The Ring Or The Plaque?

[The Brain]

There’s no I in team. The success of the team is more important than the success of the individual. While we know this is true in sports it is basic human nature to covet individual glory. I’m sure during their active careers every player on every team will tell you winning a championship is their top priority. What about later in life? How do you think a player whose career is long over feels? What’s more important, the championship ring or the three magic letters HOF? Let’s look at three examples and you tell me which the best scenario is.

Mark Grace: He had a good career. He’s nowhere near a hall of famer but he was very good and has one thing that many hall of famers don’t; a World Series ring.

Ryne Sandberg: Ryno never had the pleasure of playing in the fall classic but he had a great career. I’m sure he would love to have a ring but at least he can take pleasure in knowing he has been enshrined with the immortals in the hall of fame.

If you answered Mark Grace’s scenario is better the next one is not relevant to you. If you think Sandberg is better off than Grace take a look at one more.

Paul O’neill: Another very good player like Grace but also nowhere near a hall of famer. Like Grace though he does have a World Series ring. Unlike Grace, O’neill has five World Series rings. So if Sandberg is better off than Grace being a hall of famer instead of having one World Series ring do you think he’s better off than O’neill who has five?

I chose three baseball players as my examples but this question applies to all team sports.

 

[The Crock]

You play sports for championships, you don't play to be a Hall of Famer. Then again, being a Hall of Famer signifies you being the best in your sport, you just never got the ring. During your playing career and soon after it, I'm sure a ring means more than anything else, but years later -- it's the Hall of Fame, I'd have to think. Yeah, it probably still bothers Ryne Sandberg that he never won the World Series, but he's always going to be remembered as one of the best second basemen ever. He started playing baseball for fun and left a legacy as a Hall of Famer, that's hard to pass up.

Don't get me wrong, O'Neill has it pretty good, but he's not going to be remembered as a legend, Sandberg will. Being in the Hall of Fame is the pinnacle achievement for an athlete, you can't get any higher. I mean, take this as an example: You have Dan Marino, arguably the greatest QB ever, then you have Trent Dilfer, a Super Bowl champion. I'm sure every player envies where Marino is and while they would want to have a Super Bowl ring, they'd definitely want to be considered as the greatest ever in their respective sport.

 

[Big Sexy]

It really depends on the personality of the player. I'm sure there are some players no matter how successful their career was that would trade in their HOF spot to go back and feel what it is like to be on a championship team. There are others that will just concede to the fact that it wasn't meant to be and they will be happy knowing they were one of the best to ever play the game.

I personally, when it is all said and done, would take the HOF career over a championship ring. I'll take Marino over McMahon, Chris Carter over David Tyree, Karl Malone over Robert Horry, Barry Sanders over Ottis Anderson, etc. It all goes back to that Sandlot quote "Heroes get remembered but legends never die."

 

[Mustang Sally]

It's often hard today to pick out the guys who care about either factor named (HOF or championship) among the mercenaries who populate the games. I remember reading an article about the prospects that year of a certain baseball team. It spoke of two individual players, saying: "Both these guys should be in their salad years, but neither one will be as good as they could be because they don't really like to play. For them, baseball is just a job." To that end, it's a pleasure to think of guys who play for either glory or a team title; at least they're not in it just for the money.

A clearer picture emerges when you think of some of the old-time players. In particular, I remember reading about Johnny Podres, a member of the 1959 Los Angeles Dodgers. His team won the World Series that year, and I remember what he said when asked what he would remember most about the season. He said the important thing was the guys he played with and the things he did on the field. Not the title (which he got) and I doubt he played that year dreaming of eventual enshrinement into the Baseball Hall of Fame (which never came).

Naive or not, I want to believe most players think that way. I want them to be like soldiers in time of war; what they'll remember most in the years to come are the guys who were in the foxhole with them and how much it meant to be part of the team......not the individual glory.

The Hall of Fame is a good thing to think about when your career is over. A championship is (hopefully) on their minds while they're still playing.

 

[Davi323]

You play sports for championships

Crock just summed up my entire position in five words. Personal accolades are fantastic...but unless you win the game, they are meaningless. When you watch NFL Sunday on Fox, are Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, Jimmy Johnson and Michael Strahan talking about their stats as players/coaches, or do they love to talk about the RINGS?

Randy Moss and Terrell Owens. Two incredibly talented wide receivers. Two incredibly enormous egos who are all about themselves...Yet, I have a hard time believing that either one of them wouldn't trade in all of their stats for that Super Bowl victory that has eluded both of them. You can pass for 500 yards a game, catch 12 receptions a game, rush for 150 a game. If you don't win, what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing. You always hear about athletes who would trade stats for championships, but I have yet to hear about an athlete who would trade his championships for better stats. I do think Crock is wrong about Marino/Dilfer though. I think more athletes would rather have what Dilfer has than what Marino has. The Hall of Fame is great, but for an athlete playing in a team sport, its a consolation prize. Some are lucky, and get both the ring and the HOF. But if it came down to an either/or situation, I think most would opt for the ring. It's great that Dan Marino has all those passing yards. I loved him as a player, and I am glad he is in the HOF...but, whenever the debate rages over who the best QB is, all you have to do end the arguments is say that Montana has three rings. There isn't much of a comeback to that. While Elway was busy having a HOF career, what was the knock on him? He was 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Elway's career, up until the final two years, was defined by his lack of Super Bowl titles, not by how many yards he threw for, how many touchdowns he scored, how many 4th quarter comebacks he had. It was always "Great player, but he hasn't won the big one". It was only after he finally won the Super Bowl that he brushed the monkey off of his shoulder. Jim Kelly went 0-4 in the Super Bowl...you think he wouldn't trade a few thousand yards and a couple of season's worth of touchdowns to have made that 1-3 instead? When Kobe Bryant gets compared to Michael Jordan, it's not about the points scored, its always a ring count. Jordan has six, how many does Kobe have? Nobody cares how many points LeBron scores for his career, he will be defined by whether he wins the NBA Championship multiple times or not. Why is Derek Jeter so popular with Yankees fans? It's not because of his batting average or fielding, it's how many World Series titles he helped bring to New York.

To quote Herm Edwards:

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

I guess it depends on the circumstances but in most cases I would say the Plaque. While winning championships is obviously important I think showing that you were one of the very best to ever do your profession is more important and being in the HOF shows that. You can't really control what your teammates do but you can control what you do.

But with that said if the choice is between being a very good player but not a HOFer and winning a ring(like a Grace), vs. being a marginal HOF and not winning a ring(like say Jim Rice) then I'd probably go with the ring. But if the choice is between being a below average player that wins rings like say a Steve Kerr in basketball vs. being an all time great that doesn't win a ring like Karl Malone than I'd say the plaque.