U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2021, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
602 posts, read 319,811 times
Reputation: 343

Advertisements

In my opinion when considering the legacy of hockey players I use a Stanley Cup to equal 3 Super Bowl and NBA rings when judging players all-time since it makes the most logical sense when doing my all-time athlete ratings. So 1 Cup is like 3 rings in the NFL/NBA. 3 is like 9, and 4 is like 12. And I like doing that. It makes the most sense to me.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2021, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Greater Orlampa CSA
4,958 posts, read 4,788,579 times
Reputation: 3828
I’d say no.

But then, I’m not the type that solely or even primarily ranks a player’s greatness by number of rings.

In that case, Henri Richard would have 33, lol. That obviously was an era with fewer teams and would greatly skew these numbers.

I get the point you’re making: the Stanley Cup is very difficult to win. Hockey in general is less influenced by the presence of a single great player than any other sport, because; even the great players that are first string in NHL only end up seeing 22-23 minutes of ice time in a game due to all the shifts. Baseball is quite similar too, actually, with Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani only making 20% or so of the Angels plate appearances… and the results Sho. Lol.

But, I’m not really comparing athletes across multiple sports anyways. That’s completely impossible to do. Wayne Gretzky is an all time great hockey player, as is currently Alex Ovechkin. Tom Brady, and Joe Montana (and, for that matter, Dan Marino) are all time great football players. But I’m not gonna compare athletes across sports, particularly because the sports are so different, and some (basketball) are much more prone to an individual athlete being able to dominate the game than others.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2021, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Greater Orlampa CSA
4,958 posts, read 4,788,579 times
Reputation: 3828
Not to say you aren’t welcome to do so, of course. But, even if you were, I think you’d have to compare just how much athletes dominated in their respective sports vs the competition, and Wins Above Replacement. As I said too, over a season, athlete WAR will probably be higher in basketball than any other sport. But that doesn’t mean Michael Jordan is necessarily a better or worse athlete than Pele or Wayne Gretzky
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2021, 06:34 AM
 
Location: The DMV
5,945 posts, read 9,990,464 times
Reputation: 7404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neptunepenguins View Post
In my opinion when considering the legacy of hockey players I use a Stanley Cup to equal 3 Super Bowl and NBA rings when judging players all-time since it makes the most logical sense when doing my all-time athlete ratings. So 1 Cup is like 3 rings in the NFL/NBA. 3 is like 9, and 4 is like 12. And I like doing that. It makes the most sense to me.
As mentioned above, this is all subjective and you are certainly entitled to weigh different championships how YOU see fit. But for discussion sake, it may help to offer some explanation on why you feel this way?

It's so hard to compare different sports. And when you talk about all-time athletes... their sport oriented stats become lesser factors. They are still factors... but I'm not sure how you would compare gold medals vs. Stanley cups, vs major wins (tennis, golf, etc), etc. How does a decathletes pole vault record compare w/ Jerry Rice's records? How do you compare the "athletics" of a Free safety vs. a boxer vs. a tennis player?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2022, 12:40 PM
Status: "The dog days of Summer are here" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Planet Earth
8,450 posts, read 9,478,354 times
Reputation: 6318
I don't think it's particularly fair to judge NHLers by their rings for this reason, Hockey is made up of 4 forward lines, 3 defensive pairs, and 1 goaltender and his backup. Your top forward in Hockey (Gretzky, Crosby, etc) plays maybe 33% of a 60 minute game. The top defensive pairing plays about 42%, and the goaltender 100%, usually facing about 25-35 shots.

So Hockey is much more of a team sport than the NBA, and if the team isn't very good then having a talent like a Crosby isn't going to matter. Like right now, McDavid is the best young player in the game but his team overall is kind of meh. He can't carry his Oilers night after night like LeBron did in Cleveland.

NBA is ridiculously star-driven, the NFL less so but you damn sure need a good QB. Baseball and Hockey you need a lot of good talent.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2022, 02:24 PM
 
22,828 posts, read 14,412,018 times
Reputation: 38281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canes2006Champs View Post
NBA is ridiculously star-driven, the NFL less so but you damn sure need a good QB. Baseball and Hockey you need a lot of good talent.

Except that a number of pretty mediocre quarterbacks have Super Bowl rings. Trent Dilfer? The Ray Lewis Ravens were probably the best defense ever in the NFL. Joe Namath had a lousy career. Brad Johnson with the Warren Sapp defense. Jim McMahon with the Ken Singletary defense and Walter Payton. You can win the Super Bowl with a dominant defense, a dominant running back with a good offensive line, and a game manager QB who doesn't turn the ball over. It's harder to do now with the rules changes but a pretty mediocre Joe Flacco won the Super Bowl in 2012.


These are all team sports. Bjorn Borg. Federer. Nadal. Djokovic. The Williams sisters. Martina. Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus. Ingemar Stenmark won every pretty much every Alpine Slalom and GS event for a decade. Michael Phelps. Ursain Bolt. Ali. Those people were best in the world for long periods of time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2022, 12:21 AM
 
26,343 posts, read 8,147,353 times
Reputation: 10885
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Except that a number of pretty mediocre quarterbacks have Super Bowl rings. Trent Dilfer? The Ray Lewis Ravens were probably the best defense ever in the NFL. Joe Namath had a lousy career. Brad Johnson with the Warren Sapp defense. Jim McMahon with the Ken Singletary defense and Walter Payton. You can win the Super Bowl with a dominant defense, a dominant running back with a good offensive line, and a game manager QB who doesn't turn the ball over. It's harder to do now with the rules changes but a pretty mediocre Joe Flacco won the Super Bowl in 2012.


These are all team sports. Bjorn Borg. Federer. Nadal. Djokovic. The Williams sisters. Martina. Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus. Ingemar Stenmark won every pretty much every Alpine Slalom and GS event for a decade. Michael Phelps. Ursain Bolt. Ali. Those people were best in the world for long periods of time.

Mike Singletary, not Ken Singletary.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2022, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
39,208 posts, read 69,697,207 times
Reputation: 63339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neptunepenguins View Post
In my opinion when considering the legacy of hockey players I use a Stanley Cup to equal 3 Super Bowl and NBA rings when judging players all-time since it makes the most logical sense when doing my all-time athlete ratings. So 1 Cup is like 3 rings in the NFL/NBA. 3 is like 9, and 4 is like 12. And I like doing that. It makes the most sense to me.
I don't agree, but please explain your "logical sense". Why do you believe a Stanley Cup should be weighted over other championships?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2022, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Etobicoke
904 posts, read 404,543 times
Reputation: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
I don't agree, but please explain your "logical sense". Why do you believe a Stanley Cup should be weighted over other championships?
It's just an opinion, must be a hockey fan. Someone else could weight it differently for a World Series, NBA title or Super Bowl.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2022, 05:20 AM
 
22,828 posts, read 14,412,018 times
Reputation: 38281
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
Mike Singletary, not Ken Singletary.
I’m a Patriots fan. I’ve tried to purge that Bears Super Bowl drubbing from my mind. You can excuse me getting Bears names wrong. They had “Happy Feet” Eason on his back the whole game and he got benched for Grogan. 2 picks. 3 lost fumbles. Safety. That Bears defense was dominant. A total mismatch. The Patriots went into the doldrums for a decade after that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top