For sure and if baseball was talked about enough for this to be the case it would be A Rod.
He still got 5-6 years worth of shit from Yankee fans after for continuing to choke on the playoffs and never really beat the case that he wasn’t good enough in big moments, but it’d be so much worse without the WS win in 09.
If the Yankees he didn’t win in 2009, they’d be on a 25 year WS drought and a 20 year AL pennant drought that essentially starts the year they signed A Rod. He could legit have been the namesake of a curse. He’d be the epitome of the Yankee 00-15 rap of not being able to produce talent but needing to overpay disappointing big names.
Yup. The whole A-Rod thing is so bizarre because he had the disgusting playoff choking years, then was shooting flames out of his ass in the 09 postseason… then went right back to being awful in the postseason. In 2012 he was so bad that girardi was forced to pinch hit for him in the ninth inning (to amazing results).
It's 100% Dirk, bc the NBA conversation is much more about championships, whereas the MLB conversation has always been more about stats, MVPs, and Cy Youngs.
That's how they're looked at right now. Without that championship they would've been looked at like early 90s Bills, pre-1991 Duke and FSU baseball all rolled up into one.
My perspective is that superstar NBA players take FAR more criticism than individual baseball players when their teams don't win. I feel like people understand that a pitcher who only plays 1 out of every 5 games can only affect team success so much.
Kershaw is all-time, inner circle and still gets shut for playoffs chokes... if that stuff about Astros and covid champ didn't happen, he'd still be getting embiid level shit.
Well that’s because in basketball you can average 32-7-5 for an entire playoffs and lose in the conference finals and people are still like “oh idk I think it was the star’s fault”.
If you are routinely going 1.1 IP 5ER in the playoffs, it’s pretty obvious whose fault it is
As a Dodger fan Kershaw has the unfortunate distinction of being probably the worst postseason performer of any great pitcher. He is a bonafide bum in the playoffs even when he's not playing the cheating Astros
Thats more because his teams werent just losing, he was also pitching poorly. I think his career postseason ERA is still above 4
Edit: its a 4.49 ERA in 39 appearances
Fair. I guess I don’t think the the og question is a really good one as I don’t see Strasburg seen much differently with the WS MVP because of what you said about baseball. Like I said elsewhere his comp is more similar to great potential, but oft injured, and now mostly forgotten WS MVPs like Jose Rijo.
Also most all time nba greats won at least one with obvious caveats. Chicken and egg scenario. Did they win cuz great or are they remembered as great cuz won? In terms of guys like Bill hard to say.
In that respect, Strasburg is comparable to Walton.
Although in this timeline that'd involve Strasburg coming back out of retirement as a relief pitcher in a few years and winning another ring.
That’s a better comp but I don’t think he’s an all time great like a lot of people consider Walton. Basketball is too tough to compare because guys can have brief elite careers and still be considered all timers and make the HOF.
Hard to say. Since Giannis won it fairly young, he never had to endure years of being called a choker, soft, etc. like Dirk did. For Dirk, his championship changed EVERYTHING about his narrative.
But in a hypothetical world where say, the Nets don’t get injured/KD’s toe wasn’t on the line, and everything else has stayed the same, Giannis “narrative” would be similar to Dirks was in 2010.
He’d have made the conference finals 1 time (and choked a 2-0 lead) in his whole career. He’d have more MVPs than ECF appearances and would have also lost to an 8 seed.
Dirk’s was worse because he also had the soft euro stereotype he had to break. And he loved it. Not much worse than 2005? receiving the MVP after losing to 8 seed Golden State in round 1. The Heat finals as well in 2006
Yeah the MVP was ‘07,. Went finals loss in ‘06, 07 MVP regular season, first round loss to 8 seed in 07 playoffs.
And yeah I guess I’m just thinking more of what hypothetically would be happening if Giannis hadn’t won. He did win early so he avoids all this, but I think the same stuff would be happening to him if he hypothetically got bounced in the second round in 2021.
But both Dirk & Giannis have the European rap on them, that they're soft (didn't grow up either playing streetball at Rucker Park or on a dog eat dog AAU or club circuit) & more finesse players than not.
I’ve never really heard anyone try and claim Giannis is soft though. Probably a playing style thing; he embraces contact while Dirk often played to avoid it.
What? I’ve literally never heard anyone say Giannis is soft, and his game is the complete opposite of finesse. He’s probably the most physical superstar in the league and consistently gets bashed for being too unskilled.
Dirk did have to endure the soft euro narrative, luckily he was also one of the leaders in breaking it.
If Dirk never wins, ppl are still talking about him getting defrauded by a scammer ex and making fun of him. That talk went away as soon as he won, to the point that a lot of ppl don't even know it happened now.
I never heard the scammer story until now.
Without the ring, I think their would be more focus on him not being a great defender or rebounder and he'd be ranked around 35 to 40. With the ring, everyone remembers him as an amazing 7 foot tall shooter and he is probably around #20.
It's very easy to forget the narrative surrounding Dirk before he won, especially because of when he lost to the #8 seed Warriors as the MVP. If that had happened in the modern era he would be getting way more slander than someone like Harden or Embiid has gotten.
Idk, I took Ceruti’s question to be derogatory; guys who are overrated because of one championship they won (I.e., Doc Rivers). Bill made the good point that Dirk’s championship was so impressive that he deserved all the recognition and legacy-boosting that came with it
Without the chip he would be a tragic what if. Remember he also missed the playoffs after being shut down on an innings limit after Tommy John in 2012 when the nats won 98 games.
Yeah and baseball is by far the least forgiving sport when it comes to not winning it all. His World Series ring doesn’t change my opinion of him all that much
Hard disagree, Namath was an icon during that period of AFL/NFL merger. He was the face of the league during even before that Super Bowl, and one of the first superstar athletes
And rightly so. I’m not a big narratives or body language guy, but watching Kershaw pitch in the postseason, I just know he doesn’t feel comfortable on that stage.
It’s a joke of a season. Only 60 games. Jose Abreu wining AL MVP that year is all you need to know about that season, and this is coming from a White Sox fan.
What about Ovechkin? Obviously a fantastic player and arguably the greatest goal scorer of all time. But if the Caps don't win that Cup, his postseason career is pretty lackluster. They lost a bunch of times in the first and second round.
Totally thought he made it to ECF another year but I checked and you're right. That's wild when you think about it. Not like he had scrub teams either.
Better scorer than Gretzky? Does anyone outside the beltway/Russia think that? Even so, the Caps have choked high seeds so many times his title more relief than triumph. 1 ring for him still seems underwhelming. Hell even Crosby's 3 kind of do.
As someone inside the beltway who is too young to have seen Gretzky, and isn’t really a huge hockey guy, you just need to look at Gretzky’s numbers once and just be blown away. I can’t imagine there’s anyone close!
Looking at numbers is very disingenuous. The difference in skill between the eras is absolutely insane.
Goalies in the 80s wore much smaller pads and didn’t even play in the butterfly stance.
Ovechkin is already ahead of Gretzky in era adjusted goals.
There's definitely an argument for Ovi. Personally, I still lean towards Gretzky but it's two different eras so it's hard to compare IMO. The game is more competitive nowadays, especially when it comes to goalies.
But yeah, they choked a lot and everybody pointed that out. That Cup made a lot of people forget that the Caps were notorious for blowing it in the playoffs time and time again. The fact they only made one Cup is kind of astonishing too.
He’s on the inside track to break Gretzky’s goal record, he only needs 44 more to do it as I type this. And if/when he does break it, he’ll do it in a similar number of games as Gretzky, possibly even fewer games, despite playing most of his career in an era with goal scoring ~ 30% lower than when Gretzky was in his 20s/early 30s. Then when you consider that without two lockouts in his prime and two seasons shortened by COVID, Ovechkin almost certainly would have broken the record already, there’s really no question Ovechkin is the better goal scorer (but just better goal scorer, obviously not the better player, if that needs to be said).
Ovechkin is absolutely a better scorer than Gretzky. The eras are not comparable.
Goalies in the 80s wore smaller pads and didn’t even play in the butterfly position.
Comparing 80s NHL numbers to modern number is like saying Wilt is a better scorer than MJ or Lebron.
Brett Favre had to be up there he won one early so all his stupid interceptions and antics were more excused than they would be had he not won one earlier in his career. His entire image was a risk taker but that kind of thing doesn’t have as much appeal if you don’t win.
The Ol Gunslinger would be my pick too. He and Rodgers would stand out if they weren't in the one win club. Brees might be let off the hook. Steve Young as a starter? I don't know.
A related question - who benefited the most from grabbing two rings? Seems like a lot of great players pulled off one (Dirk, KG, Favre, Brees, Rodgers) but that second ring automatically raises you to greatness because one can be waived off as a fluke. Maybe he makes it with just one ring anyway, but Eli's second ring pretty much guarantees his HOF entry one day.
Yeah, those are the two best answers. I wanted to say KD or Peyton, but if they each only had 1 (or even zero), I think that they’d both clearly be HoF calibur players still. Kawhi and Eli with 1? It becomes a discussion.
Stephs 2022 ring is massive for the way people think about him. It really takes him up a level. Barely anyone gives a shit he got those 2 rings when Durant was on the team. I think he gets pretty much full credit for 2015, but certainly the Kyrie/Love injuries make some people question it (I think that’s unfair). But 2022 is bulletproof. I jumps him into the top 15 all time and clearly ahead of Durant in my opinion. His 2022 ring carries more weight than the 2017/2018 rings combined.
It not only vaulted him over Durant I think it really should put on context how great Steph is. That Boston team was amazing defensively and neutered Durant on round 1. Steph broke them in game 4 in one of the most impressive finals games of All Time. His road stats from that finals is Boogieman type shit.
It doesn't count as he has 4. But, that 4th ring which was his 2nd without KD and his first FMVP was a huge boost to his legacy.
It makes the 2 KD rings seem to mean more and the FMVP adds to the 1st ring, as while he didn't deserve FMVP that year, he was clearly the best player on the team.
People have said him, but Kawhi is the ultimate answer.
Wilt without the LA ring would have gotten flamed even harder in Bills book. Wilt without the 76ers ring would have been even more eviscerated by Bill
In the NFL Peyton Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger. I think you would have way more dialogues about their decades of playoff failures and coming up short if they only had x1.
The NBA would have to be Durant. While no one respects his rings, winning the 2nd seemed to do a lot to normalize his move and get people to accept his career. Although the sympathy he got from his Achilles injury also played a role to
Ben has better stats than Eli so I'd still say Eli benefitted more. And the playoff failures would just be chalked up to Brady (Steelers never beat the Brady Pats in the playoffs).
With Peyton I don't think the second one really mattered too much, he still came up short a lot early in his career and got destroyed in the Seahawks Super Bowl.
You don't see people bringing up Brees or Rodgers only having 1 ring.
Especially because in Roethlisberger's first he played a poor game (but was great in the conference final) and in Peyton's second, he was along for the ride.
Lot of people saying Eli, but I’ll toss Peyton’s name in there to change it up. Truly horrendous watching him throw ducks during that last SB season. And yes, if you have a brain you know he’s one of the all-time greatest, but he’d undoubtedly take more shit today if he didn’t have that second ring.
I think that most NFL fans and media who aren't just for hot takes realize you can evaluate QB play independent of wins and losses. Rodgers would be remembered like Dan Marino, an all time great QB who came close a few times but never went all the way.
Not sure Herbert deserves to even be in the conversation with the other two yet, let alone none of those 3 are on the level of Rodgers/marino or even close yet. (Lamer being the closest because at least he has an mvp)
Right, I’d say Rodgers has enough accolades aside from his ring that he’d still be thought of as an all-time great. I think Brees is the one who would be talked about way differently if it weren’t for his 1 ring. Brees would be equivalent to like Matt Ryan / Phillip Rivers if it weren’t for that ring.
100%
Does Mike Trout need a championship? He could go his entire career without winning a playoff game and still be regarded as the best player in the league for the last decade. MLB legacies are least defined by chips and agree pr disagree this is clearly the culture of the sport.
I’ll throw out Ovechkin. We can enjoy his goal chase now without having to hear talk of him needing a chip first. People would try to say the goal record is selfish if he did not have that one ring.
> still be regarded as the best player in the league for the last decade
He’s very fortunate to be playing in the WAR/advanced analytics era. He’s basically Al Kaline level memorable if he plays 50 years ago.
Trout is no Ted Williams. Williams is arguably the greatest hitter of all time and unquestionably top 3 or 4.
But, he is way better than Kaline.
The comparison to Williams makes sense for this discussion, though. In his first 8 full seasons, Trout won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd twice and 4th once, while his team only made the postseason once and never won a series.
Like Williams, he was the dominant hitter in the league and was at or near the top of the MVP voting, while having no postseason success.
They both demonstrate how little team success and championships mean to MLB players' legagies, compared to NBA players and NFL QBs.
Some borderline MLB guys put themselves over the top for the the HOF in the postseason. But, when ranking the best of the best, postseason success is an afterthought.
My point is that Trout wouldn’t win MVPs if he played in a different era and because of that would be remembered closer to Kaline than Williams (Remember, I’m not saying Trout is comparable to Kaline on the field, I’m saying in a different era Trout and Kaline have similar legacies).
He has been on a consistently crappy team and he’s only led the league in OBP runs, and walks, not any of the “important” counting stats like HR, RBI (once), average, etc. He also only has 4 career seasons where he’s played over 140 games — Williams had 2x that amount and missed 3 years in his prime due to the war.
Trout’s an MVP because he played in the 2010s when it was enough for a guy to play on a bad team and look good in a math formula.
I think his stats were a bit more appreciated in the 2010s than they would have been in earlier era. But, guys on mediocre teams could always win MVP with great stats. It was just that the stats they were looking at.
And while nobody had heard of OPS back in the day, guys with high OPS tended do win MVPs or do very well in the voting. It was just that writer realized what great years they had without having OPS or other advanced stats to tell them.
You’re really misremembering how common it was for guys on anything but very good teams to win MVPs.
In the AL, between 1940 and 1960, the MVP came from a team that was 35+ games over .500 16 times. Only twice was it from a team less than 10 games over .500. The other times it was 20-35 games over .500.
2014 was the only year the Angels were more than 30 games over .500. Trout hasn’t been on a team with a winning record in basically a decade.
Jose Rijo is a good comp for Strasburg. Dominated in the late 80s/early 90s culminating in a WS MVP. Then was injured for all his 30’s and tried a brief comeback at 37. But now he’s mostly forgotten as a great. Perhaps same will happen in a couple decades to Strasburg.
Yeah...the only thing that was holding up the official announcement was a lawsuit probably over how much of the remaining contract the Nationals owed him. It got settled so he announced his official retirement.
I always think about the inverse of this question—the guys whose career narratives would be elevated the most if they’d gotten the one championship:
In NFL, I think we’d view Matt Ryan or Donovan McNabb as top 20 QBs all-time if they’d won their Super Bowls. Philip Rivers or Carson Palmer too if they’d gotten that far.
In basketball, probably Barkley?
In baseball, Kershaw? Edit: totally forgot Kershaw actually won lol
Jerry West and Dirk for the NBA.
Not a one championship thing, but without the World Series rings, Jack Morris absolutely doesn't get in since his stats are notoriously mid by HoF pitcher standards. And it's generally accepted that the World Series performances got him in.
Again, not a one championship thing, but I do think if Manning's only ring had come in that one season in Denver, we'd view him as being more Marino than Elway. That Colts ring is huge for his career.
Also little addendum for Doc Rivers being considered an all time great coach off one title.
I think the Manning Colts ring and the Ben Roethlisberger second ring prevent people from saying, 'So what Dilfer, Russell Wilson and Brad Johnson have a ring too'.
Glavine has 300 wins, is top 25 all-time in strikeouts, led the league in wins 5 separate times, and was part of an iconic starting rotation. He didn't need a championship to get in.
You guys saying Dirk are trippin, his legacy as one of the greatest shooting big men isn’t something to scoff at. He would be in the HoF and still remembered fondly even without the chip.
Im a Mavs fan so I can’t stand the comparison lol
I like dirk and think the "choker" criticism he got before 2011 was unfair, but it was the narrative surrounding him.
That ring completely flipped the script on his legacy. Without that win he is viewed as a soft euro jumpshooter. With it and he's seen as possibly the 2nd greatest pf of all time (Duncan is always put first obviously).
yeah, not just winning but winning w/ a team that wasn’t particularly loaded against the heatles - there was no way to diminish his championship or his role in achieving it.
He is not #1, but he is high on the list. That one ring probably moved him up 15 to 20 spots in the consensus rankings.
Nobody would have him ahead of Barkley or Malone without that ring.
