View Single Post
Old
12-28-2012, 03:22 PM
  #58
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
I'm inclined to agree with much of this. I don't know if Lemieux drops from the top 4 or not, but he'd never be ranked higher than 4, that's for certain. What convincing arguement could you make for Lemieux over Gretzky if he doesn't ever win the cup? (IMO there's not really any convincing arguements for this already, but if he goes without ever winning one, there's really none at all).

A great example is Dan Marino in the NFL. At one time he had most the major passing records, but he never won a superbowl. The only time he made it, he lost to Montana and the 49ers, who beat them fairly handily, and Montana won superbowl MVP. Time and again I'd hear people say Marino was better, and every time someone would respond by saying that Montana had 4 rings, 3 superbowl MVPs, had never lost in the superbowl, never thrown an interception in the superbowl, and had beaten Dan Marino when he'd just come off his best season ever, in the superbowl. Its hard to convince people you're the best if you can't win a championship. Whether rightly or wrongly, some people will always point to the lack of championships as a sign you couldn't get it done in the clutch. And when you're being compared to someone who DID get it done, especially if they did it often, it's a hard sell indeed.
I agree. Not to get into a Football argument here but when you play 16 games a year at QB your main objective is winning all the time. Montana did that and was "Joe Cool" for a reason. Marino had too many moments where he played poor in a big game. We've seen this with Favre and to an extent Manning as well which is enough to hesitate me to put Manning #1..........as of now.

Other sports are similar to this. How does Jordan look without his rings? He looks like Karl Malone, probably, considering Basketball puts a lot of emphasis on their star players carrying the load.

Or Baseball? Why does Joe Dimaggio usually get ranked above Ted Williams? Well, other than being a better all around player it is because Dimaggio won 9 World Series and played in 10. Williams never won and played in just one where he did lousy. The Yankees also won their pennants at the expense of the Red Sox too (1949) which helps. Babe Ruth won 7 World Series (three as a pitcher) and Barry Bonds none. Bonds had some poor early playoff showings in his career and we never have that image of him as a champion. Mickey Mantle still holds the record for most Home Runs hit in the World Series (18). He won a lot and was a big part of it.

So enter Lemieux without those Cups. How can we even flirt with the idea of him being #1 if he never won the ultimate prize? And how much better would Beliveau or Richard look next to him with all those rings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Did you read the OP? The assumption is that Lemieux scores at the same pace in the playoffs, so we're not talking about poor showing.
Yes I did, but in the OP we are talking about a universe in which Mario never even reaches a Cup final. I mean, Mats Sundin is a player who got criticized for that, imagine Mario. It would drastically change the way we see things. No big goal in 1991 splitting the Northstars defense, possibly no goal where he dekes Bourque out of his jock in 1992. Who knows the line up changes that happen if the Pens miss out in 1991 and 1992. No doubt his legend is altered.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote