Is Gretzky the most dominant athlete ever in any major sport?

[jekoh]

but where i'd give lebron the crown is he's maybe the basketball player most likely to excel at any sport -- and maybe any position in any sport -- that you ask him to put his mind to.

Are there really that many sports where being that big gives you any advantage whatsoever? It is a hinderance in plenty of sports.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Are there really that many sports where being that big gives you any advantage whatsoever? It is a hinderance in plenty of sports.

i think what makes lebron so special is he's very big and ridiculously strong, even for his height, but has the speed and agility and coordination of a much smaller man. that's why in the context of playing basketball only, he might be the only player in NBA history who can both play and guard 4/5 positions at an elite level.

that versatility should theoretically extend to his ability to excel at a wider range of other sports relative to his basketball peers. i would guess, for example, that if both guys put their minds to it, lebron for all his giantness would be a much better soccer player than, say, the smaller steve nash or even extremely skilled little guys like tim hardaway or allen iverson. and i'd expect lebron, for his strength advantage and comparable quickness, agility, and coordination would be better than even a supreme athlete like jordan too.

 

[davemess]

What about the more popular, mainstream sports, such as the 5 i listed? Hockey, Baseball, Football, Basketball and Soccer.

I'm not saying this to discard this Donald Bradman, but i'm saying if we are only considering the 5 major mainstream sports (unless there's another sport i'm not thinking of), how does Gretzky match up?

I love the idea of discounting Cricket as a less popular sport than any of Hockey, Baseball or Football.

Would argue that Cricket might be the 2nd most popular sport in the world (although Basketball is probably running it closer and closer each year).

 

[jekoh]

that versatility should theoretically extend to his ability to excel at a wider range of other sports relative to his basketball peers. i would guess, for example, that if both guys put their minds to it, lebron for all his giantness would be a much better soccer player than, say, the smaller steve nash or even extremely skilled little guys like tim hardaway or allen iverson.

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think LeBron's "coordination" would make up for his physical disadvantage.

 

[Hammer Time]

Pele didnt lead any team, they didnt need him to win in 62, in 1970 jarinzho scored twice as many goals and he had 5-6 players make the all star team, maradoan had Zero. Pele never played in serie a and la liga. You cant compare their competition. In brazil, pele was playing worldclass teams a few times a year, th other games were against regional state club team. The compeition is literally amatuer compared to seriea a in the 80s. People on soccer forums would actually laugh at u if u suggest pele had tougher compeition at club level, because hes basically unproven outside world cups. Maradona is better than him deal with it.

So which is it:

A) The Brazilian league is a relatively poor league which doesn't offer much competition.

OR

B) The Brazilian league is so good that 5-6 of its players could be named to a World Cup All-Star Team.

I mean, today, I'd agree that EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, and Serie A are probably the top four leagues in the world. But in Pele's prime, Brazil was winning World Cups with rosters composed mostly of players playing club football in Brazil.

 

[Sentinel]

voting, the missing part of the absolute truth we have been looking for years.

Indeed. The popular polls are a great way to establish the truth. Especially when a recent / current player is being compared to a historical figure.

I still can't get over the fact that anyone -- ANYONE! -- would pick Maradona over Gretzky to start a club. Dude's issues were legendary.

 

[canucks4ever]

So which is it:

A) The Brazilian league is a relatively poor league which doesn't offer much competition.

OR

B) The Brazilian league is so good that 5-6 of its players could be named to a World Cup All-Star Team.

I mean, today, I'd agree that EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, and Serie A are probably the top four leagues in the world. But in Pele's prime, Brazil was winning World Cups with rosters composed mostly of players playing club football in Brazil.

Thats not the point. The brazilian league was top heavy. All the best players were on 2 or 3 teams and they would face regional/state clubs that were 2 or 3 tiers below in quality. Thats the equivalent of manchester united playing bottom feeder teams. The brazilian league of that era was ridiculously unbalanced.

Players in the brazilian league were padding thier stats against teams of significantly lower quality. This isnt anything new.

Same thing applies to the argentinean league. The top players would play for either boca juniors or river plate and the rest of the teams were of lower quality. Maradona was putting up big numbers in the argentinian league and he wasnt even a centre forward. The funny thing is that historically argentinian clubs have outperformed brazilian clubs at club level. But on the national level, brazil has had more success.