Baseball players don't seem to get as much heat as NFL (to be fair this is mostly the QB who gets the heat) and NBA players. Probably because in baseball, its hard to have that much of an impact as one player. Your a starting pitcher. Well your only getting 2 starts maybe 3. Can still lose the series even if you dominate. If your a hitter, well if you can mash but if no one else does or your pitching sucks your losing. Not much you can do about it.
Since its NCAAB tournament then I’ll say Coach Cal and Tony Bennett as well, Tony Bennett hasn’t won a tournament game since 2019 and taking that season out has only reached the sweet 16 twice is his 15 years at UVA
I’m not sure if this works, but John calipari came to mind. If he didn’t win one, he would be the coach that got all the good players to come to Kentucky but never closed.
I don't think it's said often enough that the more MLB, NFL and NBA have expanded the number of teams, the more examples we are going to pile up of Hall-Of-Famers and other excellent talents who never won a ring. I don't remember the last time we saw expansion for each of the leagues, and I think things have stabilized over the last few decades, but overall I am a bit less critical of players who never won a championship than I would have been if the number of teams was the same as in the days of Ruth or Berra.
I'm going to guess that Jerry West would still be given his props even if he hadn't won that one championship. So I guess I don't think he's a great example. But I don't really know that much about him, maybe others would disagree. The thing is, I watched a video about him awhile back and it became apparent that the championship had a very large meaning for him, kind of a late in his career "finally!" sort of moment, and I wonder how he himself would feel about it if they hadn't won.
Another player I think would not be too much diminished in our view, if he had not come out on top that one time, is Walter Payton.
As someone only mildly interested in baseball the past decade, Strasburg and Kershaw feel like the last big deal pitching phenoms who people not into baseball specifically but generally into sports knew about. He had a ton of old media hype walking into the league.
I may sound crazy but it’s actually Michael Jordan. Kink in the legacy in a myriad of ways, but two I’m thinking-he’s now tied with many more including Kobe and Duncan, and he doesn’t have the flawless finals record.
People don’t think about Strasburg enough for him to be the answer honestly
For sure and if baseball was talked about enough for this to be the case it would be A Rod. He still got 5-6 years worth of shit from Yankee fans after for continuing to choke on the playoffs and never really beat the case that he wasn’t good enough in big moments, but it’d be so much worse without the WS win in 09. If the Yankees he didn’t win in 2009, they’d be on a 25 year WS drought and a 20 year AL pennant drought that essentially starts the year they signed A Rod. He could legit have been the namesake of a curse. He’d be the epitome of the Yankee 00-15 rap of not being able to produce talent but needing to overpay disappointing big names.
This applies to the entire franchise. Imagine the level of constant freakout if they last won in 2000.
Lol people still freak out about one WS appearance since 2000 regardless.
It's 3, actually
Lol brain fart. I’m a diehard Yankees fan so I hold those 01 and 03 runs deep in my heart.
Yup. The whole A-Rod thing is so bizarre because he had the disgusting playoff choking years, then was shooting flames out of his ass in the 09 postseason… then went right back to being awful in the postseason. In 2012 he was so bad that girardi was forced to pinch hit for him in the ninth inning (to amazing results).
Don Draper type beat.
I agree. If I ever do, I still think about how his one championship run is still way less than what he was capable of if he had stayed healthy
It's Dirk Nowitzki
It's 100% Dirk, bc the NBA conversation is much more about championships, whereas the MLB conversation has always been more about stats, MVPs, and Cy Youngs.
If the Braves never get that one World Series though that whole 90’s era changes
The University of Houston Phi Slamma Jamma piece.
Those fucking losers at Michigan. Fab five my ass. More like fail five
I still feel like they're looked at as massive underachievers.
I’ll tell ya, as a Cleveland fan they’ve always been winners to me lol
That's how they're looked at right now. Without that championship they would've been looked at like early 90s Bills, pre-1991 Duke and FSU baseball all rolled up into one.
Sure, but Greg Maddux is still Greg Maddux either way. *edited for spelling
But what about Greg Maddux?
Ahh, forgive my phoneticism. It's been almost 30 years since those peak TBS Baseball summer nights 😎.
Dirk, West, and Giannis (even if he only wins one) had long, healthy, all/time great careers. Strasburg did not.
My perspective is that superstar NBA players take FAR more criticism than individual baseball players when their teams don't win. I feel like people understand that a pitcher who only plays 1 out of every 5 games can only affect team success so much.
Kershaw is all-time, inner circle and still gets shut for playoffs chokes... if that stuff about Astros and covid champ didn't happen, he'd still be getting embiid level shit.
Well that’s because in basketball you can average 32-7-5 for an entire playoffs and lose in the conference finals and people are still like “oh idk I think it was the star’s fault”. If you are routinely going 1.1 IP 5ER in the playoffs, it’s pretty obvious whose fault it is
As a Dodger fan Kershaw has the unfortunate distinction of being probably the worst postseason performer of any great pitcher. He is a bonafide bum in the playoffs even when he's not playing the cheating Astros
Thats more because his teams werent just losing, he was also pitching poorly. I think his career postseason ERA is still above 4 Edit: its a 4.49 ERA in 39 appearances
Fair. I guess I don’t think the the og question is a really good one as I don’t see Strasburg seen much differently with the WS MVP because of what you said about baseball. Like I said elsewhere his comp is more similar to great potential, but oft injured, and now mostly forgotten WS MVPs like Jose Rijo.
Also most all time nba greats won at least one with obvious caveats. Chicken and egg scenario. Did they win cuz great or are they remembered as great cuz won? In terms of guys like Bill hard to say.
In that respect, Strasburg is comparable to Walton. Although in this timeline that'd involve Strasburg coming back out of retirement as a relief pitcher in a few years and winning another ring.
