Why don't baseball card collectors care about WS Rings?

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Cracktoast

I agree in Baseball WS Rings don't hold a ton of weight as said Championships are won by teams. For instance you don't say Jeter won 5 WS Titles the Yankess won 5 WS Titles while he played on the team. For baseball it's about individual accomplishments for me to whether someone was great and/or hof worthy like MVP's, Batting Titles, etc... AS appearances up until the 90's meant more than they do today because of the popularity contest it's turned into. Worst thing they ever did was allow fans to vote it should have stayed with the players and writers.

I don't know why half the people vote in general elections. Nationally, 50% get it wrong every 4 years

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by towerymt

We do if we got one

And we don't if we don't

If my guy has one and your guy doesn't my guy is better

Seen it a thousand and one times here

This one is probably closest to the correct answer.

[Badgers0821]

Originally Posted by jjrpilot

It's funny how Football and Basketball card collectors care about how many rings people have won.

Meanwhile, baseball collectors don't give two hoots.

Why is this the case?

Football collectors only care about SBs for QBs.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Tom Brady touches the ball on every play in the 4th quarter
Michael Jordan can shoot the ball on every play in the 4th quarter.

You can only bat in baseball when it's your turn.

Rings can help prices for a player, but not having one won't hurt them usually.

Brady touches the ball on every OFFENSIVE play in the 4th quarter.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by tkraft24

It's more about HOF and HOF projections for baseball. Individual baseball players have less of an impact on any given game on average whereas a star basketball player is 1 of 5 on the court with an opportunity to do something every possession. Football is similar where play-makers can take over a game. 1 great player on a baseball team will not translate to a successful team like other sports.

I would partially disagree. there have been instances where a team has jumped on the back of a white hot player. Rickey Henderson had some incredible playoff series back in the early 90s. I think it was 1990 when billy hatcher hit somewhere around .700 during the world series. there have been many instances where one starting pitcher has led a team to the championship. that goes all the way back to Mathewson in the early 00s to gibson in the 60s and schilling in the 00s. back when a starter would go 3-4 complete games in a 7 game series and shut down the opposition. David Ortiz would also get white hot in the playoffs.

[ScooterMcRibs]

Speaking of loaded questions, why did OP stop beating his wife? Collectors DO care about WS rings, but it is one attribute (of many) that influence collectability.

Mantle is a hobby GOAT and has many rings.
Griffey is a hobby GOAT and has zero rings.
Troutsky IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A HOBBY GOAT even if he gets a ring (he won't get a ring).
Ohtani COULD be a hobby GOAT but IMHO he will need a ring.

[dodgerfanjohn]

Originally Posted by ScooterMcRibs

Speaking of loaded questions, why did OP stop beating his wife? Collectors DO care about WS rings, but it is one attribute (of many) that influence collectability.

Mantle is a hobby GOAT and has many rings.
Griffey is a hobby GOAT and has zero rings.
Troutsky IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A HOBBY GOAT even if he gets a ring (he won't get a ring).
Ohtani COULD be a hobby GOAT but IMHO he will need a ring.

Pitching and hitting for complete seasons and 3 mvp’s won’t float your boat, huh?

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by ScooterMcRibs

Speaking of loaded questions, why did OP stop beating his wife? Collectors DO care about WS rings, but it is one attribute (of many) that influence collectability.

Mantle is a hobby GOAT and has many rings.
Griffey is a hobby GOAT and has zero rings.
Troutsky IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A HOBBY GOAT even if he gets a ring (he won't get a ring).
Ohtani COULD be a hobby GOAT but IMHO he will need a ring.

HAHAHAHA

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

Brady touches the ball on every OFFENSIVE play in the 4th quarter.

Of course, but you understand the point. On offense, your star players can touch the ball on every play in football and basketball. In baseball you have to wait your turn, and if you're too good, you might get walked.

[Bcr]

If Babe Ruth never won a world series he would still be considered the GOAT of baseball.

If Michael Jordan or Tom Brady never won a championship would they still be considered GOATs?

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Bcr

If Babe Ruth never won a world series he would still be considered the GOAT of baseball.

If Michael Jordan or Tom Brady never won a championship would they still be considered GOATs?

If he never won a ring he’d lose a tier…he’d be Williams or Mays.

[PuddleMonkey]

Originally Posted by Bcr

If Babe Ruth never won a world series he would still be considered the GOAT of baseball.

In what world?

[PuddleMonkey]

Do you even Ohtani bro?

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Bcr

If Babe Ruth never won a world series he would still be considered the GOAT of baseball.

If Michael Jordan or Tom Brady never won a championship would they still be considered GOATs?

We may be wearing air olajuwons and mahomies may actually not be so delusional.

[PuddleMonkey]

So many fond Olajuwon memories.

[PuddleMonkey]

Mahomes can suck it.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Bcr

If Babe Ruth never won a world series he would still be considered the GOAT of baseball.

If Michael Jordan or Tom Brady never won a championship would they still be considered GOATs?

Semi-tangent but why does Yogi Berra get so little love?

10 rings
3 MVPs
18 AS

Quote machine with a sparkling personality. Was it just bc he was a catcher?

[dgioulakis]

I'll be swimming against a strong current by wading into this discussion in the baseball section, but IMHO, these comments are completely missing critical points to the game of football. To be succinct about it: little offense can be generated in the NFL without a decent offensive line, and certainly not enough to sustain a drive. Aside from the player-safety aspect of protecting the quarterback, there is no run game that can be established without extremely talented tackles and guards. Without the run, you lose balance and unpredictability. During a play-action, those seconds that a DE or OLB must hesitate to read the play as it unfolds are no longer necessary if they know a QB is passing.

