- 06/21/2011, 07:45PM ET
(KMac) Lame Sauce said 06/22, 08:19 PM
The question is: Is it better to have 1 superstar with a terribly selfish attitude surrounded by good/decent players, or a number of good players with team first attitudes?
This choice was easy for me to make. History has shown us that teams with good players with team first attitudes usually win the World Series. Proof?
and my favorite example....
THE 2002 ANAHEIM ANGELS.
Why the Angels? Not because of homerism (ok partly), but because they didn't have any superstars on their team. They had a team full of good, quality players with team first attitudes led by veterans Tim Salmon, Troy Percival, Darin Erstad, and Garret Anderson.
The team they played? How much more selfish can a team get when it already has Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds? Did either of them win a World Series? No.
Thus, the history books have proven that teams with selfish players don't win very often. They do win sometimes (see Red Sox and Yankees) but that's because they have more than one superstar on the team.
Bring the pain, BringThePain.
BringThePain said 06/23, 11:50 AM
First off, I got effed on this topic. Who in their right mind would take 1 SELFISH superstar over an actual team. But you have to play the hand you are dealt since this is a tourney TD.
My perfect example of THE ultimate selfish superstar is the one and only Manny Ramirez. Its funny how being great (Hanley Ramirez) will get the fact that your a waste of oxygen as a person overlooked.
This is the lineup for the 04' Red Sox the year they won the World Series.(baseball-referance.com)
C- Jason Varitek
1B- Kevin Millar
2B- Mark Bellhorn
SS- Pokey Reese
3B- Bill Mueller
LF- MANNY RAMIREZ
RF- Gabe Kapler
DH- David Ortiz
Now although the pithching staff has some all time greats, this is not a lineup that anyone would EVER think would sweep a World Series. Manny Ramirez is the only great superstar in that lineup and dont say Ortix is. Although he is a very good player, he is a DH and not near as important as Manny, who was also named the World sereis MVP.
BRING THE PAIN!!!
(KMac) Lame Sauce said 06/24, 06:03 AM
Yes, the 2004 Red Sox had Manny Ramirez who is the epitome of THE ultimate selfish superstar, BUT you are incorrect to say that Ortiz was not near as important as Manny.
Quickly, I will prove this:
David Ortiz- 4.3 WAR
Manny Ramirez- 3.8 WAR
Why is Man-Ram's lower? Because there's not 2 DH spots on the team, and they had to put him somewhere. His RDRS was -11. Not good.
Anyways, in every sport, the team with the good players that play well together and are hell bent at winning usually win.
I'm not saying teams like the 2004 Red Sox can't pull it off, but they usually don't.
Let's look at the Giants last year.
Cody Ross? Brian Wilson? Somebody different stepped up and helped the team win every night, while the Rangers relied heavily on the bats of Nelson Cruz and Josh Hamilton to win. Once Hamilton's bat went cold, not many other players were used to contributing much, so the team went down. Meanwhile, San Fran being used to contributions from EVERY player went on to win the Series.
Just another example of a team without selfish superstars won.
BringThePain said 06/24, 01:14 PM
I hate to do this because im not a quitter, but I cant argue this topic. Its insane to even ask the question what is better.
Nobody wins with 1 superstar, much less 1 selfish superstar.
We need a new topic if you want to TD.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia