I couldn't believe what I heard after Super Bowl XLIV. After a season of reading and watching virtually every NFL analyst declare Peyton Manning the best quarterback in NFL history and a player performing at the height of his career, sports pundits were now debating whether, after one game, Drew Brees is now better than Manning.
This particular argument is the latest one that represents a big problem in sports analysis.
This is going to sound a little crazy at first, but bear with me: The media puts too much emphasis on winning when evaluating individual players.
All season Manning was pronounced, by a fair margin, the best quarterback in the NFL. This season he threw for 4,500 yards and 35 touchdowns as he played with defenses in the palm of his hand, capping it off with his NFL-record fourth AP NFL MVP award.
Manning stayed hot in the postseason, and was turning in a solid Super Bowl effort until he threw the pick that spelled doom for his team. Granted, it was a big moment in a big game, but now because of it sports analysts are jumping ship and crowning Brees the best in the NFL.
Manning's interception was a poor throw and a costly mistake for himself and his team, but dethroning him as the league's current best is totally unfair. Manning did not even play that poorly of a game (31-45, 333 yards, one touchdown, one interception), but because of the loss, apparently his legacy has been damaged.
Sports is far too team-oriented to make rash judgments such as this. All four major sports are team games, with many players on each side of the ball (or puck) impacting the outcome. It is almost a certainty that if Hank Baskett does not mishandle the onside kick the Colts win the game, and then it can be guaranteed no one around sports is partaking in this debate.
Discussing wins and losses to definitively label athletes is unfair enough to quarterbacks, but it gets even more absurd when the deliberations revolve around other sports, involving players with an even smaller impact on game outcomes.
How many times have we heard how great Derek Jeter is because he's a winner? Jeter is a remarkable player—a player who can hit for average and power, a superb situational hitter and a steady shortstop. But fans and analysts tend to harp on Jeter's five World Series victories. Jeter is a great piece to build a winning team with, but it's because of his ability, not because he's a winner. You know who else has five World Series? Luis Sojo.
Winning a championship is a nice feather in a player's cap for debate, but individually, it should not add too much to an evaluation.
Perhaps the best example of this problem is Kobe Bryant. Bryant has consistently been one of the best, if not the best NBA player in the last 10 years. Early in the decade Kobe won three championships with Shaq by his side.
Once the Lakers traded Shaq to Miami, the Lakers completely fell off the table, either bowing out early in the playoffs or missing them completely. Kobe was scrutinized for being too selfish. Then, all of a sudden when the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol, Los Angeles returned to the Finals and won it all the next season.
Was Bryant considerably worse during the championship drought? Bryant was a great player with Shaq, a great player when L.A. was losing, and he's still a great player after the Lakers' 2009 championship.
Great athletes whose teams succeed obviously contribute greatly to the winning, but they're also in very fortunate situations with other great players around them. Achievement in sports is because of an all-around effort from dozens of players and coaches.
Winning squads do not win because of a player, they win because of their teams. This may seem obvious, but for whatever reason points like these are never considered in sports arguments revolving around individuals.
Does the media put too much importance on stars? E-mail Scott at kellogg2@wisc.edu.