Diego from 1978 until mid 1982 was scoring alot of goals and putting up a ridiculous amount of assists in the argentinian league, then he goes to europe and his numbers are lower because the competition is much better in terms of depth, and italy is a very defensive minded league.

 

[VMBM]

Pele didnt lead any team, they didnt need him to win in 62, in 1970 jarinzho scored twice as many goals and he had 5-6 players make the all star team, maradoan had Zero.

Oh come on, he led the 1970 team in almost every imaginable way, and I'm sure every player on that team would tell you that; he set up goals even in the games in which he didn't score (e.g. vs. Peru and vs. Uruguay), and in the final vs. Italy he scored 1 and set up 2 of Brazil's 4 g. Goals aren't everything, as you should know, since Maradona wasn't among the top goal-scorers in any of his World Cup appearances outside 1986.

7 isn't twice as many as 4.

 

[jekoh]

The top players would play for either boca juniors or river plate

That must be why the Argentinian WC winning side of 1978 did not feature any Boca player while it featured 3 each from Talleres and Huracan.

Diego from 1978 until mid 1982 was scoring alot of goals and putting up a ridiculous amount of assists in the argentinian league, then he goes to europe and his numbers are lower because the competition is much better in terms of depth,

That's not true at all. He scored 28 goals in 40 games in 1981 with Boca, then he moves to Barcelona and scores 23 in 35 and then 15 in 23. That's completely equivalent. The argument that the Argentinian league is top-heavy while the Spanish league isn't is really laughable.

 

[VMBM]

i would like to bring up federer or nadal but they were playing in the same era. if they were playing different eras, they both would have 2x grand slams. basically they are considered more legendary now but it reduced the amount of dominance by having both at the same time.

In what eras exactly?

I can agree that if there was no Nadal, Federer would certainly have a few more Grand Slam titles, though not twice as many IMO. Nadal without Federer would also have some more, but since he is a clay court specialist (though obviously good enough to win also on grass, hard-court etc), I think he would've had a harder time to win more Grand Slams outside the French Open. And hey, many other tennis greats have also had their 'nemeses'...

Pete Sampras was a more one-dimensional 'serve and volley guy' than Federer, but he was really hard to beat in Wimbledon and in the US Open. And what about Björn Borg? Retired at 26, yet 11 Grand Slam titles; was near impossible to beat in Wimbledon and the French Open. Many eras have had their great players, although Federer is arguably the best ever.

 

[Thenameless]

I recall a similar story from his NBA days about the first time he played against Walt Bellamy. They shook hands before the game, the latter introduced himself, and then Chamberlain told him he wouldn't be doing anything during the first half, and blocked all his shots.

Edit: found it:

Yes, and it's this kind of stuff, while amusing, is also true. When Wilt wanted to turn it on, he was the most dominant ever. Offensively, 100% most dominant in history. Defensively, could have been 110% of Russell if that's what he concentrated on.

The one fair knock on Wilt was the mental aspect of the game. He was a gentle giant. Russell had the killer instinct, as did Jordan.

 

[unknown33]

So which is it:

A) The Brazilian league is a relatively poor league which doesn't offer much competition.

OR

B) The Brazilian league is so good that 5-6 of its players could be named to a World Cup All-Star Team.

I mean, today, I'd agree that EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, and Serie A are probably the top four leagues in the world. But in Pele's prime, Brazil was winning World Cups with rosters composed mostly of players playing club football in Brazil.

Until the 70s Brazilian football was mostly State Championships, with most NT players being either Sao Paulo or Rio based (split about even). So I'd say the talent was split about even between those two.

Though of course Pele proved himself plenty in intercontinental matches e.g. World Cup, Intercontinetal Cup, Copa Libertadores, Friendlies against European teams (which had a different status back then).

No denying that all 3 World Cup winning squads he was part of were likely good enough to win without him, Santos wasn't though.

 

[Barnum]

Except Jordan won the scoring title every year. He won the title almost every year. And not with Walton, McHale and Parish, or Kareem and Worthy... But basically just with Pippen.
.

Oakley, BJ Armstrong, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, Cartwright and he even had Parish one year.

Those were some stacked teams for his first 3 rings.

