In other words, individuals need not apply.  To win a championship (from here on I'll be referring to the four major professional American sports-hockey, football, baseball, and basketball), a team needs to be complete; there are very few weaknesses and most championship teams have none. 

To fully understand the basis for this post, you may find interest in reading two previous blogs: Cease and Desist: Sports Related Things That Need to Stop, and The Double Standard QB.  Please also read the ensuing comments and arguments.

 Often times we sports fans find ourselves engaged in hypothetical discussions of "which player would you rather have...", or "will So-And-So make the Hall of Fame (HOF)?"  Inevitably, one of our friends will always recite the "championship fallacy."  It has a few variations, but in its most popular form it states "Player A was so great because he won a Championship Title."

 My goal is to make the championship fallacy go the way of the Dodo bird.  Or at least, slowly decrease its usage.

 I have met dozens of people over the years who agree with me that Barry Sanders was a better running back than Emmitt Smith.  He had a higher yards per carry average over his career, was not used in goal line situations (thus reducing his touchdown numbers), and lacked the luxury of playing behind one of the NFL's greatest offensive lines (which Smith had for several seasons in Dallas).  The same people who (rightfully) say Sanders was a better player than Smith will occasionally hypocritically say that Derek Jeter is a better shortstop than Alex Rodriguez or that John Elway is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.  Why?  The championship fallacy.

 Smith, Jeter, and Elway are all fantastic players with HOF caliber careers.  There isn't necessarily anything wrong with holding the opinion that Elway is the superior to Marino.  But, to reason this way because Elway won two Super Bowls while Marino never did is a form of logical lunacy.

Over the course of a 17-year career, Marino compiled passing statistics that are unlikely to be surpassed.  The NFL's all-time passer with 61,361 yards and 420 touchdowns, he played in one Super Bowl as a rookie, lost the game, and never returned to the Promised Land again.  Elway finished his 16^th NFL season about 10,000 yards and a full 120 touchdown passes behind Marino.  Troy Aikman had almost half the yardage and less than half the touchdowns.  Terry Bradshaw fared slightly better than Aikman, but posted a touchdown to interception ratio of approximately 1:1 (Marino's ratio was 1.66:1).

 How is it that Elway, Aikman, and Bradshaw combined to win 9 Super Bowls compared to Marino's zero despite playing inferior quarterback? 

 The Cowboys' three Super Bowl winning teams contained current or future HOFers Emmitt Smith, Deion Sanders, Michael Irvin, and Larry Allen along with perennial Pro Bowlers Nate Newton, Erik Williams, Jay Novacek, Daryl Johnston, Charles Haley, and Darren Woodson.

Aikman won three Super Bowls with some elite teammates...

 Denver's two Super Bowl teams were loaded with HOFers Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis (he was well on his way before injuries ended his career prematurely), and Tom Nalen, not to mention studs like Neil Smith, Rod Smith, Steve Atwater, Bill Romanowski, and Trevor Pryce.

 The Steelers teams for which Bradshaw played and won four titles had HOFers Mel Blount, Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, and Mike Webster.  Added to the list are greats Glen Edwards, John Stallworth, and Mike Wagner.

 The Dolphins, during Marino's stint, only had two HOFers-OL Dwight Stephenson, and LB Junior Seau. Only twice in 17 years did the Dolphins field a top 3 NFL defense and only once did his backfield contain a 1000-yard rusher.  Those who say Marino wasn't a winner don't understand what it takes to win.  Teams win games and championships, not players. 

...while Marino had to do the dirty work alone.

 The numbers are staggering.  Counting the quarterbacks being compared the Cowboys, Broncos, and Steelers combined for 18 players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame and nine Lombardi Trophies.  The Dolphins: three and zero.  Sanders was the only HOFer playing for the Lions in his ten years.

 To say Sanders and Marino aren't "winners" or that they didn't do enough to get the job done is crazy.  What would Marino have to do to hoist the trophy?  Maybe if he had thrown 80,000 yards and 600 touchdowns he wouldn't be underrated.

 Flash back to 1989.  With the first pick in the NFL Draft the Cowboys selected Aikman and at number two went Tony Mandarich to the Packers.  If Dallas had mistakenly taken the drug abusing lineman from Michigan State and Green Bay jumped on the UCLA quarterback what would the picture look like today?  My hypothesis is that the Packers would not have won any championships with Aikman at the helm, not even in 1995 (when they did win it with Brett Favre), but, with the Cowboys' roster stacked as it was, they might have been lucky to win at least a one with Jason Garrett or another player which they would have been forced to acquire.  As for Aikman, his resume wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive as a Packer and his name would have been long-forgotten by now.

