I mentioned in an earlier post how I was listening to Jay Mohr on the radio last week. He brought up an interesting topic of discussion that he put out to the audience in one blunt question:
Would you rather be the World Series MVP, or be in the Baseball Hall of Fame and never win the World Series?
Interesting question. Would you rather have that long lasting career that saw you as one of the game's greatest of all time, or would you rather reach the pinnacle of your sport (The World Series) and be the best at that time, while always being able to say you were part of the team that won the Series?
In essence, as Mohr put it: Would you rather be Ted Williams...or Scott Brosius?
Discuss below. You don't need to be a baseball fan, or even a sports fan to have an opinion on this. I hope this gets a good amount of discussion, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
9 comments:
For me, it's about winning games and championships.
I play recreational baseball (pretty serious, I've been thrown at on purpose a few times) and on my team, I do well. My stats are usually all right and the only reason why I want to have a good OBP or fewer strikeouts is that it helps my team. As the coach of this same team, I really want to win and manage to win. We haven't finished higher than 5th place in 7 years...
My basketball team has had success in the "B" division and we finished 2nd a couple of times in the "A" division. It's all about winning. Who cares if I put up a bunch of points if I couldn't stop my check from scoring.
I'm not a big Red Sox fan (OK, I hate them). Good for Ted Williams and his .406 season, but he couldn't play for a team that won a title. You can blame ownership when he played, you could blame the Damn Yankees.
Being part of the best team in a major sports season is what separates great from incredible. And the stars who played with Chad Curtis and Scott Brosius know how important they were to the team even if they didn't put up huge numbers.
I'm with Irem on this one. Who cares about the Hall of Fame, you play to win the game. Did someone else beat me to that quote? lol. I would trade the HOF anytime to be that guy who had a .422 batting average and 11 RBI's in the World Series to go along with the ring for winning it. It is every kids dream of whichever sport that they are a fan of to be in such a position.....the HOF is a great place to be in but if I had to choose I would be Scott Brosius in a heartbeat. I bet his MVP trophy sits proudly on his mantle.....and I'm sure he isn't sad about not being in the Hall
I think I'd have to go with being the World Series MVP without a doubt. For me, achieving the highest goal attainable in my sport would be more personally satisfying. Many reach the hall of fame, fewer are named the World Series MVP. To use an entertainment analogy, I think that Peter O'Toole who has been honoured by The Academy with 8 Oscar nominations (but has never won), would easily give back those nominations to be like Lee Marvin who was only nominated once - and won. While it's always great to be considered great in your field, I think it's always more rewarding when you've climbed to the highest point possible.
come on sean-scott brosius?you cant compare the 2 players.
Anyway,look at my comments for sept27-about megan fox and the jay mohr show?????
Rob...nobody is comparing the two players on a talent or merit scale...it's a legit question.
And stop HIJACKING the comments section! :) Stay on topic!
You never gave your answer...
Hall of Fame for sure. Who care about the playoffs and winning championships.
I am now off to Sweden to be with my beautiful new wife, and relax for the rest of my life.
Good luck Leaf fans,
Mats
I'll take the ring please. The goal of every player each and every time he steps on the field should be to win the game. It doesn't meant much if you go 5-5 and hit for the cycle every game if you lose 10 - 4. I'm sure most pro's would rather been known as a winner than a consistently excellent performer who could never lead his team to the big win. In essence, I'd rather be a good player with a ring than a great player without one. Who was the best at this or that is always up for debate. A ring is not and cannot be taken away from you like a record can.
Looking back on their careers, who do you think felt most like something was missing? Having been arguably a better hitter than anyone who has ever lived, my guess is it was still Ted.
100% it's about winning championships! At the end of the day of people saw me as being a great player then terrific but i know that i would most definately want to be part of a championship team. Even at a rec level of playin ball i couldn't have been happier to be playing in Nationals on the east coast. It was by far more important than being recognized as a good all around player. If i am putting my full effort forward than in my own mind i am happy with what i;ve accomplished!
Oh, the sweet irony that Mats Sundin retired the day after I posted this. Any chance Dan Marino will be in the news today, too?
Well, it's nice to see that it's unananimous. I'm with you guys...always have been. And it's not just the MVP part of the question, it's just the 'winning the World Series' part.
Yes, I would choose the Pat Borders route over the long and storied careers of Ted Williams, Ken Griffey Jr., or Tony Gwynn.
And keep this in mind. Remember Luis Sojo? He has FIVE World Series rings. Hey Barry Bonds...swirl that around in your mouth and see how it tastes.
Post a Comment