How do you rank the GOATS? Gretzky, Ruth, Jordan, Brady

[Fantomas]

Brady is a great winner for sure, but there's nothing particularly untouchable about his numbers. He's just been consistently very good for about 20 years. That's rare, but doesn't signify dominance to me.

He was admittedly crazy good in 2007. But he'd have to do that several times in a row to be Gretzky or Jordan level. Besides, I don't think he's definitely better than Jim Brown who had much better regular season stats.

Maybe being god-level good isn't possible in the NFL anymore. It's a punishing sport and league.

 

[Fantomas]

Ruth/Gretzky Ruth and Gretzky enjoy special status in their sports, as being so dominant that nobody touches them. Jordan is one of several valid GOAT candidates in basketball.

Disagree on this. Jordan is every bit as dominant as these guys.

I don't think it's actually true that Ruth and Gretzky are untouchable. Lemieux and Orr were nearly as dominant - in their peak definitely as dominant. Maybe Howe as well. Willie Mays was also not too far off from Ruth.

Besides Ruth dominated a weaker era.

The only players that statistically compare to Jordan are Lebron and Kareem. Chamberlain was a notorious playoff choker and regressed by his 30s. And it's hard to rate Kareem level with Jordan because he was a ghost of himself in the last decade of his career.

 

[Cas]

I think you are also forgetting that Ruth pitched less and less and hit more and more even as a Red Sox player. Maybe they realized they had a better weapon than they thought and wanted him hitting more. Both in 1918 and 1919 his plate appearances went up significantly and his pitching starts went down. So basically what we are judging him on is a very young version of him. And in this young version of him he led the AL in ERA, shutouts, and held the record for longest scoreless innings streak in the World Series which wasn't broken for half a century. He's 21 in 1916, and I think it is fair to say he is not quite hit his stride. How many pitchers hit their peak at 21? Plus he was hitting more often and even with the Yankees only pitched in 5 games, and went 5-0 (bad ERA though). Postseason career as a pitcher he is 3-0 with a 0.87 ERA. I mean, for a guy who barely pitched after the age of 23-24, he still won 94 games and has something to show for it. We'll never know how good he would have been as a pitcher had he only focused on that and not turned into a hitter

We indeed will never know how good Ruth would have been as a pitcher had he stuck with it, but while he was a good pitcher with one excellent season, there is one really big red flag that I think portended poorly for his future on the mound. Ruth's actual pitching career is quite impressive - I just don't think it portended a lengthy career on the mound.

Here is the question. Do you consider Ruth the greatest baseball player of all-time and worthy as a G.O.A.T. at least among his sport? I didn't see anything about that in the post.

Absolutely. There are other players whose names should be mentioned - Bonds, Mays, Wagner, Cobb, Gibson, Johnson, Paige - but all of them ultimately fall short. Ruth really was that dominant at the plate.

 

[FerrisRox]

Brady is the greatest quaterback in NFL history, but the greatest athlete? No way.

I would put Jerry Rice ahead of Brady.

 

[Big Phil]

I would put Jerry Rice ahead of Brady.

Hard to do that as well though. A wide receiver is never going to have the same sort of impact as a QB. This is why there has never been one that has been league MVP. Super Bowl MVP sure, in one game, but I don't think anyone if they had to pick would pass up on Brady's career for Rice's. Rice is definitely still very much the greatest wide receiver of all-time though.

 

[Zegras Zebra]

Jerry Rice is the best football player of all time. I've seen three QBs that I'd rank ahead of Brady in terms of ability and greatness. Maybe they didn't win as many Championships, but were better players. Brady just has longevity, played with a great franchise, a legendary coach, and has a magic horseshoe up his butt. Rice decimated records and still holds all the important receiving records, despite not playing in a pass friendly era in his prime.

Jordan I don't have a problem with, but I can see good arguments for Wilt, Russell, and Kareem over him. Jordan is easily the best I've seen though. I didn't see the others play.

