Numbers or rings - What matters in American Sports?
This is probably the most popular debate in sports that will never end. Last Week, on ESPN Radio, Dan Patrick openly declared that numbers mean nothing to him, they are almost baseless and he goes only by the number of championships a player has won in his career.
I've been thinking about this rather rash statement for a while now and have finally found something to write. Historically speaking, I believe in most cases numbers go hand-in-hand with the number of rings a player has won. It's usually the numbers he puts up that takes him far and deep into the play-offs; ofcourse, there have been rare instances of exceptional athletes not wining championships.
The fundamental context for these arguments is when sports journalists sit to vote players to the Hall of Fame or when any panel discusses to come up with some sort of list of great players like the recent Hometown Heroes poll conducted by the MLB.
You usually see people echo the fact that some guys could have made it if they had a ring etc. Say, people say that Steve McNair might make it the HOF if he wins a ring by the end of his career or Bill Cowher would never be called a great coach, if he had not won the Super Bowl the past year and the same goes for Jerome Bettis. Like this there are many instances where a ring separates a player from the HOF. Not everyone is a Dan Marino for he owned most NFL records and that took him to Canton! People now talk of Peyton Manning getting there even if he does not make a Super Bowl for now he has taken over most Marino records. And, on the other flip side a common statement is Tom Brady will make it even if he stops playing today for he has 3 rings.
Now, for my take on this subject - Phil Simms opens his autobiography saying that the stats give you an indication of what a player is, but they do not tell you the full story and are not a testimony for his talents. I couldn't agree more with Simms on this. However, I do think a player is great only if he takes up responsibility and carries a team till the finish, he needs to have it in him to sustain and ward-off any pressure to fight until the end. All said and done, it does remain a fact that these rings add glamour to your career and is like a feather in your cap; jewel in your crown and more such fancier things can be said.
If it comes down to equally talented players with similar numbers, I'll go for the rings!
This is probably the most popular debate in sports that will never end. Last Week, on ESPN Radio, Dan Patrick openly declared that numbers mean nothing to him, they are almost baseless and he goes only by the number of championships a player has won in his career.
I've been thinking about this rather rash statement for a while now and have finally found something to write. Historically speaking, I believe in most cases numbers go hand-in-hand with the number of rings a player has won. It's usually the numbers he puts up that takes him far and deep into the play-offs; ofcourse, there have been rare instances of exceptional athletes not wining championships.
The fundamental context for these arguments is when sports journalists sit to vote players to the Hall of Fame or when any panel discusses to come up with some sort of list of great players like the recent Hometown Heroes poll conducted by the MLB.
You usually see people echo the fact that some guys could have made it if they had a ring etc. Say, people say that Steve McNair might make it the HOF if he wins a ring by the end of his career or Bill Cowher would never be called a great coach, if he had not won the Super Bowl the past year and the same goes for Jerome Bettis. Like this there are many instances where a ring separates a player from the HOF. Not everyone is a Dan Marino for he owned most NFL records and that took him to Canton! People now talk of Peyton Manning getting there even if he does not make a Super Bowl for now he has taken over most Marino records. And, on the other flip side a common statement is Tom Brady will make it even if he stops playing today for he has 3 rings.
Now, for my take on this subject - Phil Simms opens his autobiography saying that the stats give you an indication of what a player is, but they do not tell you the full story and are not a testimony for his talents. I couldn't agree more with Simms on this. However, I do think a player is great only if he takes up responsibility and carries a team till the finish, he needs to have it in him to sustain and ward-off any pressure to fight until the end. All said and done, it does remain a fact that these rings add glamour to your career and is like a feather in your cap; jewel in your crown and more such fancier things can be said.
If it comes down to equally talented players with similar numbers, I'll go for the rings!
posted by Varun Prasad @ 12:18 AM
3 Comments:
At 7:05 PM,
nice try said…
going by rings is something like: i think mahela is a better player than dravid because his highest test score is higher than dravids highest test score
statistics like max/rings etc tend to be statistical anomalies -- you need averages/long-term performance metrics to quantitatively and objectively evaluate something!
At 8:43 PM,
Varun Prasad said…
I agree - Cricket is a completely different ball game - I clearly state that I talk only about American Professional sports!
At 8:42 PM,
gany said…
Numbers or rings..definitely not rings..i dont think its the way..ppl still think rings are bigger...which is why a player like Robert Horry is hyped up..i definitely feel Robert Horry is over rated...i feel that numbers alone is not a clear indicator...the way you play with the team the way you lift the team and fellow players and the way you carry the team is a very important consideration...which is why I feel MJ is a better star that Kobe..
Post a Comment
<< Home