It doesn't matter if you have Mahomes or Brady. We literally saw this playout just recently in '20-'21 when the Chiefs offensive line was banged up post-AFC championship. The Superbowl ended 31-9 with potentially the two greatest QBs in NFL history. Arguably, this had little to do with Mahomes' turf toe and more so because both his starting tackles were out from injury. He had no time to let any play develop. This is also why tackles and defensive ends are among the highest-paid positions outside of QBs and star receivers.

While I agree with what is being said in regards to basketball, which I do think a single player can have an outsized influence on the outcome, I don't think there is any sport that is more team-oriented than football. At least in baseball a single player can drive up to four runs at a single at-bat.

I strongly encourage everyone the next time you watch a football game: for each play, pick a single lineman to follow as best as possible. It's difficult because the cameras don't give a good perspective on the line. But each play is drawn up so uniquely that when you see the movement, it's so beautifully orchestrated and each player must hit their designed play at the right moment for it to have a chance to succeed. I'm going to borrow some images just to help illustrate what's often not understood, or overlooked, or simply under-appreciated:

[dream34]

In other sports, you can argue so many things about value/position etc. Enough so that it complicates things and leads to arguments. Then people get simplistic and just say "show me his rings"

In baseball, hitting matters more than anything. Much more simple to quantify greatness especially over 10,000 points of data (ABs).

Add in the fact that you can simply just pitch around a guy like Bonds and it proves the 1/9 theory. You only have to worry about him 1 in 9 times and it's not his fault if the other 8 guys do nothing.

Also, Baseball fans seem to be the most logical of the bunch and don't get lost in that nonsense. I really feel like the "rings" argument started to gain a ton of steam this century. It's the laziest argument by the loudest, often less sports educated crowd.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by dream34

In other sports, you can argue so many things about value/position etc. Enough so that it complicates things and leads to arguments. Then people get simplistic and just say "show me his rings"

In baseball, hitting matters more than anything. Much more simple to quantify greatness especially over 10,000 points of data (ABs).

Add in the fact that you can simply just pitch around a guy like Bonds and it proves the 1/9 theory. You only have to worry about him 1 in 9 times and it's not his fault if the other 8 guys do nothing.

Also, Baseball fans seem to be the most logical of the bunch and don't get lost in that nonsense. I really feel like the "rings" argument started to gain a ton of steam this century. It's the laziest argument by the loudest, often less sports educated crowd.

Even Greg Maddux said Bonds was easy to pitch to because if there's no one on base, you just walk him.

The goal is to get 27 outs. Just figure that he's not going to be one of them and go from there.

But I agree that the rings argument is so lazy. However, I do think players should get props for performances in championship games. MJ gets props for being clutch and have numerous memorable moments on the biggest stage.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by dream34

In other sports, you can argue so many things about value/position etc. Enough so that it complicates things and leads to arguments. Then people get simplistic and just say "show me his rings"

In baseball, hitting matters more than anything. Much more simple to quantify greatness especially over 10,000 points of data (ABs).

Add in the fact that you can simply just pitch around a guy like Bonds and it proves the 1/9 theory. You only have to worry about him 1 in 9 times and it's not his fault if the other 8 guys do nothing.

Also, Baseball fans seem to be the most logical of the bunch and don't get lost in that nonsense. I really feel like the "rings" argument started to gain a ton of steam this century. It's the laziest argument by the loudest, often less sports educated crowd.

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Even Greg Maddux said Bonds was easy to pitch to because if there's no one on base, you just walk him.

The goal is to get 27 outs. Just figure that he's not going to be one of them and go from there.

But I agree that the rings argument is so lazy. However, I do think players should get props for performances in championship games. MJ gets props for being clutch and have numerous memorable moments on the biggest stage.

The rings argument may be lazy, but ask any athlete what they play for and why?

It’s the rings.

So maybe it actually means something.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

The rings argument may be lazy, but ask any athlete what they play for and why?

It’s the rings.

So maybe it actually means something.

According to agents, most of their clients say their top priority by far and away is money.

Winning is one of the priorities but is usually not in the top 5.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

According to agents, most of their clients say their top priority by far and away is money.

Winning is one of the priorities but is usually not in the top 5.

Griffey, Banks, Sandberg, etc. - they all greatly regret not being able to play in the World Series and have been quoted to say so.

Dan Marino’s biggest regret in the nfl was not having won the Super Bowl.

I understand today’s players may have different priorities which reflects today’s societal priorities, but when you are already filthy rich, not having a championship ring is always something that your filthy rich champion colleagues can hold against you.

You all may be filthy rich, but if you don’t have a ring, you will still be haunted for never winning it all. It’s human nature.

Back in the day, before money was the only priority in sports, people actually took pride in winning.

When you got it all, you don’t actually have it all unless you have a ring, ask any athlete that, not their agents.

[dream34]

I think you’re proving the point. Marino’s career is viewed as a failure by people now, this was not the case at all when he was playing.

Griffey, Banks & Ted Williams are viewed as “What If’s” and revered and respected.

Baseball fans are just more reasonable.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by dream34

In other sports, you can argue so many things about value/position etc. Enough so that it complicates things and leads to arguments. Then people get simplistic and just say "show me his rings"

In baseball, hitting matters more than anything. Much more simple to quantify greatness especially over 10,000 points of data (ABs).

Add in the fact that you can simply just pitch around a guy like Bonds and it proves the 1/9 theory. You only have to worry about him 1 in 9 times and it's not his fault if the other 8 guys do nothing.

Also, Baseball fans seem to be the most logical of the bunch and don't get lost in that nonsense. I really feel like the "rings" argument started to gain a ton of steam this century. It's the laziest argument by the loudest, often less sports educated crowd.

Trout fan claiming rings are overvalued and for the uneducated and lazy?

Sounds par for the course to me!