Thank you.
Ringo is a ridiculous choice–his drumming is always understated and highly competent at worst, brilliant at its best. The OP meant (and I should know) the luckiest, least talented, least substantial in the world, not in his own band. Sorry for any ambiguity there.
ISWYDT.
Hard disagree. Ringo brought a lot to the band, both with his drumming and with his personality, and it’s not at all obvious that they would have been as good, or as successful (which isn’t the same thing), without him.
If you’re going to say “[drummer (or other musician)] could have been replaced by a lot of other guys and [band] would still be [band],” there are many, many names that could be filled into the blanks more plausibly.
I think Larry Mullen Jr. is a solid, creative, works-well-with-their-style drummer. And I say that not just because Rick Beato says the same. 
It’s possible his personality was good for band cohesion or whatever, but that’s not really what the OP is asking about.
It’s not just about band cohesion. A significant part of Beatlemania was due to their personality, charm, and charisma, as it came across in interviews and on the small screen (Ed Sullivan) and big screen (A Hard Day’s Night, Help). And if they hadn’t had that early success, they might not have had the opportunity to go on and become what they later became, musically. And it’s not at all obvious to me that they would have had that same popularity with someone other than Ringo behind the kit.
Still, even if you stick to just his musical contribution, I stand by my claim that there are many drummers who would have been more easily replaceable than Ringo.
Rick Rubin as a member of the Beastie Boys
Unquestionably. But besides that, Ringo was an excellent drummer. Check out Rain. His fills were inspired. I offer Day in the Life as an example. Sure, most any competant drummer can copy them, but he came up with them. Just like the, literal, millions of guys on YouTube who can play Van Halen guitar songs. It’s relatively easy to copy, but probably none of them could have written those solos.
I don’t feel this is justified. He was rock solid and I don’t consider him lucky - he was in the band before Roth. He might not have been a great bassist, but to say he was lucky, as in dragged along despite his lack of talent, is almost objectively untrue.
Michael Anthony is a fine bassist. Not his fault most VH songs called for him to just pound on one string for 5 minutes, and not walking jazz basslines.
I remember some comedian making a joke about ska bands in the 90s having 30 people in them with 5 of those people playing keytars, so one of them.
I came on to say this. Also even the maracas were not because of any skill in playing maracas. They were chosen because he had spent time in Morocco (for the fine berber architecture of course, not the cheap plentiful drugs ) and “Morocco” and “Maraca” sound similar, so maracas it was.
Victoria Beckham, perhaps.
On the merits of his drumming alone, he doesn’t belong in this category. Countless drummers have listed him as one of their main influences, due to his unique approach to drumming on the songs the Beatles wrote. The Beatles (and Ringo) were both talented and unique. No matter how competent a replacement might have been, they would not likely have been as innovative as Ringo. In fact, very few rock drummers in that time period were innovative at all. In a way, Ringo invented rock drumming, and carved a path like no other. It is ridiculous to suggest that, with another drummer, the Beatles would have had equal success.
Same for Michael Clarke, the original drummer for the Byrds. When they gathered as a group, all of them had experiences as performers, instrumentalists and songwriters and of course all were very fine singers, but Clarke was picked because of his good looks. He was a dead ringer for Brian Jones (exactly the same hairdo) and was hired to attract the girls. He had never played a drum set and when they first set out to rehearsing and recording demos, he still played on cardboard boxes because at that stage they couldn’t afford a drum set.
I have to admit that he seemed to have learned fast though, judging from the early Byrds albums, but I really don’t know how often it was really him in the studio or some session drummer. But he must have had acquired some skills because after his demise from the Byrds, he got hired for one of their off-shot bands, the Flying Burrito Brothers.
As for Ringo: anybody who dismisses him clearly doesn’t know the Beatles’ work or never listened carefully. He’s as crucial to their sound as any other member.
While searching for something else awhile back, I ran across this short video with a guy discussing a good example of this.
Ringo Starr wasn’t necessarily a monster drummer, but he was certainly a good professional musician.
Imagine the Beatles with a monster drummer instead of Ringo, say Keith Moon, John Bonham or Ginger Baker. See? Wouldn’t have worked at all.
One of the reasons Ringo gets a bad rap is because he’s not a drummer who wants the drums to be spotlighted. Rather, the drums are a rhythm instrument used to provide the backbeat and the groove. The other Beatles had to practically beg him to do a solo.
Ringo was all about finding the right rhythm for a song, and playing it perfectly in time, no matter how complex the rhythm might be. That’s what he was great at. It’s really hard to find a Beatles song where the drums don’t complement the song really well.
I agree. I think his charm and personality on the drums is not replaceable. His drum parts are so distinctive, colorful, and goddamned musical that I wouldn’t bet against that being crucial to the Beatles success and their success is not guaranteed with someone else in his stead.
IMNSHO, ANY member of the Beastie Boys.
And if you’re talking about bands as a whole, any member of Guns N’Roses other than Slash, or KISS besides Ace Frehley, based on what some people who have seen either band try to play acoustic sets, or jam, have said.