Is a championship really so important? - Page 2

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Professor

Short and simple. Yes. Winning is, ultimately, the only thing that matters.*

*I think this is especially true, as bababui and others intimate above, of American sports."

I see you're in INdiana. Are you a Cubs fan, perchance? If so, what keeps you going? If not, think about fans of franchises like that. Obviously, winning cannot be the only thing that matters. It is illogical, said Spock.

canadiancreed · 10-31-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

A lot of people seem to think that winning a championship is the ultimate goal. It's everything, and if you don't do it, its not worth playing. I'm talking both about real life and just play - OOTP online leagues, for example.

Am I weird for really not thinking championships are all that important? Yes, its a nice cap to the season and a great way of counting years (sort of like Roman Consuls in a weird way). For example, in the OOTP league I played in (TWB), teams would often trade away their HOF, 15 year veteran pitcher for a few prospects in order to rebuild, since they want to get another ring. A I crazy for thinking I'd much rather lose for the next few years and keep this guy on my team?

This isn't a question about "can you be great if you never won a ring," but rather the very point of sports in the first place. Sports exist because we enjoy them, and for no other reason - they are not necessary. Isn't there a deeper fabric than merely a championship?

I guess I see championships as *one* way in which stories develop in sports, but I really don't consider it the *point* of sports.

Geeze I wasn't THAT bad was I?!

disposableheros · 10-31-2006, 04:53 PM

finding your soul mate = winning the relationship championship
becoming a successful _______ (pick your job) = winning the economic championship
the pack of lions who does catch the zebra = winning the basic needs championship
the baseball team that wins the ultimate prize = winning the sporting championship

is winning the championship important? hell yes!

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

finding your soul mate = winning the relationship championship
becoming a successful _______ (pick your job) = winning the economic championship
the pack of lions who does catch the zebra = winning the basic needs championship
the baseball team that wins the ultimate prize = winning the sporting championship

is winning the championship important? hell yes!

I thought you were going to give us one of those "finding your soul mate $50; catch and eat a zebra $100; winning a sporting championship, priceless."

The Professor · 10-31-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I see you're in INdiana. Are you a Cubs fan, perchance? If so, what keeps you going? If not, think about fans of franchises like that. Obviously, winning cannot be the only thing that matters. It is illogical, said Spock.

I'm a Cardinals fan.

What I mean to say is that championships are, at least nominally, the ultimate goal of every sports team. This is not to say some aren't content with less than that, but even teams such as the Cubs are not coming into a season with the mindset of "Oh, let's just have fun, entertain the fans, and, uh, finish third." Obviously the Cubs are successful despite not winning, but that doesn't mean they don't - in some pathetic way - aspire to championship heights or that their loyal fans wouldn't trade some of that lovable image for a trophy.

What is illogical, I'm afraid, is the notion that championships are not the ultimate goal. If not, what then? I'm not saying you can't enjoy a season in which your team doesn't achieve that goal, but putting aside the deeper issue of money and business, athletes suit up with the goal of winning in mind. You don't field players who play just to play and you certainly don't play to lose. You play to win.

That is my primary point. In American sports winning is what counts, winning is what is remembered, and winning - winning all the way to the end - is the goal.

Melo · 10-31-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Professor

I'm a Cardinals fan.

What I mean to say is that championships are, at least nominally, the ultimate goal of every sports team. This is not to say some aren't content with less than that, but even teams such as the Cubs are not coming into a season with the mindset of "Oh, let's just have fun, entertain the fans, and, uh, finish third." Obviously the Cubs are successful despite not winning, but that doesn't mean they don't - in some pathetic way - aspire to championship heights or that their loyal fans wouldn't trade some of that lovable image for a trophy.

What is illogical, I'm afraid, is the notion that championships are not the ultimate goal. If not, what then? I'm not saying you can't enjoy a season in which your team doesn't achieve that goal, but putting aside the deeper issue of money and business, athletes suit up with the goal of winning in mind. You don't field players who play just to play and you certainly don't play to lose. You play to win.

That is my primary point. In American sports winning is what counts, winning is what is remembered, and winning - winning all the way to the end - is the goal.

I thinking winning has to be the only goal of the participants. For spectators, it's different.

abailey3313 · 10-31-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

For example, in the OOTP league I played in (TWB), teams would often trade away their HOF, 15 year veteran pitcher for a few prospects in order to rebuild, since they want to get another ring. A I crazy for thinking I'd much rather lose for the next few years and keep this guy on my team?