 

[canucks4ever]

The problem with ice hockey is that there is no way to measure the overall impact a player has. The perfect example is comparing gretzky to patrick roy or dominik hasek. Sure gretzky has the nice stats, but does he make a bigger impact towards winning games? If you replaced roy with gretzky, do the habs win the cup in 1986 and 1993, this isn't a guarantee. Would the buffalo sabres from 1997-1999 have more success and win more games if peak gretzky was on thier team instead of hasek?

Another problem with saying that he is more dominant than other athletes in other sports is that your assuming the talent pool in each sport is the same. It is not.

Do Americans send their best athletes to go play ice-hockey? No, they don't. They send their best athletes to play football, baseball and basketball.

Does the continent of Europe send their best athletes to go play ice hockey? No, every country in Europe is sending their best athletes to go play soccer and win european cup/champions league.

This forum underrates the value of a goaltender. The main objective is to win. You can't guarantee that putting gretzky on the 86/93 habs or the 1999 sabres would produce the same success. Peak patrick roy and peak hasek made a huge impact towards actually winning games. Besides bobby orr, I would never take any other defenseman over them, not even bourque. I would take roy and hasek on my team over any non big 4 player because they make a bigger impact towards winning a game than jagr/hull/bourque/crosby would.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You can't guarantee that putting gretzky on the 86/93 habs or the 1999 sabres would produce the same success.

Not really a good argument, because if you replayed the 1986 or 1993 playoffs there's no guarantee that Montréal would win again, even with Roy. Add Gretzky without subtracting Roy, and there still wouldn't be a guarantee.

 

[Thenameless]

Not really a good argument, because if you replayed the 1986 or 1993 playoffs there's no guarantee that Montréal would win again, even with Roy. Add Gretzky without subtracting Roy, and there still wouldn't be a guarantee.

There can be no guarantees in sports; it's why you still play the game. Having said that, I'd agree that Calgary could have easily won the 86 Cup - I thought they were the better team. But, I do think Montreal was better than the Kings in 93.

Add a peak Gretzky without subtracting Roy in 86, and Montreal probably gets to 50/50 or even better. I'd like to know which Gretzky you'd be adding to Montreal's 93 team, without removing Roy. If it's a peak 80's Gretzky, I think it would be lopsided - 4 or 5 games, as an elite scorer is what that team was lacking. The rest of the team was pretty good. Also, do the Kings keep the Gretzky clone, or do they lose him?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Donald Bradman for the sport of cricket, and I don't think it's remotely close.

Actually, that's not true at all. If you look at career batting averages he was 64% ahead of Pollock. Excellent but, not the best margin in sports.


1 D. G. Bradman 99.94
2 R. G. Pollock 60.97
3 G. A. Headley 60.83
4 H. Sutcliffe 60.73
5 E. Paynter 59.23


Gretzky 1987 had a 69% margin over Jari Kurri in the NHL. In 1920, Babe Ruth won the home run crown by 184% and by 145% in 1921. Wilt Chamberlain won the NBA scoring title by 59% in 1962.

Babe Ruth is #1 - by far. Gretzky is #2, Bradman #3 and Chamberlain #4.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Actually, that's not true at all. If you look at career batting averages he was 64% ahead of Pollock. Excellent but, not the best margin in sports.


1 D. G. Bradman 99.94
2 R. G. Pollock 60.97
3 G. A. Headley 60.83
4 H. Sutcliffe 60.73
5 E. Paynter 59.23


Gretzky 1987 had a 69% margin over Jari Kurri in the NHL. In 1920, Babe Ruth won the home run crown by 184% and by 145% in 1921. Wilt Chamberlain won the NBA scoring title by 59% in 1962.

Babe Ruth is #1 - by far. Gretzky is #2, Bradman #3 and Chamberlain #4.

I don't know a thing about cricket, nor am I trying to weigh in on which of these guys is the greatest, but... maintaining that kind of dominance for a career average is vastly more impressive than doing so for a single season. Just sayin'.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don't know a thing about cricket, nor am I trying to weigh in on which of these guys is the greatest, but... maintaining that kind of dominance for a career average is vastly more impressive than doing so for a single season. Just sayin'.

If you can find me year by year cricket stats, by all means, I would use them. Bradman's numbers are based on 80 innings. I don't know a lot about Cricket but 80 innings sounds low for a career.

 

[T Low]

Cricket is helluva lot bigger sport than atleast hockey and a.football. so it is pretty mainstream. world doesn't end in the North America's borders.