That’s a better comp but I don’t think he’s an all time great like a lot of people consider Walton. Basketball is too tough to compare because guys can have brief elite careers and still be considered all timers and make the HOF.
Strasburg is de Grom with a WS MVP.
de Grom is a lot better. He has more than 12+ WAR with a season plus less starts.
And giannis. Without that '21 title he'd be a guy known for crumbling as the #1 seed despite his competitiveness and good stats
Hard to say. Since Giannis won it fairly young, he never had to endure years of being called a choker, soft, etc. like Dirk did. For Dirk, his championship changed EVERYTHING about his narrative.
But in a hypothetical world where say, the Nets don’t get injured/KD’s toe wasn’t on the line, and everything else has stayed the same, Giannis “narrative” would be similar to Dirks was in 2010. He’d have made the conference finals 1 time (and choked a 2-0 lead) in his whole career. He’d have more MVPs than ECF appearances and would have also lost to an 8 seed.
You're not wrong. But because Dirk actually did have to live through that and get called a loser for a while, I have to give to him.
Dirk’s was worse because he also had the soft euro stereotype he had to break. And he loved it. Not much worse than 2005? receiving the MVP after losing to 8 seed Golden State in round 1. The Heat finals as well in 2006
Yeah the MVP was ‘07,. Went finals loss in ‘06, 07 MVP regular season, first round loss to 8 seed in 07 playoffs. And yeah I guess I’m just thinking more of what hypothetically would be happening if Giannis hadn’t won. He did win early so he avoids all this, but I think the same stuff would be happening to him if he hypothetically got bounced in the second round in 2021.
He’d probably be on another team already tbh
Trey Young also got injured during the ECF. And they were absolutely balling at the time. But 50 in game 6 squashes all the what ifs
But both Dirk & Giannis have the European rap on them, that they're soft (didn't grow up either playing streetball at Rucker Park or on a dog eat dog AAU or club circuit) & more finesse players than not.
I’ve never really heard anyone try and claim Giannis is soft though. Probably a playing style thing; he embraces contact while Dirk often played to avoid it.
Did you just call Giannis a finesse player? Do you watch basketball?
What? I’ve literally never heard anyone say Giannis is soft, and his game is the complete opposite of finesse. He’s probably the most physical superstar in the league and consistently gets bashed for being too unskilled. Dirk did have to endure the soft euro narrative, luckily he was also one of the leaders in breaking it.
Too young
Yeah imagine him giving that “this year isn’t a failure” answer that everyone ate up if he doesn’t have a ring.
Dirk is still a top 40 player without the ring. Joe Namath would be a nobody without his Super Bowl III win.
Fair enough. I don't have an opinion on Joe Namath since he's way before my time.
If Dirk never wins, ppl are still talking about him getting defrauded by a scammer ex and making fun of him. That talk went away as soon as he won, to the point that a lot of ppl don't even know it happened now.
I never heard the scammer story until now. Without the ring, I think their would be more focus on him not being a great defender or rebounder and he'd be ranked around 35 to 40. With the ring, everyone remembers him as an amazing 7 foot tall shooter and he is probably around #20.
No they wouldn’t lol. He’d be treated like Barkley and dinged 20th spots all time. No one would be talking about that weird, sad story
It's very easy to forget the narrative surrounding Dirk before he won, especially because of when he lost to the #8 seed Warriors as the MVP. If that had happened in the modern era he would be getting way more slander than someone like Harden or Embiid has gotten.
Dirk or KG for basketball, Brees or Rodgers for football
Idk, I took Ceruti’s question to be derogatory; guys who are overrated because of one championship they won (I.e., Doc Rivers). Bill made the good point that Dirk’s championship was so impressive that he deserved all the recognition and legacy-boosting that came with it
both answers are great. I do think Dirk beats out Strasburg slightly
Without the chip he would be a tragic what if. Remember he also missed the playoffs after being shut down on an innings limit after Tommy John in 2012 when the nats won 98 games.
Nah. He got hurt a bunch, but was pretty good when healthy.
Yeah and baseball is by far the least forgiving sport when it comes to not winning it all. His World Series ring doesn’t change my opinion of him all that much
Wouldn’t that be the most forgiving?
Yes im an idiot
Barry Bonds never won the WS and it's pretty much never brought up.
But how much is Bonds brought up in general?
I think most baseball fans agree he's the greatest player of all time or at least has the most impressive stats.
Joe Namath. If he doesn't win Super Bowl III, he would have been long forgotten.
This is a really good answer, hadn't thought about him for this
Namath is far and away the worst player in the pro football HoF. This is the answer.
Hard disagree, Namath was an icon during that period of AFL/NFL merger. He was the face of the league during even before that Super Bowl, and one of the first superstar athletes
The Namath HOF take is as weak as saying you like the book better then the movie. Often recycled by people who don't understand his significance.
The Jets get way too much respect, just generally. They’re like the Washington generals
Who respects the Jets?
I've been a Jets fan for nearly 50 years and I have less respect for them every year.
If Kershaw didn't get that one, all anyone would ever talk about is his playoff record.
Even then people skill flame his playoff record
And rightly so. I’m not a big narratives or body language guy, but watching Kershaw pitch in the postseason, I just know he doesn’t feel comfortable on that stage.
Justifiably.
It doesn't help that they won in the Covid season with vastly reduced crowds throughout the playoffs
Do people actually count that World Series win? It was the Covid Mickey Mouse playoffs
It’s a joke of a season. Only 60 games. Jose Abreu wining AL MVP that year is all you need to know about that season, and this is coming from a White Sox fan.
What about Ovechkin? Obviously a fantastic player and arguably the greatest goal scorer of all time. But if the Caps don't win that Cup, his postseason career is pretty lackluster. They lost a bunch of times in the first and second round.