Much like any of these types of debates, there's really too many variables to say one way or another what the right move is.

Personally, as someone already said in this thread, I like the idea of keeping "my guys" together on the roster. Unless they stink, I'd rather enjoy watching their career finish out as a member of my team than trade them off for hit-or-miss youngsters. If I want young players, I'll get them via the draft or some place else.

IRL, teams dump older players for younger guys for a number of reasons -- the biggest of which is the financial aspect of it. Teams just aren't going to pay a guy millions of dollars to be mediocre or worse. In addition to that, you have to look at a team's standing. If the Royals are the team with the 15-year veteran pitcher, why shouldn't they deal him off for some prospects? The team is in the dumps with little hope of improvement and that player is likely to be making a decent chunk of change. I'd rather my team deal him off and try to win rather than hold onto him and accept losing -- except for very rare cases. If the Orioles had dealt away Cal Ripken in one of his last couple of seasons, the city would have literally rioted. But I think there are very few Ripken cases in baseball anymore where you have a literal homegrown legend playing out his entire career for the same team.

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Professor

You play to win.

Oh, I'm not saying you don't play to win. There's something good about meeting a challenge and winning fulfills that. All I am saying is that you (or your fans) should not be devastated by failure because, again, sportsmanship, camaraderie, athleticism, enjoyment are (or should be) important parts of sports as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melo

I thinking winning has to be the only goal of the participants. For spectators, it's different.

Hmmm. This is a very good point. I have not been a participant in organized sports for many years. Perhaps my perspective would be different if I were, but I am just a spectator now, alas.

The Professor · 10-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melo

I thinking winning has to be the only goal of the participants. For spectators, it's different.

That may well be true. Every spectator is different in regards to what they invest in sports and what they take out of sports. As far as I'm concerned a season that doesn't end with a trophy can still be a worthwhile and enjoyable season.

But, if we put aside the goal of the team - which to me is clearly winning - and make this about what sport means to the spectator, that is a whole 'nuther bag of balls. If we're talking about DY's OP and the idea that he is trying to get at the very raison d'etre of sport, then I think we end up having to address the idea that sports exist solely as a form of entertainment and have no other intrinsic value.

That's a big topic.

Y0DA55 · 10-31-2006, 05:24 PM

Speaking for me in real leagues that I actually participate in, it's much more important to have fun. This is different than me as a fan of some team (which would be to see a competitive team) or a person on a team (goal is to win). When I am playing sports, at this point in my life, I could care less whether I win or not. I'm going to try my best, but ultimately, I just don't care that much.

Not that this is the same thing that is being talked about in this thread, but I would much rather play on a really crappy team than sit on the bench of a championship team. The problem with playing for a crappy team is that they tend to give up.

The Professor · 10-31-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Oh, I'm not saying you don't play to win. There's something good about meeting a challenge and winning fulfills that. All I am saying is that you (or your fans) should not be devastated by failure because, again, sportsmanship, camaraderie, athleticism, enjoyment are (or should be) important parts of sports as well.

I was playing off the (in)famous quote:

Quote:

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing"

Which I think remains the defining creed of American sport - for good or ill.

As I've mentioned several times in clarification, though, I don't necessarily think that means that a season in which you don't win the championship is one with no value at all. There can be many consolations in a "lost" season, as you point out. However, those consolations, no matter how pleasing to the team and its fans, are not substitutes for a championship.

ihatenames · 10-31-2006, 05:37 PM

Getting to the playoffs or playing well is enough for me. Championships usually go to to the team that is streaking or playing well at the time of the championships. The season is a better judge of the best team. If team plays well during the year i'm satisified. Perhaps i feel this way because i'm a cubs fan and we're used to midtable finishes every year.

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihatenames

Getting to the playoffs or playing well is enough for me. Championships usually go to to the team that is streaking or playing well at the time of the championships. The season is a better judge of the best team. If team plays well during the year i'm satisified. Perhaps i feel this way because i'm a cubs fan and we're used to midtable finishes every year.

See, this is what I mean. Winning is not everything for this particular Cubs fan. I don't think it's a matter of habitually settling for less, is it? I mean, you want to win it all, but there is nevertheless something satisfying in being a Cubs fan year after year, just as it has been satisfying, albeit frustrating at times, to be a Yankees fan in the years since 2000. Thanks, ihatenames.

Skipaway · 10-31-2006, 05:49 PM

Isn't this question impossible to answer? What exactly does "really so important" mean?

Is the sky too blue?

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Isn't this question impossible to answer?

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it's not valid (or fun) to debate. For example, I happen to think The Professor is exactly right in what he says. I also happen to think that I am right in what I am saying. The difference? He's saying what is and I'm saying what ought to be. Both are opinions as they must be because there are no absolutes in this topic.

Skipaway · 10-31-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it's not valid (or fun) to debate. For example, I happen to think The Professor is exactly right in what he says. I also happen to think that I am right in what I am saying. The difference? He's saying what is and I'm saying what ought to be. Both are opinions as they must be because there are no absolutes in this topic.

Therefore it's not a debate. It's more of a "what do you feel" kind of question.

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Therefore it's not a debate. It's more of a "what do you feel" kind of question.

Sorry. I will not be drawn into a debate about debate.

Jordan · 10-31-2006, 06:33 PM

I agree with the notion that winning is the most important thing in American sports.

But what is the consensus on draws? You didn't win, but you didn't lose. So what did you do?

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordan

I agree with the notion that winning is the most important thing in American sports.

But what is the consensus on draws? You didn't win, but you didn't lose. So what did you do?

Didn't somebody once say that it's like kissing your sister?

ihatenames · 10-31-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

See, this is what I mean. Winning is not everything for this particular Cubs fan. I don't think it's a matter of habitually settling for less, is it? I mean, you want to win it all, but there is nevertheless something satisfying in being a Cubs fan year after year, just as it has been satisfying, albeit frustrating at times, to be a Yankees fan in the years since 2000. Thanks, ihatenames.

The key point is the team has to play well to be enjoyed. If the team like the 2006 cubs played miserable it's not emjoyable. I'm satisified with a playoff appearance or if the the team finishes above .500. I watch baseball for entertainment. I would love the cubs to win the world series. I was skipping work and family events to watch the cubs in 2003. Winning the championship is all great, but expecting to win every year is just setting yourself up for misery.

Let me put it another way I watch the cubs for entertainment. If the play well and contend for the playoffs i'm happy and entertained.. That's all i expect of them. You can't buy a world series and there is a lot of luck involved in getting the championship. If the cubs put out a good team that will at least contend for the playoffs i'm entertained and satisfied.

10-31-2006, 04:53 PM	#23
disposableheros Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,332	finding your soul mate = winning the relationship championship becoming a successful _______ (pick your job) = winning the economic championship the pack of lions who does catch the zebra = winning the basic needs championship the baseball team that wins the ultimate prize = winning the sporting championship is winning the championship important? hell yes! __________________ 2 Wild Cards, 11 Division Champs, 4 League Champs, 3 World Champs, and 3 Best GM awards Baseball Maelstrom - New York Mets - 180-149 .547 Corporate League Baseball - Coke Buzz - 889-649 .578 Western Hemisphere Baseball League - Santiago Saints - 672-793 .459 Record - 2428-2271 .517

10-31-2006, 05:24 PM	#30
Y0DA55 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In the middle of the Yankees/Red Sox Rivalry Posts: 1,771	Speaking for me in real leagues that I actually participate in, it's much more important to have fun. This is different than me as a fan of some team (which would be to see a competitive team) or a person on a team (goal is to win). When I am playing sports, at this point in my life, I could care less whether I win or not. I'm going to try my best, but ultimately, I just don't care that much. Not that this is the same thing that is being talked about in this thread, but I would much rather play on a really crappy team than sit on the bench of a championship team. The problem with playing for a crappy team is that they tend to give up. __________________ Do, or do not, there is no try!

10-31-2006, 05:49 PM	#34
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Isn't this question impossible to answer? What exactly does "really so important" mean? Is the sky too blue? __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

10-31-2006, 05:37 PM	#32
ihatenames Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Rockford Posts: 2,534	Getting to the playoffs or playing well is enough for me. Championships usually go to to the team that is streaking or playing well at the time of the championships. The season is a better judge of the best team. If team plays well during the year i'm satisified. Perhaps i feel this way because i'm a cubs fan and we're used to midtable finishes every year.

10-31-2006, 06:33 PM	#38
Jordan All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Chi Suburbs now... Posts: 1,991	I agree with the notion that winning is the most important thing in American sports. But what is the consensus on draws? You didn't win, but you didn't lose. So what did you do?