Ruth and Gretzky are the best in their sports. That I'm sold on.

Thank You! Jerry Rice is absolutely the greatest football player of all time when you compare his stats directly against the other great wide receivers. The variance in those numbers are definitely more worthy of this list than Tom Brady's are. Since QB's are the most important position in the game of football individual awards such as league/ Super Bowl MVP's is highly skewed towards the position, especially in the last 20 years or so.

The thing I hate the most about the G.O.A.T. debate in football is the emphasis on championships. It's a team game and the defense on the field half the game. Brady always had a great defense, and he probably doesn't win most of his Super Bowls without defense. By comparison Manning probably only had a great defense 2/3 times in his career maybe. Brady had the better career, but Manning was the better quarterback.

It could be noted that Jerry Rice played with two of the greatest quarterbacks of all time in Montana and Young which probably helped in destroying the receiving records he set. His longevity at a physically more demanding position compared to a quarterback should be considered as well.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Hard to do that as well though. A wide receiver is never going to have the same sort of impact as a QB. This is why there has never been one that has been league MVP. Super Bowl MVP sure, in one game, but I don't think anyone if they had to pick would pass up on Brady's career for Rice's. Rice is definitely still very much the greatest wide receiver of all-time though.

You could make this argument for goalies vs skaters as well. Is a goalie necessarily the MVP just because he has the greatest impact on the ice and can single-handedly win or lose a game?

 

[GMR]

Disagree on this. Jordan is every bit as dominant as these guys.

I don't think it's actually true that Ruth and Gretzky are untouchable. Lemieux and Orr were nearly as dominant - in their peak definitely as dominant. Maybe Howe as well. Willie Mays was also not too far off from Ruth.

Besides Ruth dominated a weaker era.

The only players that statistically compare to Jordan are Lebron and Kareem. Chamberlain was a notorious playoff choker and regressed by his 30s. And it's hard to rate Kareem level with Jordan because he was a ghost of himself in the last decade of his career.

Kareem, like Russell, had a way better career than Jordan. They both won 6 Championships but Kareem played in 10 Finals, had an extra MVP, was the best collegiate player in history, and retired as the all-time leading scorer. Kareem was a very good player up until his last two seasons. He was still averaging 17.5 PPG at 40 years old. At 39, he was averaging 23.4 per game. Despite what you say, he wasn't a ghost in the last decade of his career. Unless you're simply comparing it to his first 10 seasons. That doesn't make him a ghost. Yes, there was a drop-off but he was a dominant big man 8 of his last 10 seasons. He should have just retired at 40.

Is he better than Jordan? I don't think so. But he had a better career. Just like Russell had a better career than Jordan. Lebron too will catch Jordan in titles and has already played in 10 Finals to Jordan's 6.

We're told by the sports media and by many posters here that Jordan is better than these three players. I actually agree with that. But you can't tell me he accomplished more or had a better career. He didn't.

At the same time, we're told by these same people that Brady is the undisputed #1. Simply because he made the most Super Bowls and won 3 MVPs. So his 7-3 is more impressive than Montana's 4-0, yet Russell's 11-1 is not as impressive as Jordan's 6-0. Or Kareem 6-4 is lesser than Jordan's because he lost four times.

Football is more of a team sport. There's over 50 players dressed for every game. One player has a lesser influence on a team in football than in basketball. Using the Brady metric, Russell is the best player ever, followed by Kareem. After that, it's either Jordan or Lebron.

 

[Fantomas]

Kareem, like Russell, had a way better career than Jordan. They both won 6 Championships but Kareem played in 10 Finals, had an extra MVP, was the best collegiate player in history, and retired as the all-time leading scorer. Kareem was a very good player up until his last two seasons. He was still averaging 17.5 PPG at 40 years old. At 39, he was averaging 23.4 per game. Despite what you say, he wasn't a ghost in the last decade of his career. Unless you're simply comparing it to his first 10 seasons. That doesn't make him a ghost. Yes, there was a drop-off but he was a dominant big man 8 of his last 10 seasons. He should have just retired at 40.