We realize the world doesn't end at North America's borders. We may not ever care to know a thing about cricket, but we certainly know more about foreign aid than we ever wanted too.

 

[Brainiac]

Actually, that's not true at all. If you look at career batting averages he was 64% ahead of Pollock. Excellent but, not the best margin in sports.


1 D. G. Bradman 99.94
2 R. G. Pollock 60.97
3 G. A. Headley 60.83
4 H. Sutcliffe 60.73
5 E. Paynter 59.23


Gretzky 1987 had a 69% margin over Jari Kurri in the NHL. In 1920, Babe Ruth won the home run crown by 184% and by 145% in 1921. Wilt Chamberlain won the NBA scoring title by 59% in 1962.

Babe Ruth is #1 - by far. Gretzky is #2, Bradman #3 and Chamberlain #4.

Your criterion doesn't mean much. First, Bradman couldn't bat for more than 100%, so if the good players get 60%, he can't really be more than 50-60% above them in terms of "margin".

The equivalent in hockey would be to compare Gretzky's career with Mario's in terms of PPG and then you realize Gretzky wasn't THAT dominant. Some players came close to what he did. Nobody even came close to what Bradman did.

A better approach is to analyze the distribution of, say, the top 100 players and then see how far the leader is in terms of standard deviations from the average. I'm simplifying a lot here because some details would require more investigation, but you get the idea.

And I'm pretty sure Bradman wins that by a landslide. Just for fun, he's about 50 SD from the average of the other players in the top 5. This is an insane outlier from the statistical point of view.

Just for fun, not completely correct, but a quick look shows that Gretzky's career PPG is something like 3 or 4 SD from the average of the top 30 players in the NHL. I don't have baseball's numbers, but when Babe Ruth had 60 HR, pretty sure he was just a few SD from the average.

Bradman was really something.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Your criterion doesn't mean much. First, Bradman couldn't bat for more than 100%, so if the good players get 60%, he can't really be more than 50-60% above them in terms of "margin".

The equivalent in hockey would be to compare Gretzky's career with Mario's in terms of PPG and then you realize Gretzky wasn't THAT dominant. Some players came close to what he did. Nobody even came close to what Bradman did.

A better approach is to analyze the distribution of, say, the top 100 players and then see how far the leader is in terms of standard deviations from the average. I'm simplifying a lot here because some details would require more investigation, but you get the idea.

And I'm pretty sure Bradman wins that by a landslide. Just for fun, he's about 50 SD from the average of the other players in the top 5. This is an insane outlier from the statistical point of view.

Just for fun, not completely correct, but a quick look shows that Gretzky's career PPG is something like 3 or 4 SD from the average of the top 30 players in the NHL. I don't have baseball's numbers, but when Babe Ruth had 60 HR, pretty sure he was just a few SD from the average.

Bradman was really something.

The bolded is incorrect and that derails your premise. Batting average in cricket is the number of runs per out made - not a percentage. It could be well over 100 if a player was good enough to achieve those levels.

 

[Boxscore]

I would put Ruth ahead of Gretzky. But Gretz ahead of Jordan, Wilt, etc.

 

[Brainiac]

The bolded is incorrect and that derails your premise. Batting average in cricket is the number of runs per out made - not a percentage. It could be well over 100 if a player was good enough to achieve those levels.

Ha ha! Just shows how much I care about cricket! For me, a batting average is between 0 and 100% (or [0 1], as in baseball).

Anyways, my point still stands. Being dominant is being able to be consistently above the average. And this is measured by analyzing the distribution. And in that context, Bradman is just off the charts.

Just for fun, you can enter career PPGs, career batting averages, career homeruns etc. in a spreadsheet a do a bar graph of the top 100 players for each sport. Bradman will be so off that it will instantly become clear who's more dominant.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ha ha! Just shows how much I care about cricket! For me, a batting average is between 0 and 100% (or [0 1], as in baseball).

Anyways, my point still stands. Being dominant is being able to be consistently above the average. And this is measured by analyzing the distribution. And in that context, Bradman is just off the charts.

Just for fun, you can enter career PPGs, career batting averages, career homeruns etc. in a spreadsheet a do a bar graph of the top 100 players for each sport. Bradman will be so off that it will instantly become clear who's more dominant.

Sorry but, Bradman's level of dominance is nowhere close to Ruth. The man hit 54 home runs when #2 hit 19. Bradman wasn't even close to that level of difference.