What Defines Greatness More: Statistics or Championships?

[Little Jerry Lawler]

A hot button topic around the Bar Room has been who are some of the greatest quarterbacks of all time? Some posters have used names like Dan Marino who is arguably the best passer in football history and some have used quarterbacks like Joe Montana and John Elway who have won multiple championships.

In other sports players like Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Barry Bonds are considered to be the greatest at their position even though they have never won a championship. Others like Tim Duncan and Albert Pujols may not have the same amount of statistics but they have championships and they are highly regarded in their respective professions? So does statistics have a bigger hand in greatness than championships or vice versa.

To me it's about 60% statistics and 40% championships. Everybody remembers Joe Namath's famous Super Bowl guarantee and that alone possibly got him into the Hall of Fame but was he considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. There have been plenty of quarterbacks, hockey, baseball, and basketball players who have won championships but weren't all-time great. One of my favorite basketball players is Robert Horry and he retired with seven championships, one more than Michael Jordan. He was a role player all of his career so he isn't as looked at as fondly if he had decent statistics to back it up. There have been many great players who said that they craved for a championship but have failed to win one. The Marinos, Barkleys, and Malones have the statistics but not the championships to back them up. If they had the championships but their statistics weren't as good as their counterparts, how would we look back at their careers?

 

[Big Sexy]

I think statistics overall are definitely more important, but if it comes down to arguing one player over another and their statistics are relatively close then the number of championships should be used as sort of a tie breaker. For example, let's take three "all time great" quarterbacks Dan Marino, Terry Bradshaw, and Tom Brady. Of those three Brady is close enough statistically to Marino where I'd say he is better because of the championships, however I don't think Terry Bradshaw (who has 4 rings) is anywhere near as good as Marino.

Some of the greatest players ever have never won a championship in their sport. Guys like Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and John Stockton. Then you have guys like Tony Banks, Darko Millicic, and Mark Madsen who have won titles.

When it comes to the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL these are team sports. If your a guy like Barry Sanders who spent his entire career with the Detroit Lions then you really aren't going to get a shot to win a title no matter how good you are.

Championships are important and they definitely add a lot to your legacy, but I'll take Charles Barkley and his career over a guy like Robert Horry and his career. A lot of times it's who you have around you and not necessarily how good you are. Although Horry contributed to winning his seven titles, the main reason he won them was because of Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Kobe, Shaq, and Tim Duncan.

 

[Mr. TM]

I believe that in a lot of sports, it is statistics that define the better player. But that matters little, as the point of the game is championships. Incredible players can be on incredible bad teams. That doesn't take away from their skills, but if they aren't winning, they aren't doing what they need to do for the team.

 

[BooCocky]

Greatness for what though? Team accomplishments or individual accomplishments? It doesnt actually matter too me anyways, yes, stats get you into the HOF but so does winning four superbowls, or 3 of them whatever. Winning is what everyone wants to do. Winning is why people play the game. You work hard 365 days a year to win a championship. Yes personal accomplishments own, but they do nothing. It's like comparing Marino to Favre. Both are equally good but I believe Favre is better because he won a championship. Or it's like comparing Peyton to Marino or Elway to Marino. People with similar stats but each lack one thing. I don't really care what people say, you play to win the game, therefore it holds more weight. Therefore it defines greatness.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Being a champion is something sacred. Statistics are changing all the time. Being a champion means that during which ever time period you won it, you were the best, and had no equal. While records are always being broken or on pace to be broken. A championship is something that you can never take away from that athlete.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Greatness for what though? Team accomplishments or individual accomplishments? It doesnt actually matter too me anyways, yes, stats get you into the HOF but so does winning four superbowls, or 3 of them whatever. Winning is what everyone wants to do. Winning is why people play the game. You work hard 365 days a year to win a championship. Yes personal accomplishments own, but they do nothing. It's like comparing Marino to Favre. Both are equally good but I believe Favre is better because he won a championship. Or it's like comparing Peyton to Marino or Elway to Marino. People with similar stats but each lack one thing. I don't really care what people say, you play to win the game, therefore it holds more weight. Therefore it defines greatness.

I'm a Dolphin fan, and the greatest player in our franchise's history is easily Dan Marino. Marino oftenly get's praised for being one of the greatest quartebacks of all time, but the one thing he never won was a championship. And with Peyton Manning and Bret Favre currently breaking all of his records, he's not going to stand out as one the all-time greats, like John Elway, Joe Montana, or Troy Aikman.

 

[NSL]

I think it's statistics, as they're the true measure of one player's performance, but the championships always end up being a tie-breaker. For a long time it was "Peyton is awesome, but Brady has the jewelry", and then Peyton won one ring, and it became a more fair argument.

This is usually the base of any argument about Elway and Marino. Marino set every record in the world, but Elway had rings, so it instantly placed him one notch higher. It's all personal preference anyway. If I was starting a team tomorrow, I'd take the sure stats...

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

It's statistics, without-a-doubt. If you put up 1,800 rushing yards on an awful team for 12 years, yet never get out of the first round of the playoffs, you're still going to be one of, if not the greatest, runningbacks of all time in my book. Now, if there is Quarterback A who has very similar stats to Quarterback B, yet A has led his team to a Super Bowl while B's team has never gotten to their conference championship, you have to give A the edge. But, you can't say championships truly define greatness. Barry Sanders was an all-time great player. John Stockton is an all-time great player. What if LeBron never wins a ring? He's still a better player than Ray Allen.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I think it is an interesting question. It is nearly impossible to be considered a great player, no matter the sport, with out the stats. That is why guys like Dan Marino and John Stockton are still remembered to this day. With that said, the only thing that can take a player with average stats to greatness are championships. Joe Namath was mentioned earlier, so here are some of his career stats (from pro-football-reference.com):

• Career Record as starter: 62-63-4
• Touchdowns: 173
• Interceptions: 220
• Completion Percentage: 50.1%

As you can see, Namath was far from an elite quarterback based on his stats. But since he won a championship in one of the greatest games ever, he is remembered along with others such as Marino, Elway, and Aikman as one of the all-time greats. So while players do have to perform on the field/court/rink to prove how great they are, championships are an easy way to make some of their bad stats or years disappear.

 

[Ty Burna]

So if what you say is true Thriller, would you put Trent Dilfer in the HOF? I doubt it but looks at his stats:

Record - 58-55
Completion % - 55.5%
TD - 113
INT - 129
Yards- 20,518

His stats are just a tad better than Namath's, but no body is ever going to argue Trent Dilfer as a legit Hall of Famer. The reason why Namath is because he provided an iconic moment in NFL history by guaranteeing a victory in the Super Bowl. It helped Namath that he won a Super Bowl, but so did Dilfer.

Taking that into consideration, would you say Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino? No because Dilfer's team more or less won the Super Bowl in spite of Dilfer being the starting QB. Meanwhile the main reason why Marino's teams were in contention in the playoffs year after year was because of Marino not in spite of him. At an individual level, I can say it's about 70% stats and 30% championships, but on a team level, championships is the only thing to define greatness. I believe it is necessary to separate the two, because someone can be a great individual player and that is shown by great stats, but a team has to show greatness by it's ability to achieve championships.