

Thats why I like to look at the stats and how an individual plays when determining how great some one is. To me Kobe Bryant is so great not because he has 3 rings, but because of the things he can do on the court. I think a greater achievement for a player is a M.V.P award, as that truely recognizes a players outstanding individual performance.

A championship is a team orientated award, it should be viewed as that and that only, it shouldnt reflect any individuals solo performance.

 

you cant judge an individual player on a TEAM sport.

 

<div class="quote_poster">MainMan Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">you cant judge an individual player on a TEAM sport.</div>

Well you can, their own personal performance, you simply cant (or shouldnt) determine their greatness on team efforts.

 

For basketball I would say yes, a lot of fans abandon their teams after they start to falter. Such as fans that liked the Bulls when Jordan was around abandoned them to follow the Lakers. Once the Lakers lost Shaq and didn't do well the next season everyone became a Detroit or Miami fan. I think we all could take a bit of influence from rugby. Where as fans actually keep their support strong for a team once they've chosen one no matter where they go to. I see it all the time and coming from the US it is rather rare.

However, I noticed most of the basketball fans on this board don't seem to switch off teams, but rather support two teams. usually one great one and one that is struggling. That's still better then switching off. What I'm trying to get to is that people don't always put entire support or care until someone wins a championship. There will always be a majority who do this, but that doesn't mean you have to follow suit. If you're young (under 17) then I wouldn't worry about that sort of thing because teens and kids aren't really ever sure who they want to support most of the time.

 

I think the reason people put so much on Championships is the fact that the whole reason people play is for a championship. That's what teams are built for, to win the title, but there are those elite that get put down for not winning a title like Stockton, Malone, and all those other studs they put down.

 

I think there is to an extent. A lot of great players out there who've got all the individual accolades you can think of (AI, Malone, Marino, Manning, Bonds, ARod) would probably all trade everything they've ever done to win a championship. Despite this, I do think there is too much put on it. A great player is a great player regardless of rings. A better question than this may be do we put too much importance on the MVP award?

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">DREAM let me give you an analogy.

Would you rather be the guy who goes on a lot of dates with girls and never experiences sex?

OR

Would you rather be the guy who doesn't date much, but when he does he gets laid?</div>You have to be a real ***** or just gay if you communicate and hang around with many different girls and don't sex with any of them.

But I think that we compare "greatness" too much of rings. Like somebody said, Horry has 4 rings ? So he's better than AI and KG.

It's a different story with MJ, tough. He made his teammates better, he carried the team to the playoffs and to the championships. Horry was just a role player who did hit many big shots.

And yes, Stockton and Malone just played in a wrong time, it was time of the GOAT then. **** happens. ;D

 

<div class="quote_poster">Flow Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You have to be a real ***** or just gay if you communicate and hang around with many different girls and don't sex with any of them.</div>Or maybe you simply have higher morals than most and would prefer to wait, cause just a thought, I do take offense to that comment cause I do have a lot of really good friends who do know a lot of females, but are completely abstinate. Just cause you wait and don't have sex with anything that walks doesn't make you gay.