A way better career than Jordan? Oh so wrong.

Played in 10 finals? Who cares. Those are team accomplishments. And that's largely because he hung around forever while Magic did most of the work.

Best collegiate player? Who cares.

All-time leading scorer? Who cares. He hung around forever. Doesn't make him better.

That's like saying that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter because he played into his 40s.

But you're right - Kareem didn't suck, even at 40. But my point wasn't that he sucked. Rather I'm saying that this is the Kareem most people remember. The older guy who was good, but not great.

Kareem was at his absolute best in Milwaukee. That's where he truly dominated and that brought him only one title.

He just doesn't have the same legacy as Jordan, who was always the best player on his championship teams.

Is he better than Jordan? I don't think so. But he had a better career.

Nah.

Lebron too will catch Jordan in titles and has already played in 10 Finals to Jordan's 6.

Who cares. Lebron could stick around until he's 45 and pick up a bunch of titles on somebody else's back. Won't make him better than Jordan.

At the same time, we're told by these same people that Brady is the undisputed #1. Simply because he made the most Super Bowls and won 3 MVPs. So his 7-3 is more impressive than Montana's 4-0, yet Russell's 11-1 is not as impressive as Jordan's 6-0. Or Kareem 6-4 is lesser than Jordan's because he lost four times.

Football is more of a team sport. There's over 50 players dressed for every game. One player has a lesser influence on a team in football than in basketball. Using the Brady metric, Russell is the best player ever, followed by Kareem. After that, it's either Jordan or Lebron.

It wouldn't even call this a "metric." It's just dumb hype. So we at least agree here.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Kareem, like Russell, had a way better career than Jordan. They both won 6 Championships but Kareem played in 10 Finals, had an extra MVP, was the best collegiate player in history, and retired as the all-time leading scorer. Kareem was a very good player up until his last two seasons. He was still averaging 17.5 PPG at 40 years old. At 39, he was averaging 23.4 per game. Despite what you say, he wasn't a ghost in the last decade of his career. Unless you're simply comparing it to his first 10 seasons. That doesn't make him a ghost. Yes, there was a drop-off but he was a dominant big man 8 of his last 10 seasons. He should have just retired at 40.

Is he better than Jordan? I don't think so. But he had a better career. Just like Russell had a better career than Jordan. Lebron too will catch Jordan in titles and has already played in 10 Finals to Jordan's 6.

We're told by the sports media and by many posters here that Jordan is better than these three players. I actually agree with that. But you can't tell me he accomplished more or had a better career. He didn't.

At the same time, we're told by these same people that Brady is the undisputed #1. Simply because he made the most Super Bowls and won 3 MVPs. So his 7-3 is more impressive than Montana's 4-0, yet Russell's 11-1 is not as impressive as Jordan's 6-0. Or Kareem 6-4 is lesser than Jordan's because he lost four times.

Football is more of a team sport. There's over 50 players dressed for every game. One player has a lesser influence on a team in football than in basketball. Using the Brady metric, Russell is the best player ever, followed by Kareem. After that, it's either Jordan or Lebron.

So you just intentionally ignore facts that counter your rants then?

As stated many times in this thread:

1. Tom Brady is #1 all time in TD and will be #1 all time in yards after this season
2. Tom Brady led the league in TD and yards the same # of times as Peyton Manning.
3. Joe Montana never led in yards and only 2x led in TD, despite having Jerry Rice
4. 17x Top 10 in yards, 16x Top 10 in TD, again exactly the same as Manning

I'll say it slowly for you, Tom Brady not only is the best winner in the history of the sport, he also has the best statistics.

 

[psycat]

Gretzky first, Jordan last. The other two? Interchangeable I guess but to be fair neither sport really gains much traction over here so I could be wrong, Ruth is more iconic for sure but he played in pretty much a beer league.

Hard to take a sport where over 99% of all men are disqualified from birth serious. It's a bit like making a sport for midgets where you have to pass under certain heights etc to be able to play. Would like to know how large of a % of, mostly black, men over a certain height become professional basketball players- must a staggering number- so besides being born a certain way it can't demand much.

Of course with all that said Jordan was obviously still a great athlete but there is also more of a crowd who don't rank him #1 compared to Gretzky, Ruth etc.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Gretzky first, Jordan last. The other two? Interchangeable I guess but to be fair neither sport really gains much traction over here so I could be wrong, Ruth is more iconic for sure but he played in pretty much a beer league.

Hard to take a sport where over 99% of all men are disqualified from birth serious. It's a bit like making a sport for midgets where you have to pass under certain heights etc to be able to play. Would like to know how large of a % of, mostly black, men over a certain height become professional basketball players- must a staggering number- so besides being born a certain way it can't demand much.

Of course with all that said Jordan was obviously still a great athlete but there is also more of a crowd who don't rank him #1 compared to Gretzky, Ruth etc.

Height isnt a disqualifier from basketball. If you're good enough, you'll make the NBA regardless of height.

Case in point:

Nate Robinson is 5'9
Isaiah Thomas is 5'9
Allen Iverson is 6'0
Muggsy Bogues is 5'3
Spud Webb is 5'6
Earl Boykins is 5'5

Not to mention, the unofficial size requirements apply just as equally to hockey, baseball and football. Its extremely rare to find someone under 5'10 in any professional sport

 

[GMR]

So you just intentionally ignore facts that counter your rants then?

As stated many times in this thread:

1. Tom Brady is #1 all time in TD and will be #1 all time in yards after this season
2. Tom Brady led the league in TD and yards the same # of times as Peyton Manning.
3. Joe Montana never led in yards and only 2x led in TD, despite having Jerry Rice
4. 17x Top 10 in yards, 16x Top 10 in TD, again exactly the same as Manning

I'll say it slowly for you, Tom Brady not only is the best winner in the history of the sport, he also has the best statistics.

No reason to be insulting, even if you're a Boston sports fan. And I haven't ranted once in this thread. Just friendly arguments. So cut the crap.

Tom Brady is not the best QB that I've ever seen. I've seen three QBs who were better. None of them have his longevity in stats or his championships. If that makes him the best by itself, then all-time ranking is reduced to a stats comparison.

 

[MadLuke]

Height isnt a disqualifier from basketball. If you're good enough, you'll make the NBA regardless of height.

Good enough to make the NBA is one thing, good enough to be in goat conversation is an other, who is the smallest player that is a serious candidate to the goat title ? Is being the best ever really not being the best among people of 6 foot 2 or more ? I do not know enough about it, but I am almost certain that for the best center of all time and talk of the Kareem for example, it is a major factor to take in consideration.

Not to mention, the unofficial size requirements apply just as equally to hockey, baseball and football. Its extremely rare to find someone under 5'10 in any professional sport

Not sure about equally, but the advantage height give is not the same in all those sports, enough for the Patrick Kane / Kariya type of physic to be common (not has much has if size gave 0 advantage obviously), it is a factor in all sport, but it is a bigger factor in some than other.

There is a reason that lower weight class in combat sport tend to be more competitive than the higher one, the talent pool tend to go down and down and fast.

 

[Big Phil]

You could make this argument for goalies vs skaters as well. Is a goalie necessarily the MVP just because he has the greatest impact on the ice and can single-handedly win or lose a game?

It all depends on his impact during the game. This is why stats and the eye test and actually watching the game are important.

Tom Brady is not the best QB that I've ever seen. I've seen three QBs who were better. None of them have his longevity in stats or his championships. If that makes him the best by itself, then all-time ranking is reduced to a stats comparison.

I am surprised at this, because 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you about Brady. I was a Manning apologist. But things have changed. Brady not only dominates when it comes to championships and playoff wins but he also has the stats to back it up. Manning might have the most TD passes in a single season, but Brady held that record for a few years. There aren't a lot of better all-time seasons than Brady's in 2007. So he has peak, championships, career value, longevity and numbers. There is just no stone unturned with him anymore. I became a Brady convert once I got past the Brady/Belichick animosity I always had. Heck, I nearly hit the roof when David Tyree made the helmet catch in the Super Bowl. I just wanted the Patriots to lose. But no one has ever been closer to a perfect season since the Dolphins.

I think the thing with Brady is that he isn't flashy. He is workmanlike effective and has had brilliant football smarts in seeing the field, including competitiveness. But if you are judging him just on what you see on the field he doesn't "wow" you with his skill. It is more subtle. A guy like Randall Cunningham, possibly about as close to being in the HOF as possible was electric on the field. Brady isn't. I think in a way that makes him "boring" to some. Even Montana had those ballet feet and thought of as having some finesse to him. If you want a guy who is effective and will get the job done it is Brady. Is there another QB in NFL history you want with the ball in his hands on the final drive of the game? Some might still pick Montana, but I would pick Brady. There just comes a point when the guy has done it too often to ignore anymore. It isn't as if Montana didn't go to a new team as well. Never got to a Super Bowl though with them. I can totally accept him being #4 among the Gretzky/Ruth/Jordan group, but if there is a player in NFL history who did things better, we would have named him by now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It all depends on his impact during the game. This is why stats and the eye test and actually watching the game are important.

I agree, but in the post I responded to you said that it's a foregone conclusion.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree, but in the post I responded to you said that it's a foregone conclusion.

I just mean that a wide receiver depends on the QB to get him the ball. For example, Joe Montana had 357 passing yards in Super Bowl 23 and he led a 2-minute game winning drive. He's a lock for the MVP right? No, considering Jerry Rice grabbed 215 of those yards. Those are numbers hard to ignore for a wide receiver. Montana still had a good game, but the one who stood out was Rice getting the lion's share of the yards. I am just saying that a QB is often the default guy if no one else stands out because he controls the pace of the game more than anyone else. But it isn't as if there haven't been Super Bowl MVPs in other positions. It happens all of the time.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

It all depends on his impact during the game. This is why stats and the eye test and actually watching the game are important.



I am surprised at this, because 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you about Brady. I was a Manning apologist. But things have changed. Brady not only dominates when it comes to championships and playoff wins but he also has the stats to back it up. Manning might have the most TD passes in a single season, but Brady held that record for a few years. There aren't a lot of better all-time seasons than Brady's in 2007. So he has peak, championships, career value, longevity and numbers. There is just no stone unturned with him anymore. I became a Brady convert once I got past the Brady/Belichick animosity I always had. Heck, I nearly hit the roof when David Tyree made the helmet catch in the Super Bowl. I just wanted the Patriots to lose. But no one has ever been closer to a perfect season since the Dolphins.

I think the thing with Brady is that he isn't flashy. He is workmanlike effective and has had brilliant football smarts in seeing the field, including competitiveness. But if you are judging him just on what you see on the field he doesn't "wow" you with his skill. It is more subtle. A guy like Randall Cunningham, possibly about as close to being in the HOF as possible was electric on the field. Brady isn't. I think in a way that makes him "boring" to some. Even Montana had those ballet feet and thought of as having some finesse to him. If you want a guy who is effective and will get the job done it is Brady. Is there another QB in NFL history you want with the ball in his hands on the final drive of the game? Some might still pick Montana, but I would pick Brady. There just comes a point when the guy has done it too often to ignore anymore. It isn't as if Montana didn't go to a new team as well. Never got to a Super Bowl though with them. I can totally accept him being #4 among the Gretzky/Ruth/Jordan group, but if there is a player in NFL history who did things better, we would have named him by now.

