Why don't baseball fans care as much about WS/Champ rings as much as NBA or NFL fans?

[jjrpilot]

NBA and NFL fans always talk about the great players and how many rings they have etc.

Baseball seems to be the opposite. It's not that they don't care, it's just not a priority. Why?

I'd love your thoughts on this!

[JRX]

NBA can be dominated by 1 player. NFL its more winning A superbowl. I think Brady warped people's minds. MLB the individual player has the least impact on the outcome.

[unclebuggy]

I wonder the same. The easy answer is one player dominated more in other sports, but I don't buy that. Seems like baseball hobby treats the championship as meaningless, whereas it means a ton elsewhere. The huge discrepancy doesn't make sense.

That said, the world series is the only reasonable explanation for insane Mantle prices. He is likely not a top 10 player, but sells like the goat. So baseball card collectors at least used to care and that has carried over a bit.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[jduds]

Rings matter. Jeter's value is based largely on rings. People bash Trout for not having one. They just aren't as big a deal as in basketball where really it is a key point on a star player's resume. For football, they matter for QBs, but I'm not sure about anyone else.

[ThoseBackPages]

a player is not required to be pitched to, if a team chooses not to

[txrngr34]

Originally Posted by JRX

NBA can be dominated by 1 player. NFL its more winning A superbowl. I think Brady warped people's minds. MLB the individual player has the least impact on the outcome.

Basically this.

While they're all team sports, basketball and football wins can be more heavily impacted by one player.

It's weird, because in football you have, what, a 53-man with 48 active on game day. And yet an elite QB can cover for so many other deficiencies. Not that it's the only way to win - I remember the Dilfer-led Ravens who dominated on defense - but one elite defender doesn't have the impact one elite QB has.

No matter how you slice it, one elite baseball player can not carry an entire team. Play can't be dominated by any single player - even a starting pitcher who touches the ball on every play but only once in five games. At best this guy gets you 20% of the way through your schedule.

An elite hitter is only 11% of the offense. Even if Trout hit a homer every single game, it's 1-4 runs in a game. Good chance to win but far from comfortable to win.

[MoreToppsPlease]

I disagree that the WS is meaningless, it’s just looked at differently. It’s often evaluated like another stat, but exciting deciding games can certainly bring much attention to specific players.

Part of the issue is that the WS has been held a lot longer than the other two championships. It’s much more mature.

Another item to consider is that a single team has dominated the WS for so long.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by unclebuggy

I wonder the same. The easy answer is one player dominated more in other sports, but I don't buy that. Seems like baseball hobby treats the championship as meaningless, whereas it means a ton elsewhere. The huge discrepancy doesn't make sense.

That said, the world series is the only reasonable explanation for insane Mantle prices. He is likely not a top 10 player, but sells like the goat. So baseball card collectors at least used to care and that has carried over a bit.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

Mantle played in an era where the playoffs were only the world series so the best team was always in it. So you're the best player on the best team, this really shouldn't be hard to put together. You also completely ignore the cultural aspects of Mantle's appeal.

The best 1 or 2 team usually always wins in the NBA and they are usually always dominated by 1 or 2 players. In the NFL it is mostly just the QBs. Win 1 is great, win 2 and they usually put you in Canton.

[notfast]

Because individual stats are more well known and publicized in baseball more than other sports.

[unclebuggy]

Originally Posted by JRX

Mantle played in an era where the playoffs were only the world series so the best team was always in it. So you're the best player on the best team, this really shouldn't be hard to put together. You also completely ignore the cultural aspects of Mantle's appeal.



The best 1 or 2 team usually always wins in the NBA and they are usually always dominated by 1 or 2 players. In the NFL it is mostly just the QBs. Win 1 is great, win 2 and they usually put you in Canton.

Well, I didn't really want to get into blatant racism. There was literally segregated leagues when Mantle came up. So, that cultural reason might be one reason for his card prices when he wasn't even the best centerfielder playing in New York in his own rookie class.

But yeah, like I said, the WS is a legit reason for his popularity. You just restated my point there.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[JRX]

Originally Posted by unclebuggy

Well, I didn't really want to get into blatant racism. There was literally segregated leagues when Mantle came up. So, that cultural reason might be one reason for his card prices when he wasn't even the best centerfielder playing in New York in his own rookie class.

