OT - comparing championships in other sports

[BobDigital]

That story comparing Brady to other great athletes in the last 20 years got me thinking. People talk a lot about championships and comparing them across sports and positions. I think this is very tricky to do but most people just go by total numbers of rings when that is a bad idea and often unfair.

First we need to differentiate what positions in team sports have enough impact when rings can be discussed as a positive or negative. For me personally in the major 4 sports the only spots on those teams that can be held accountable for consistently falling short of the final spot are Starting Pitcher, QB, Goalie and really any position in the NBA.

However just cause I think all these positions to degree's can be held accountable does not mean they can be held equally accountable. It has to do with how much direct control an individual in that sport has over the win and loss regardless of teammates.

Here is how I rank them. BBall starter, QB, Goalie & Starting Pitcher.

It is just a point I think it made sometimes and I just never liked it when people make it simply as I think if you really want to get into it then it becomes a much more complex debate of EXACTLY how much control each person has over the win and loss in their own sport particularly at high levels.

Not to mention how each sport is built and salary is done.

 

[primetime]

I'll agree with your general thesis: using championships is generally a bad indicator for the individual achievements of any player in any team sport.

 

[VectorPrime]

Basketball is the easiest sport to string together multiple championships because one player can dominate a game, and if you have that super star, you are always heads and tails above everyone else.

Baseball is the second easiest because there is no salary cap so you can go bats**t insane with spending to keep your championship core together.

Hockey is tough.

Football is the most difficult by far

 

[Tunescribe]

If you're talking about just one game vs. a season or championship series, an ace baseball pitcher could pretty much singlehandedly control the outcome with very little help from teammates.

 

[chasa]

definitely football. everything previously stated in addition to one and done playoff format. even if you are the best team, one bad game and your season is over in an instant.

 

[NormZauchin]

I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic when the discussion was about Brady versus Manning as GOAT.
In considering all of athletics, championships are the sine qua non for individual sports. Tiger's quest to be the greatest golfer of all time will ride on whether he ever surpasses Nicklaus's 18 major championships. Though people will argue that Tiger, at his best, was more dominant than any other player in the game.
When you consider team sports, the number of players on a team matters. Basketball can be dominated by one superstar because there are only five players to a side. Football, with eleven players, is potentially the most difficult to dominate from one position. The unique position of quarterback, whose decisions control what all twenty-one other players do at the snap of the ball, somewhat offsets the sheer volume of teammates and opponents.
Bottom line: the fewer the players in the game, the greater the value of championships in determining the greatness of an individual athlete. (Not that this takes away anything from TB.)

 

[Galeb]

I'll agree with your general thesis: using championships is generally a bad indicator for the individual achievements of any player in any team sport.

Although not a great indicator in a vacuum, in football, the QB has more of an impact on the success of a team than any other position.

 

[1960Pats]

If you're talking about just one game vs. a season or championship series, an ace baseball pitcher could pretty much singlehandedly control the outcome with very little help from teammates.

Bob Gibson won 3 of the 4 games in 1967 vs the Soz, and I think there was a guy last year that did the same thing, If they can do that they can do one game easily.

 

[1960Pats]

I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic when the discussion was about Brady versus Manning as GOAT.
In considering all of athletics, championships are the sine qua non for individual sports. Tiger's quest to be the greatest golfer of all time will ride on whether he ever surpasses Nicklaus's 18 major championships. Though people will argue that Tiger, at his best, was more dominant than any other player in the game.
When you consider team sports, the number of players on a team matters. Basketball can be dominated by one superstar because there are only five players to a side. Football, with eleven players, is potentially the most difficult to dominate from one position. The unique position of quarterback, whose decisions control what all twenty-one other players do at the snap of the ball, somewhat offsets the sheer volume of teammates and opponents.
Bottom line: the fewer the players in the game, the greater the value of championships in determining the greatness of an individual athlete. (Not that this takes away anything from TB.)

IMHO golf is not a sport, it's a game. That just came up here in another thread. As for Tiger being better than Nicklaus, the proof is in the results. Nicklaus played against tougher competition and is still ahead of Tiger.

Also, the individual has the advantage over any team sport. If Tom Brady has an average team he isn't going to be as dominant. It's easier for a single game sport to produce a consistent winner just for the simple fact that he doesn't have to worry about an Asante Samuel dropping a pass or a Bill Buckner letting an easy roller go through his legs.

 

[NormZauchin]

IMHO golf is not a sport, it's a game. That just came up here in another thread. As for Tiger being better than Nicklaus, the proof is in the results. Nicklaus played against tougher competition and is still ahead of Tiger.

Also, the individual has the advantage over any team sport. If Tom Brady has an average team he isn't going to be as dominant. It's easier for a single game sport to produce a consistent winner just for the simple fact that he doesn't have to worry about an Asante Samuel dropping a pass or a Bill Buckner letting an easy roller go through his legs.

A game doesn't demand any physical activity to speak of, only mental activity. Golf does not require speed, but it does require coordination and a degree of strength. On rare occasions, as when Ken Venturi won the 1964 U.S. Open in nearly 100 degree heat, playing 36 holes on the final day, it requires endurance.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Wrote this in the other thread you mentioned:

I think when you compare the level of skill involved in football, and what it take to consistently perform as long as Brady has, I'd argue that the NFL is the most difficult environment to compete in. It's a lot harder to stay consistent when you're dealing with a strongly-enforced salary cap, injuries and lack of depth, the unpredictable nature of free agency, and constant rule changes - not to mention all the trends that have come and gone in the last 15 years since Brady has played. The playing format is also more high-stakes, since the NFL playoffs do not rely on a seven game format. So there's more pressure to succeed in individual games.

 

[Brewskies]

Football is awesome and requires a good QB. Hockey is a team sport, a goalie can win a single game all by himself but not a season or a playoff series. I personally love both football and hockey