- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
In your opinion, how important are championships to a team-sport players legacy?
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:28 pm
Does a lack of championships (or a very small # of them) stop someone from being an all-time great at their position? Dan Marino for example, put up passing yards that just blew every one of his peers out of the water. But he never won a super bowl. How does that affect his legacy? Wilt won two championships despite putting up the gaudiest numbers in almost every statistical category during his career. Please discuss.
13
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:30 pm to gorillacoco
Peyton -- very important
Eli -- irrelevant
Eli -- irrelevant
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:31 pm to gorillacoco
Pretty much zero in team sports unless you're a NBA player.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:34 pm to gorillacoco
i think if you are the guy, you need to win one. i can care less about how many but i do believe at least one championship is important for a legacy
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:38 pm to Bench McElroy
for some reason in baseball it doesn't seem to ever get brought up. I never hear people mention that Griffey didn't win a world series when discussing his legacy.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:46 pm to gorillacoco
A lack of championships certainly never helps anyone, but winning one oriltiple can prop up a player to be remember as better than he might be while not necesarily taking away anything from those who never win one.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 5:49 pm to Sevendust912
quote:
for some reason in baseball it doesn't seem to ever get brought up. I never hear people mention that Griffey didn't win a world series when discussing his legacy.
That's because one baseball player has a very limited impact on the success of a team. If you're a position player, you only get three or four plate appearances out of 30+ plate appearances over the course of a game. What can a position player do to make a terrible team good when they never get more than 14% of a team's at bats during a game? If LeBron James was allowed to touch the ball only five more times during a game than any of his teammates, his impact would be greatly curbed as well.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:40 pm to Bench McElroy
Championships are really important for basketball players and quarterbacks. With basketball there are only five starters and they play offense and defense. QB touches the ball on almost every offensive play for a football team. B/c of that elite players are expected to be able to carry their teams to the championship.
Baseball, hockey, and non-qb football players just don't have as much ability to affect the outcome of a game, so championships are not as important to their legacies.
That being said, coming up clutch in big situations and helping a team win a championship will always bolster a player's legacy, it is just that the championships are not essential.
Baseball, hockey, and non-qb football players just don't have as much ability to affect the outcome of a game, so championships are not as important to their legacies.
That being said, coming up clutch in big situations and helping a team win a championship will always bolster a player's legacy, it is just that the championships are not essential.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 6:54 pm to gorillacoco
quote:
Does a lack of championships (or a very small # of them) stop someone from being an all-time great at their position? Dan Marino for example, put up passing yards that just blew every one of his peers out of the water. But he never won a super bowl. How does that affect his legacy? Wilt won two championships despite putting up the gaudiest numbers in almost every statistical category during his career. Please discuss.
It depends.. Wilt was stopped by A TEAM from winning any more titles than he did... Marino was on A TEAM that didn't win any titles... Marino was one of the best ever.. What he did in 1984 was unheard of at the time...Those #'s are regular today... This is what makes what Tiger in the early 2000's so amazing... An individual sport.. No defense and nobody to stop him.... Joe Montana was great, But how many other qb's could have won those SB'S with all that talent and an amazing Head coach.....
Pistol Pete was on losing teams all the time... What he did scoring wise is one of the most impressive feats in sports history and his legacy has never been in doubt......
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:01 pm to dukke v
You must fall on the Peyton>Brady side of the argument if you're asking that.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:11 pm to VAvolfan
quote:
You must fall on the Peyton>Brady side of the argument if you're asking that.
IMO there is no answer to this between Brady/Manning... Brady is really good. He makes wr's great that nobody has ever heard of.. Manning IMO had more talent for more years than Brady did... Manning ahs been to 3 sb's and his TEAM got beat twice... Brady has been to a bunch of Sb's BUT has one of the greatest coaches in history... Brady's BEST team lost to a wild Card team that got hot at the right time, that they beat just 4 weeks eairliar....... Now stats are skewed in todays game from back in the day.....
But IMO overall Brady>>> Manning...
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:20 pm to dukke v
quote:
But IMO overall Brady>>> Manning...
I agree. All you have to look at is playoff stats. One performs well when the competition gets turned up. The other folds like a cheap lawn chair.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:41 pm to gorillacoco
Why isn't Sam Sneed considered the greatest golfer ever? He has the most victories...
Only 4-5 majors and no U.S. Open.
Why are Tiger and Jack 1/1a?
14 and 79
18 and 73
Championships matter.
Agree with comments regarding baseball position players and non QB football players. They are controlling what they can with thier individual performance.
Only 4-5 majors and no U.S. Open.
Why are Tiger and Jack 1/1a?
14 and 79
18 and 73
Championships matter.
Agree with comments regarding baseball position players and non QB football players. They are controlling what they can with thier individual performance.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:45 pm to Sevendust912
quote:
for some reason in baseball it doesn't seem to ever get brought up. I never hear people mention that Griffey didn't win a world series when discussing his legacy.
because it shouldn't get brought up in a sport like baseball
Posted on 1/6/16 at 7:47 pm to VAvolfan
quote:
All you have to look at is playoff stats. One performs well when the competition gets turned up
Yes. To A point... Brady in the SB was decent but his teams never won by more than three I believe.. Winning is important, But AGAIN Brady had the benefit of a hof coach while Maninng didn't..
Posted on 1/6/16 at 8:29 pm to dukke v
quote:
Brady had the benefit of a hof coach while Maninng didn't..
Tony Dungy, deserving or not, will go in the HOF; he's a finalist this year again, I think I saw in September.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 8:38 pm to gorillacoco
It's about equal importance as playing in a large market. In other words very important.
Posted on 1/6/16 at 8:44 pm to lsufball19
There's no legit argument that I know that it should get brought up in a sport like football either imo. It's a weak argument. Baseball is no more a team sport than football. I think there's a good argument that football is even more of a team sport than baseball. Individuals can't win championships in either sports.
I would guess that the only reason that it's done is that statistically it is easier to separate a player's individual performance from the rest of the team in baseball. In football individual stats can be so unreliable that you don't have much else to go off of than team stats.
I would guess that the only reason that it's done is that statistically it is easier to separate a player's individual performance from the rest of the team in baseball. In football individual stats can be so unreliable that you don't have much else to go off of than team stats.
This post was edited on 1/6/16 at 8:47 pm
Posted on 1/7/16 at 12:37 am to Peazey
In football, championships should have zero effect on legacy.
In basketball, they should be a small part of the larger conversation and not some de facto argumentative trump card.
Baseball sucks.
I don't know anything about hockey.
Championships are important in tennis.
In basketball, they should be a small part of the larger conversation and not some de facto argumentative trump card.
Baseball sucks.
I don't know anything about hockey.
Championships are important in tennis.
Posted on 1/7/16 at 12:40 am to GumBro Jackson
quote:
Championships are really important for basketball players and quarterbacks.
They shouldn't be important for QBs. The only reason they are is the mass proliferation of lazy arguments.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News