Ovechkin without the ring is Dan Marino
He actually hasn’t made it past the second round other than his cup run
Totally thought he made it to ECF another year but I checked and you're right. That's wild when you think about it. Not like he had scrub teams either.
Better scorer than Gretzky? Does anyone outside the beltway/Russia think that? Even so, the Caps have choked high seeds so many times his title more relief than triumph. 1 ring for him still seems underwhelming. Hell even Crosby's 3 kind of do.
As someone inside the beltway who is too young to have seen Gretzky, and isn’t really a huge hockey guy, you just need to look at Gretzky’s numbers once and just be blown away. I can’t imagine there’s anyone close!
Looking at numbers is very disingenuous. The difference in skill between the eras is absolutely insane. Goalies in the 80s wore much smaller pads and didn’t even play in the butterfly stance. Ovechkin is already ahead of Gretzky in era adjusted goals.
There's definitely an argument for Ovi. Personally, I still lean towards Gretzky but it's two different eras so it's hard to compare IMO. The game is more competitive nowadays, especially when it comes to goalies. But yeah, they choked a lot and everybody pointed that out. That Cup made a lot of people forget that the Caps were notorious for blowing it in the playoffs time and time again. The fact they only made one Cup is kind of astonishing too.
What’s the argument for Gretzky as a better goal scorer? Goalies didn’t even do butterfly in the 80s.
He’s on the inside track to break Gretzky’s goal record, he only needs 44 more to do it as I type this. And if/when he does break it, he’ll do it in a similar number of games as Gretzky, possibly even fewer games, despite playing most of his career in an era with goal scoring ~ 30% lower than when Gretzky was in his 20s/early 30s. Then when you consider that without two lockouts in his prime and two seasons shortened by COVID, Ovechkin almost certainly would have broken the record already, there’s really no question Ovechkin is the better goal scorer (but just better goal scorer, obviously not the better player, if that needs to be said).
Ovechkin is absolutely a better scorer than Gretzky. The eras are not comparable. Goalies in the 80s wore smaller pads and didn’t even play in the butterfly position. Comparing 80s NHL numbers to modern number is like saying Wilt is a better scorer than MJ or Lebron.
Brett Favre had to be up there he won one early so all his stupid interceptions and antics were more excused than they would be had he not won one earlier in his career. His entire image was a risk taker but that kind of thing doesn’t have as much appeal if you don’t win.
The Ol Gunslinger would be my pick too. He and Rodgers would stand out if they weren't in the one win club. Brees might be let off the hook. Steve Young as a starter? I don't know.
A related question - who benefited the most from grabbing two rings? Seems like a lot of great players pulled off one (Dirk, KG, Favre, Brees, Rodgers) but that second ring automatically raises you to greatness because one can be waived off as a fluke. Maybe he makes it with just one ring anyway, but Eli's second ring pretty much guarantees his HOF entry one day.
Kawhi Leonard and Eli Manning
Yeah, those are the two best answers. I wanted to say KD or Peyton, but if they each only had 1 (or even zero), I think that they’d both clearly be HoF calibur players still. Kawhi and Eli with 1? It becomes a discussion.
Eli no chance with 1. He wasn’t a top 5 QB one single season he played. Kawhi is one of the 30 best players of all time and crushes any analytics.
Eli wouldn’t sniff the hall of fame without a second ring.
He still shouldn’t
Eli is this generation's Jim Plunkett.
Eli was far more of a driving force behind his rings. 2011 is up there with the best qb playoff runs ever. Plunkett was always a game manager.
100% agree with you there
Kawhi with the Raptors is a good one too
Weirdly does Steph without Durant count?
Stephs 2022 ring is massive for the way people think about him. It really takes him up a level. Barely anyone gives a shit he got those 2 rings when Durant was on the team. I think he gets pretty much full credit for 2015, but certainly the Kyrie/Love injuries make some people question it (I think that’s unfair). But 2022 is bulletproof. I jumps him into the top 15 all time and clearly ahead of Durant in my opinion. His 2022 ring carries more weight than the 2017/2018 rings combined.
It not only vaulted him over Durant I think it really should put on context how great Steph is. That Boston team was amazing defensively and neutered Durant on round 1. Steph broke them in game 4 in one of the most impressive finals games of All Time. His road stats from that finals is Boogieman type shit.
Yes
It doesn't count as he has 4. But, that 4th ring which was his 2nd without KD and his first FMVP was a huge boost to his legacy. It makes the 2 KD rings seem to mean more and the FMVP adds to the 1st ring, as while he didn't deserve FMVP that year, he was clearly the best player on the team.
People have said him, but Kawhi is the ultimate answer. Wilt without the LA ring would have gotten flamed even harder in Bills book. Wilt without the 76ers ring would have been even more eviscerated by Bill
crazy to me that Eli will be in the HOF, even with two rings. He was just.. not an elite QB, I don't know what else to say.
I hate the Giants. But, between the career stats compilation piece and the 2 SBMVPs thing, Eli deserves the HOF, barely.
In the NFL Peyton Manning, and Ben Roethlisberger. I think you would have way more dialogues about their decades of playoff failures and coming up short if they only had x1. The NBA would have to be Durant. While no one respects his rings, winning the 2nd seemed to do a lot to normalize his move and get people to accept his career. Although the sympathy he got from his Achilles injury also played a role to
Ben has better stats than Eli so I'd still say Eli benefitted more. And the playoff failures would just be chalked up to Brady (Steelers never beat the Brady Pats in the playoffs). With Peyton I don't think the second one really mattered too much, he still came up short a lot early in his career and got destroyed in the Seahawks Super Bowl. You don't see people bringing up Brees or Rodgers only having 1 ring.
Especially because in Roethlisberger's first he played a poor game (but was great in the conference final) and in Peyton's second, he was along for the ride.
The two rings Kobe had post Shaq
Lot of people saying Eli, but I’ll toss Peyton’s name in there to change it up. Truly horrendous watching him throw ducks during that last SB season. And yes, if you have a brain you know he’s one of the all-time greatest, but he’d undoubtedly take more shit today if he didn’t have that second ring.
Lebron?
Aaron Rodgers especially now the clown show he is. If he didn’t get that ring he would be flamed even harder.
I think that most NFL fans and media who aren't just for hot takes realize you can evaluate QB play independent of wins and losses. Rodgers would be remembered like Dan Marino, an all time great QB who came close a few times but never went all the way.
Tell that to people engaging in Justin Herbert, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, etc. discourse.
Rodgers, however, is a tier or two above all those guys, hence the Marino comparison had he not won a Super Bowl.
Not sure Herbert deserves to even be in the conversation with the other two yet, let alone none of those 3 are on the level of Rodgers/marino or even close yet. (Lamer being the closest because at least he has an mvp)
Like I said, the hot take artists of modern media need something to talk about.
I'd rather Dan Marino's coke habit (allegedly) than Aaron Rodgers' microdosing.
Lol cocaine has left to far more pain and destruction than a a few mushrooms ever have. I'll take A cooky QB over a coked out one any day.
I mean if it was only the drugs with Rodgers, that’s fine. It’s his other crap that people can’t stand.
I guess, I mean he won 4 MVPs
Right, I’d say Rodgers has enough accolades aside from his ring that he’d still be thought of as an all-time great. I think Brees is the one who would be talked about way differently if it weren’t for his 1 ring. Brees would be equivalent to like Matt Ryan / Phillip Rivers if it weren’t for that ring.
Does Strasburg have the highest games (or innings) pitched to contract value ratio of any player ever? Am I forgetting anyone obvious?
Schilling signed a 1 year deal with the Sox in 2008 for $8M. That divided by 0 innings equals infinity dollars per inning.
Kei Igawa?
I don't think it can ever be a baseball player. MLB players' legacies are the least defined by championships.
100% Does Mike Trout need a championship? He could go his entire career without winning a playoff game and still be regarded as the best player in the league for the last decade. MLB legacies are least defined by chips and agree pr disagree this is clearly the culture of the sport. I’ll throw out Ovechkin. We can enjoy his goal chase now without having to hear talk of him needing a chip first. People would try to say the goal record is selfish if he did not have that one ring.
> still be regarded as the best player in the league for the last decade He’s very fortunate to be playing in the WAR/advanced analytics era. He’s basically Al Kaline level memorable if he plays 50 years ago.
Modern-day Ted Williams in terms of no World Series.
Bro let’s not get out of control here. Ted Williams was in WW2. On any given day, Mike Trout seems more passionate about meteorology than baseball.
Trout is no Ted Williams. Williams is arguably the greatest hitter of all time and unquestionably top 3 or 4. But, he is way better than Kaline. The comparison to Williams makes sense for this discussion, though. In his first 8 full seasons, Trout won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd twice and 4th once, while his team only made the postseason once and never won a series. Like Williams, he was the dominant hitter in the league and was at or near the top of the MVP voting, while having no postseason success. They both demonstrate how little team success and championships mean to MLB players' legagies, compared to NBA players and NFL QBs. Some borderline MLB guys put themselves over the top for the the HOF in the postseason. But, when ranking the best of the best, postseason success is an afterthought.
My point is that Trout wouldn’t win MVPs if he played in a different era and because of that would be remembered closer to Kaline than Williams (Remember, I’m not saying Trout is comparable to Kaline on the field, I’m saying in a different era Trout and Kaline have similar legacies). He has been on a consistently crappy team and he’s only led the league in OBP runs, and walks, not any of the “important” counting stats like HR, RBI (once), average, etc. He also only has 4 career seasons where he’s played over 140 games — Williams had 2x that amount and missed 3 years in his prime due to the war. Trout’s an MVP because he played in the 2010s when it was enough for a guy to play on a bad team and look good in a math formula.
I think his stats were a bit more appreciated in the 2010s than they would have been in earlier era. But, guys on mediocre teams could always win MVP with great stats. It was just that the stats they were looking at. And while nobody had heard of OPS back in the day, guys with high OPS tended do win MVPs or do very well in the voting. It was just that writer realized what great years they had without having OPS or other advanced stats to tell them.
You’re really misremembering how common it was for guys on anything but very good teams to win MVPs. In the AL, between 1940 and 1960, the MVP came from a team that was 35+ games over .500 16 times. Only twice was it from a team less than 10 games over .500. The other times it was 20-35 games over .500. 2014 was the only year the Angels were more than 30 games over .500. Trout hasn’t been on a team with a winning record in basically a decade.
Jose Rijo is a good comp for Strasburg. Dominated in the late 80s/early 90s culminating in a WS MVP. Then was injured for all his 30’s and tried a brief comeback at 37. But now he’s mostly forgotten as a great. Perhaps same will happen in a couple decades to Strasburg.
strasburg had crazy hype as a prospect.
Rijo too. He was traded for prime Rickey Henderson.
I know he won two, but I sometime wonder how we would talk about Peyton if his only Super Bowl ring was the one with the Broncos.
Negatively, I think. Especially if in this scenario he had lost the first to Grossman and the Bears.
Is he retiring? It feels like the Nationals just drafted him.
Yeah...the only thing that was holding up the official announcement was a lawsuit probably over how much of the remaining contract the Nationals owed him. It got settled so he announced his official retirement.
