Does judging players by the number of "rings" really make any sense?

Question

Reading through Frizzer's thread about Alex being underpaid, I saw a couple of references to the fact that he has no rings (ie. championships). Given that baseball is more team-based than any of the other major sports, does this measurement make any sense?

Ty Cobb never won a ring. Neither did Ted Williams. Does that really tarnish their greatness, or how they should be judged if they were still signing contracts? Would anyone really place more a premium on guys just for being on a winning team like Luis Sojo or Johnny Murphy?

It just seems that using "rings" as a judgment in baseball is illogical, based on the nature of the sport.

Chris - By the "team" concept, I meant that one player can't carry a team to success. I completely agree about football, where you need those 11 guys all performing for the play to work. However, I completely disagree about the ring thing - how are you judging that Alex isn't a winner, just because he hasn't won a World Series? I don't think anyone can show that he is THE reason for not winning. I don't have a problem with your "tiebreaker" theory, but I completely disagree that "winners win" in baseball. There are just way too many other factors involved.

Answer 1

Sure, if one also buys into the horseshit that an MVP can only come from a postseason (or contending) team. It sounds right at first blush, but so do things like "War On Drugs" because, y'know, who is going to come out in favor of? But such a notion quickly withers under the simplest critical scrutiny -- and it really amounts to penalizing great players for having lesser teammates, who weren't enough to get the job done.

I greatly dislike those analytical approaches (at least, taking that sort of approach and pretending it has meaning; by itself, it's just a scorecard) and will neither encourage nor endorse such reckless and gleefully ignorant arguments. It is trash analysis. Of course, for many fen, that's more than good enough, as long as their bragging rights are maintained.

Answer 2

Let's say that it is whoppingly over rated. Cobb and Williams are just 2 of MANY good examples of players who did not win rings. People forget sometimes that baseball is a team game. There is only so much a Cobb or a Williams or an Alex Rodriguez can do. Especially in a short post season series it is quite silly to point out that so and so chokes. In any given short series a bench player may look like Cobb and a Cobb may look woeful. That IS part of baseball.

However, when comparing two highly similar players from approximately the same time period, the post season performance of one over the other might be used as a tie breaker. Even then, the actual winning of the ring itself is questionable.


(Gene Michaels played a series like Ty Cobb once and Dave Winfield went 1 for 20 something. Go figure.)

Answer 3

Don Mattingly was never less than the consummate professional. Before his back went bad, he had some truly outstanding seasons with the bat. He would have been a credit and an asset to any team. Was he a "loser" because he doesn't have any rings? One man on a baseball team can only do so much. The great Willie Mays has a grand total of 1 WS ring to his credit; ditto Walter Johnson. Another poster mentioned Ty Cobb and Ted Williams-NO rings. That should answer the question for you right there.

Answer 4

In regards to the team issue, eveyone on a team needs to perform, but in baseball your star player has the least impact on a team than any other sport.

In football the QB touches the ball every play, the RB touches it 20-25 times, in basketball your star player takes 15-20 shots per game etc. In base ball you get up 4-5 times a game. You do not have the same opportunities to be a bigger impact.

In the case of rings I think it has to be loooked at the context of should the player have been able to deliver a ring with the teams he had. And a lot goes into that, draft, free agency, how the team operates. IMO Alex should have a ring by now.

But if you are drafted by the Royals do you honestly think you have the same chance of helping to deliver a ring as someone drafted by the Yankees or RedSox. You dont even have a chance to deliver the same stats with inferior line ups.

So it should be mentioned in conversation but not the determining factor.

Answer 5

I think judging a player by the number of rings is LUDICROUS! A player could be an average player and get five rings shearly because he was drafted by a team that had a great record. It takes a good pitching staff to win the WS so a position player that goes his entire career putting up ridiculous numbers but be stuck on a team that gives up 7 runs a game routinely. Bonds is a prime example, they rarely have put a good pitching staff together in San Francisco but you can not diminsh his accomplishments because he has not had a good pitchign staff to keep him in contention. If he were hitting for all nine players int he line-up and pitchign the entire game then you can blame him for not winning a title. How many Hall of Fame players were key players for the White Sox winning the WS a few years back? I would have to say none. There is an element of team aspect in baseball in the team concept of when to hit and run, when to hit the cut off man or when to thrown directly to the base but all in all it is a pretty individual game masked within the team.