 Tom Brady is a stellar player in this league, but those who feel he has already assured himself of seeing his bust enshrined in Canton would be committing the championship fallacy.  Brady's three rings are impressive, but he didn't earn them alone.  The Patriots' defense ranked 6^th, 2^nd, and 1^st for his three titles.  Peyton Manning is the best active quarterback and stands a great chance to win at least one title in the future, although the Colts' loss of Edgerton James certainly hurts that cause.  Regardless of whether he achieves Super Bowl success or not, Manning should be revered as one of the top quarterbacks of all time.

 So many other phenomenal players have come and gone without winning a championship.  Nobody should ever say that Karl Malone and John Stockton weren't good enough to win the NBA Title.  The Utah Jazz were just one or possibly two players away.  Patrick Ewing came close on several occasions but the Knicks never could find the right combination of shooting and defense.  Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds (steroid usage aside) are two of the greatest outfielders in Major League history.  Together, they hit over 1200 home runs but have never won a World Series.  Don't blame them, however.  Blame the rest of their Mariners, Reds, Pirates, and Giants teammates because these two players did everything they possibly could.

 Jeter, like Brady, has HOF support from a vast majority of voters.  I hope it's not because of his World Series Championships.  Jeter has had a steady career; a .300+ lifetime hitter boasting both speed and power, he has been the heart and soul of the Yankees for the last decade.  You would have to be utterly insane to pick him over his teammate, Rodriguez (fantasy draft or otherwise).  Sure, their 2006 numbers don't necessarily support the conclusion (Jeter is batting .345 while A-Rod has had his worst season as a pro), but Rodriguez, even if he never wins a championship is a far better on-the-field player than Jeter will ever be.  He'll hit at or above 650 homers in his career.  With the Mariners, A-Rod lacked, among other things, solid protection in the lineup and depth at starting pitching.  While with the Rangers, his teams were utterly pathetic, but he cannot be blamed (he won the MVP in 2003 despite the team's .438 winning percentage).  Since joining the Yankees in 2004, he's ran into a Red Sox team whose destiny would not be denied and has since experienced poor team management from Brian Cashman and George Steinbrenner and to a lesser extent Joe Torre.  He also won another MVP last year.

 I'm not making excuses for A-Rod.  I'm simply saying that "championships is a team statistic."  Rodriguez has done his part to win and when evaluating his level of talent it makes no sense to consider his team's lack of success since he controls only 1/25 of what happens.

A-Rod did more than his fair share while with the Rangers

 Coaches contribute to team success too.  Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant were two of the NBA's biggest superstars, but couldn't win a title together until 2000 when Phil Jackson came to the Lakers.  Bryant has failed to win a title in L.A. since Shaq left town, but only a fool would say he's not a winner.  He certainly played well enough to win last year, averaging 35.6 points per game.  But no Shaq equals incomplete team.  Likewise, only a fool committing the championship fallacy would put Robert Horry in elite company.  Horry has been fortunate enough to win six championship rings, but couldn't have done so without Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Shaq, and Bryant.  Horry doesn't possess a winning personality per say.  He was lucky enough to play for three different teams employing five different HOF players.

 The opposite is true for Sanders and Marino.  Certainly they were good enough players to win a Super Bowl, but they were unfortunate in that they didn't have enough talent around them to win.  Bryant's talents should net him another title with the Lakers because he is that good.  He's just not good enough to win playing one against five.

 But don't hold that against him!

 Tony Gonzalez is certainly on his way to becoming one of the greatest tight ends in NFL history and is on pace to break several of Shannon Sharpe's receiving records for that position.  However, Gonzalez has yet to make it past the first round of the playoffs while Sharpe has three rings with the Broncos and Ravens.  When comparing these two future HOFers head-to-head, all that matters is their ability to block, run routes, and catch the football-after all, that is all they do.  Had Gonzalez played alongside Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jonathan Ogden, Sam Adams, Peter Boulware, Chris McAlister, and Jamal Lewis, in addition to the great Broncos players named earlier, I'm sure he'd have at least one piece of bling on his finger by now.  You see, Sharpe didn't win those titles by himself, so saying he is better than Gonzo for that reason and that reason only is to commit the championship fallacy since Gonzo has proven himself to be an All-Pro TE for ten years and counting.