But yeah, like I said, the WS is a legit reason for his popularity. You just restated my point there.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

You're an idiot. Its not because he was white, he was the star of the Yankees during the 50s in New York when baseball was the dominate sport. Very few cared about the NFL or NBA back then.

[hermanotarjeta]

Prospectorz pump playerz, not teamz....

[ThoseBackPages]

#ThanksTopps

[unclebuggy]

Originally Posted by JRX

You're an idiot. Its not because he was white, he was the star of the Yankees during the 50s in New York when baseball was the dominate sport. Very few cared about the NFL or NBA back then.

And race had nothing to do with it, despite the fact that was was literally the basis for segregated leagues at the time and there was an objectively better player playing the same positio in the same city at the same time..

Sorry, but I'm done discussing with you.. Not overly interested in engaging with childish trolls who name call in the face of facts. I shared an opinion, that's it.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by unclebuggy

Well, I didn't really want to get into blatant racism. There was literally segregated leagues when Mantle came up. So, that cultural reason might be one reason for his card prices when he wasn't even the best centerfielder playing in New York in his own rookie class.

But yeah, like I said, the WS is a legit reason for his popularity. You just restated my point there.

The Giants were the worst of three teams in New York when Mantle and Mays were there. Anything else is subjective.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Prospectorz pump playerz, not teamz....

This.

[unclebuggy]

My comment was in response to the specific idea that is was meaningfull to play in New York then. I won't argue the Giants were worse, although the Dodgers and Giants both won exactly 1 WS in New York. Mays still played in NY.

The fact that segregated baseball still existed when Mantle came up is not subjective. And someone mentioned how culture was a pig part of Mante's popularity. I agree.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[JRX]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

The Giants were the worst of three teams in New York when Mantle and Mays were there. Anything else is subjective.

The Giants were also by far the least popular and then they moved to SF a much smaller city on a different coast well before there was any sort of national coverage. All you had was newspapers and I would guess you wouldn't even have box scores back then.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by unclebuggy

My comment was in response to the specific idea that is was meaningfull to play in New York then. I won't argue the Giants were worse, although the Dodgers and Giants both won exactly 1 WS in New York. Mays still played in NY.

The fact that segregated baseball still existed when Mantle came up is not subjective. And someone mentioned how culture was a pig part of Mante's popularity. I agree.

But the Dodgers were much more consistently in the WS than the Giants were. Team considerations are prime drivers of player popularity, especially back then.

[Stifle]

You must never have debated with a Yankees fan before. Y2K Red Sox fans will use this debate and it carries merit, and it’s much tougher to win a ring in the current MLB.

I believe it’s the performance of the player throughout the playoffs that is critiqued as much as the ring. A players performance can directly influence the odds for that team to advance, WPA.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Super Bowls only matter for QBs. When discussing the best WRs of all time, you never mention rings.

[unclebuggy]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

But the Dodgers were much more consistently in the WS than the Giants were. Team considerations are prime drivers of player popularity, especially back then.

I'll give you that. Just saying it is not very relevant to the point I was making. The teams were still in New York.

The Giants were historically the better team, but yeah the Dodgers got more October TV time in the 50s.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by JRX

The Giants were also by far the least popular and then they moved to SF a much smaller city on a different coast well before there was any sort of national coverage. All you had was newspapers and I would guess you wouldn't even have box scores back then.

Sure, and playing in the Polo grounds didn’t help.

[ucLAkers]

Mike Trout…..

Will never see a WS title

[JRX]

Originally Posted by unclebuggy

I'll give you that. Just saying it is not very relevant to the point I was making. The teams were still in New York.

The Giants were historically the better team, but yeah the Dodgers got more October TV time in the 50s.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

You're thinking NY in 1955 is the same as NY in 2021 and its not. Neighborhoods had much more of an identity back then. The Dodgers were Brooklyn. The Polo grounds were in upper Manhattan right across the river from Yankee Stadium. The Giants had no neighborhood fan base like the Dodgers did and the Yankees were bigger than everyone going back to the time of Ruth.