Answer 6

This is true. A-Rod could possibly go down as the greatest baseball player, EVER, regardless of # of championships. And I'm not saying that cuz I'm a Yankees fan or an A-Rod fan, just by his body of work, his numbers (barring injury) will far surpass the Babe, Bonds, Aaron, and everybody else whose up for the discussion. It's not just home runs either. He has the best all around game I've seen since (of all people) Barry Bonds, hitting, baserunning and fielding.

But the Yanks themselves have proved its a two-sided game. We had the lineup to win it all, but not the pitching. That's not A-Rod's fault. It was the same in Texas, that team has always been able to hit but they've never put together a winning rotation.

Personally, I think the number of rings is really a testament to the management. Obviously, Joe Torre is a better manager than Grady Little because of his post-season resume but the statement should be "Steinbrenner--with a bit of fire and brimstone--did everything within his power to obtain multiple championships and most owners or GM's have not"

Answer 7

It's tough to say... Williams was a victim of being loyal to a franchise which was unwilling to hire black players and during his prime probably cost them a championship. He also was in WWII for 3 years in his prime also. Cobb on the other hand was a jerk and players on his own team hated him so I don't feel sorry for him at all.

Moving on to A-Rod the problem that exists is Salary (outside of Boston & NY). By a team like the Angels signing A-Rod for hypothetically 30mil/year it takes up potentially accounts for 1/5th of their team salary (generous guess). Therefore, to maintain their salary restrictions they'd have to sign less than premier players at other positions like SP's and Utility players. Hence you have a strong player who's influence actually makes the team weaker.

A-Rod, regardless of whether he wins a ring or not will go down as one of the greatest players in the history of baseball. But without the championship ring his record will be forever tarnished. Just like Williams and Cobb.

Answer 8

Baseball is a TEAM sport and your success is only as good as the total performance of the entire team. In the playoffs Yankee pitching was terrible, Matsui batted .182, Posada .133, and Jeter .176 with 3 crucial double plays, while A-Rod batted .267. Yet people blame A-Rod for the loss. Nonsense!

Answer 9

To some extent it does. True, many great ballplayers do not make it to the WS and do not get the chance to win a ring. And it's just as true that one player cant make or break a team during the season. But when you compare guys who do have rings, you have to consider the fact that when he DOES get to the WS, he helped the team win it. Does that mean other guys shouldnt get into the HOF or are not as good? Of course not. WS rings are just one of the many factors that a writer may consider when voting for or a player for the HOF. It certainly should not be the only one.

Answer 10

I will dissect your question one point at a time. First, baseball is NOT the most team sport out there. Football is (even though I hate football). Baseball is the only sport w/ 1 on 1 matchups (pitcher/hitter). Therefore it is less of a team sport than most other sports.

Second, winning a ring is very important because it proves your a winner, you can handle pressure, and "winners" generally become known as better team players than "superstars" are. Stars look out for #1 while winners look out for the team first and the # of rings is a way of judging that. However, a winner can play on a terrible team his whole life (ie: Banks). It doesn't mean they aren't great.

Now to the point. Your question was asked based upon Frizzer's thread. I was on of the people with whom you read my point about rings. That thread was based on A-Rod and A-Rod played on a good team and still lost. Comparing him to Banks isn't fair for your arguement/question. One would argue Banks + Yankees = Ring.

I don't think anyone intended to use rings as the end all be all of greatness, but when comparing like players it certainly is a tie breaker. In A-Rod's case it is a glaring weakness as the greater a player is the more he is supposed to have a ring. Winners win for a reason, and losers lose for a reason. I'll take Sojo on my team anyday because he gets it done. A-Rod has yet to prove it when it matters, and when it matters is ALL that matters when it comes to this particular discussion.