  Could Sharpe have won the Super Bowl in 1997 with say, Elvis Grbac throwing and Greg Hill running?  Could he have won it in 2000 with the Chief's defense that surrendered 354 points? 

 Comparing Sharpe against Gonzalez need only involve their personal abilities and not the teams they played for.

 In 2005, ESPN asked Ravens head coach Brian Billick who he thought was the greatest defense in NFL history.  The options were the 1985 Chicago Bears or the 2000 Ravens (for which he coached).  Billick declared the Ravens because they set the record for fewest points allowed and won the Super Bowl.  In contrast, it was the 1986 Bears who (at that time) set the points record and the '85 team was the one that hoisted the trophy.  The problem is that Super Bowls are won by teams, not defenses or individual players.  I'm nearly positive if you asked Billick who the greatest offense was in NFL history he'd say the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, for whom Billick was the offensive coordinator and who set the record for most points scored in a single season.  However, that year's Vikings went 15-1 in the regular season and lost the NFC title game to the Falcons.  So which is it Brian?  Is it points or championships?  For the record, it's points that determine the best offense, and the '98 Vikings were the best offensive team ever.

 Some people wrongfully say that Ray Bourque couldn't be considered one of the greatest NHL defensemen ever-until he won his first Stanley Cup with the Avalanche in 2001-or that Frank Thomas couldn't make the HOF until he sipped champagne in 2005.  It's absolutely bogus!  Athletes who play a long time and never go all the way cannot be faulted because they were unfortunate enough to play on lousy teams. 

Critics finally gave the Big Hurt credit after last year, but he was great before he kissed the trophy

 Often times great athletes reach the postseason on such atrocious teams that they would have finished several games out of the race without the player in question.  This was certainly the case with Marino, Sanders, Malone, and to a lesser extent A-Rod.  In these instances, the player deserves more accolades for carrying a mediocre team as far as he did, as opposed to less because he couldn't seal the deal.

 Case in point: the 1990-1993 Buffalo Bills, who had such great players like Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, and Jim Kelly.  Those Bills teams should be considered some of the best ever, even though at the time they happened to run into some better Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys teams during an era of NFC dominance.  Likewise, Smith is one of the greatest pass rushers ever even though he never won a championship and Reggie White did.

 Saying somebody "knows how to win" is complete garbage.  I know how to win; it's actually a simple formula.  Following through on the plan is the difficult part.  All you have to do is completely dominate your opponent.  Aikman certainly didn't do that by himself as he was statistically a run of the mill player for years.  But, he had help from Pro Bowl players around him.  Did Michael Jordan "know how to win?"  Not really, he was simply the best player in the league during his era and had a host of talented teammates like Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and Horace Grant. 

 The Jordan who played from 1987-89, averaging 34.7 points per game and won zero championships was better than the Jordan who played from 1996-98, averaging 29.5 ppg and winning three titles.  The elder Jordan was slower and less dynamic than his younger self, but played with a better team.  Larry Bird had Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale and Magic Johnson had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  If Bird or Magic (in their primes) played for the 2005 Raptors then Toronto would have still had a lottery pick.

 A ring on an athlete's finger is not a clear cut sign of greatness as dozens of role players have multiple championships because they had solid supporting casts.  Horry, Tedy Bruschi, Jim McMahon, Bill Cartwright, and Scott Brosius are all perfect examples.  They are decent players who don't "know how to win," but they played on winning teams and cannot under any circumstances be considered amongst the best at their respective positions.

 If you try your hardest and still can't forget about the number of championship titles, then the easiest way to compare two players is to hypothetically switch their teams.  Would Bruce Smith have won the Super Bowl with Green Bay in 1995 if Reggie White wasn't there?  Could Ewing have won a title with the Bulls if Pippen was on the Knicks?  Would the Red Sox still have won the World Series in 2004 if they had Randy Johnson instead of Pedro Martinez?  

 A 'yes' or 'no' answer to the above questions doesn't automatically presume one player was better than the other, but it does go a long way in finding the truth.

 Anytime somebody says that Player A was great because he won a championship, or that Player B wasn't so good because he never won it; that is the championship fallacy.  And it's completely wrong.  From now on, whenever you assess one athlete's individual abilities look only at what he accomplished alone:  yardage, points, homeruns, MVP's and Rookie of the Year's.  No one player can control the indecisiveness of his coach, the dropped pass by his teammate, or the red-hot team he unluckily faced in the playoffs.  Nobody deserves automatic credit because a team won the championship just like he doesn't deserve blame if the team doesn't.  Championships is a team statistic and individual players can only do so much.