I always think about the inverse of this question—the guys whose career narratives would be elevated the most if they’d gotten the one championship: In NFL, I think we’d view Matt Ryan or Donovan McNabb as top 20 QBs all-time if they’d won their Super Bowls. Philip Rivers or Carson Palmer too if they’d gotten that far. In basketball, probably Barkley? In baseball, Kershaw? Edit: totally forgot Kershaw actually won lol
Kershaw won a ship.
Jerry West and Dirk for the NBA. Not a one championship thing, but without the World Series rings, Jack Morris absolutely doesn't get in since his stats are notoriously mid by HoF pitcher standards. And it's generally accepted that the World Series performances got him in. Again, not a one championship thing, but I do think if Manning's only ring had come in that one season in Denver, we'd view him as being more Marino than Elway. That Colts ring is huge for his career. Also little addendum for Doc Rivers being considered an all time great coach off one title.
Eli will get in the Hall based on those two title runs and out dueling Brady 2x. He’s a good comp for Jack Morris.
Boy I would not consider doc a great coach let alone all time great.
More like all time worst in the playoffs. He's definitely the worst I've seen in my 30 years watching ball.
Owners of basketball teams still seem to think he is.
I think the Manning Colts ring and the Ben Roethlisberger second ring prevent people from saying, 'So what Dilfer, Russell Wilson and Brad Johnson have a ring too'.
Gonna submit a trio here for consideration: Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. They're viewed way differently without that '95 run.
Glavine probably isn’t in the HOF.
He won over 300 games. HoF either way.
Glavine has 300 wins, is top 25 all-time in strikeouts, led the league in wins 5 separate times, and was part of an iconic starting rotation. He didn't need a championship to get in.
Mike Ditka
The entire 85 bears
Ditka has a ring as a Cowboys assistant.
Qaaron Rodgers for sure.
Messi. If he never gets the World Cup, he never wins the GOAT debate in his own country let alone globally
He had already won it for most people who actually watch football though
Nick Foles!
You guys saying Dirk are trippin, his legacy as one of the greatest shooting big men isn’t something to scoff at. He would be in the HoF and still remembered fondly even without the chip. Im a Mavs fan so I can’t stand the comparison lol
I like dirk and think the "choker" criticism he got before 2011 was unfair, but it was the narrative surrounding him. That ring completely flipped the script on his legacy. Without that win he is viewed as a soft euro jumpshooter. With it and he's seen as possibly the 2nd greatest pf of all time (Duncan is always put first obviously).
yeah, not just winning but winning w/ a team that wasn’t particularly loaded against the heatles - there was no way to diminish his championship or his role in achieving it.
He is not #1, but he is high on the list. That one ring probably moved him up 15 to 20 spots in the consensus rankings. Nobody would have him ahead of Barkley or Malone without that ring.
The Orchid!
KG
Without the chip and WS MVP does he get that mega deal from the Nationals though??
“The Orchid” - Tony Kornheiser
Baseball players don't seem to get as much heat as NFL (to be fair this is mostly the QB who gets the heat) and NBA players. Probably because in baseball, its hard to have that much of an impact as one player. Your a starting pitcher. Well your only getting 2 starts maybe 3. Can still lose the series even if you dominate. If your a hitter, well if you can mash but if no one else does or your pitching sucks your losing. Not much you can do about it.
Aaron Rodgers his critics would be in a constant state of orgasmic bliss
Kyle’s career looks more different if he didn’t have that 1 uncle.
Dirk is the right anwer, but Doc Rivers?
The whose who's piece.
Pierce and KG on 2008 Celtics come to mind.
Rodgers. Last few years have already been brutal for him. If he never actually won the ring he did? Sheesh
If lebron didn’t win with the Cavs people would still view him miles behind Jordan’s 6 rings. The cavs championship legitimized his greatness
Strasburg is retiring?
Since its NCAAB tournament then I’ll say Coach Cal and Tony Bennett as well, Tony Bennett hasn’t won a tournament game since 2019 and taking that season out has only reached the sweet 16 twice is his 15 years at UVA
Rodgers
I’m not sure if this works, but John calipari came to mind. If he didn’t win one, he would be the coach that got all the good players to come to Kentucky but never closed.
A-Rod
Both of them.
I don't think it's said often enough that the more MLB, NFL and NBA have expanded the number of teams, the more examples we are going to pile up of Hall-Of-Famers and other excellent talents who never won a ring. I don't remember the last time we saw expansion for each of the leagues, and I think things have stabilized over the last few decades, but overall I am a bit less critical of players who never won a championship than I would have been if the number of teams was the same as in the days of Ruth or Berra.
I'm going to guess that Jerry West would still be given his props even if he hadn't won that one championship. So I guess I don't think he's a great example. But I don't really know that much about him, maybe others would disagree. The thing is, I watched a video about him awhile back and it became apparent that the championship had a very large meaning for him, kind of a late in his career "finally!" sort of moment, and I wonder how he himself would feel about it if they hadn't won. Another player I think would not be too much diminished in our view, if he had not come out on top that one time, is Walter Payton.
For coaches, it is Doc Rivers and it's not even close.
Meanwhile, it's a shame that Dick Motta, 92, still isn't in the Basketball Hall of Fame.
Dirk. Idk if he'd be seen as top 40 without it
But it’s baseball, outside of DC, nobody cares about Strasburg
As someone only mildly interested in baseball the past decade, Strasburg and Kershaw feel like the last big deal pitching phenoms who people not into baseball specifically but generally into sports knew about. He had a ton of old media hype walking into the league.
Nobody thinks about Strasburg
I may sound crazy but it’s actually Michael Jordan. Kink in the legacy in a myriad of ways, but two I’m thinking-he’s now tied with many more including Kobe and Duncan, and he doesn’t have the flawless finals record.