Should an Athletes Success be measured by how many Rings they have won in their Career?

NOTE: This is being judged from the perspective of fan, not the athlete himself.

An Athlete's career should be measured by his on the field performance (stats), the amount of championships he has *contributed* to and his off the field actions.

I'm sure on the Yankee team that won all those Championships in the late 90's, they had guys on the bench that basically did nothing that really affected the outcome of those games. Should they be considered Hall of Famers and are deemed to have very successful careers? No, not in my eyes.

I do not think a player should be judged by how many rings they have won in their career. Sometimes a really great player can get stuck on a crappy team. In no way should they be held accountable for that. In that case, the player should be judged by their stats and how they performed throughout their career. Also, a bad player can get lucky and be on a really good team. They could have a World Series ring without every having gotten up to bat. To put them above someone who excelled throughout there whole career but wasn't able to win a ring, would be unfair.

However, for the players that have made it to the World Series and won, performing well in the playoffs should definitely be considered when determining how successful of an athlete they were.

When it comes to baseball, judging a player's career by rings makes little sense.

Given that there are so many players that have to contribute every day for a team to have postseason success, it's wrong to fault a great player for not winning a ring. The examples of Cobb and Banks that were given are outstanding cases - both were great players who just didn't have the talent surrounding them to win a ring. Cobb put up one of the greatest careers in major league history, but the Tigers failed to put together a pitching staff that could compete with other teams in the AL, and later in his career his teams ran into those great Yankees teams. Banks was even less fortunate, being stuck on those horrible Cubs teams.

Someone - I think it was Elizabeth - made a good point. If a player is going to be judged by anything to do with rings, it should be his success or failure on the biggest stage. That's been the problem of baseball's best player these last few seasons, and it will haunt him until he performs in the playoffs. On the flipside, much of Jeter's legend has to do with his great postseason performance.

A player should be judged by what he does every day to help his team win, not by the number of championships he wins. Unfortunately, I don't think most fans are as enlightened as are many of those who have already answered this question.

An athlete as an individual is successful by what he accomplishes on his own. That should be the first and foremost criteria in evaluating a career. Naturally, the point is to win and being on a championship team should be factored in. However, in a sport like baseball where team effort significantly outweighs any single player's effort to achieve victory it seems unfair to rank one player lower than another simply because he had the misfortune of playing for an organization that could not put together a winning team.

A good example is Ernie Banks. Should Ernie Banks be rated lower than someone with inferior stats but who played on several championship teams? Is it Banks' fault the Cubs couldn't get out of their own way while he played for them? Of course it's not and to penalize or diminish his accomplishments through no fault of his own isn't right.

for the player it is the rings . but money has dominated over the prize . the ring does not mean what it used too . now they are bought . great players are being denied . due to corporate intrest . far too many top notch athletes will not win win because the team changes year to year . played one sport usa and canada got rings better players none at all that was many many years ago . there is no penalty . they are great and should be recognisied as better athletes than many in the right place right year .

Great players shouldn't be judged on the number of rings they didn't win or their contemporaries won. Baseball is a team sport and one player doesn't alway make a difference like in basketball. Just to name two players, Ted Williams and Ernie Banks. You can't tell me they aren't two of the greatest players all time and tell me it's because they don't have rings. Like wise you can't tell me Dan Marino isn't one of the top 5 quarterbacks all time because he never won a Super Bowl.

No, it shouldn't. It should be measured how well they played throughout their career. No, they should not be penalized for not winning a ring. I consider a successful athlete someone who plays well, gives it their all, and who is someone that fans can look up to.

Certainly not on that basis alone. There are career backups and nobodies who have been on the right team, at the right time.

It definitely CAN be a factor, but you gotta look at the individual athlete and determine if their effort was fundamental in winning that ring.

Absolutely NOT. There have been many great players that have never won a ring. Their individual stats should be considered for their success.

a successful athlete can be the best player ever and never win a ring!(Ty Cobb, to name just 1 of the many)