In some ways Brady was very lucky to win the Superbowl this year. As a Green Bay fan if you would have told me Brady would throw for under 300 yards and 3 picks, I would have said Green Bay is going to the SB. His defense was more of a factor than him in both those games.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Gretzky first, Jordan last. The other two? Interchangeable I guess but to be fair neither sport really gains much traction over here so I could be wrong, Ruth is more iconic for sure but he played in pretty much a beer league.

Hard to take a sport where over 99% of all men are disqualified from birth serious. It's a bit like making a sport for midgets where you have to pass under certain heights etc to be able to play. Would like to know how large of a % of, mostly black, men over a certain height become professional basketball players- must a staggering number- so besides being born a certain way it can't demand much.

Of course with all that said Jordan was obviously still a great athlete but there is also more of a crowd who don't rank him #1 compared to Gretzky, Ruth etc.

Why would you think that?

 

[Big Phil]

In some ways Brady was very lucky to win the Superbowl this year. As a Green Bay fan if you would have told me Brady would throw for under 300 yards and 3 picks, I would have said Green Bay is going to the SB. His defense was more of a factor than him in both those games.

It still is no accident though. That's the thing. The common denominator is too...................common to be a coincidence. The Bucs were up 28-10 against the Packers at one point. The mistake I thought Brady made in the Green Bay game was that he didn't play conservatives when he was up that far. He gunned it a little too much. But then again, he could afford to do so. Here is a good example of the football sense he has always had. It is 3rd down, the Bucs are up 28-23 in that game. The Packers rush him hard and instead of taking the sack to get into further field goal range he immediately tosses the ball away and keeps the same field for 4th down. A sack puts them in the position where there is a larger than 50 yard field goal, instead it was a 46 yarder because of a quick play. Just small things that a less experienced QB wouldn't do. Not flashy, not a "play of the week" but something he's done tons of times. He's always been a smart QB.

 

[Big Phil]

Why would you think that?

My guess is most people see some clips of grainy 1920s footage with Ruth hitting a home run and then trotting around the bases and assume that this is all they need to know about him.

 

[The Panther]

 

[Voight]

Ruth/Gretzky

Jordan

Brady


Ruth and Gretzky enjoy special status in their sports, as being so dominant that nobody touches them. Jordan is one of several valid GOAT candidates in basketball.

Not really. The majority of fans (outside of Bronsexuals) will agree that Jordan is the GOAT. There isn't several candidates there's him and then maybe LeBron at most. But its clear that Jordan is the better player.

Heck, Jordan had the GOATs of the time saying he was the best ever while he was still playing. You'd be hard pressed to find people who'll say Magic, KAJ or Russell were better / are the GOAT.

Jordan's 1987-1998 run of dominance is up there with Ruth/Gretzky IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

Not really. The majority of fans (outside of Bronsexuals) will agree that Jordan is the GOAT. There isn't several candidates there's him and then maybe LeBron at most. But its clear that Jordan is the better player.

Heck, Jordan had the GOATs of the time saying he was the best ever while he was still playing. You'd be hard pressed to find people who'll say Magic, KAJ or Russell were better / are the GOAT.

Jordan's 1987-1998 run of dominance is up there with Ruth/Gretzky IMO.

A couple of things hurt Jordan. He retired too often. I wish he didn't in 1993, or in 1998. He did it both times right after winning three in a row. I'd like to have seen what happens if he stays. He was clearly the best player in the league when he was playing in those years. It was obvious. I'll say that it is nearly impossible to be at the Gretzky level of dominance in your sport, or even Ruth, but Jordan would be the next best with that. I can remember the feeling that Magic and Bird both knew that they were witnessing a guy who was not only going to equal them but probably surpass them. Now that is something special.

To put things in perspective with Brady, let's imagine if Gretzky had won the Cup with the Kings in 1989. Or if Jordan won with the Wizards in his comeback. That's what Brady did this year with Tampa. I think once people calm down and his career is long over we'll marvel at this act he did at age 43 and be glad we saw it. That's just silly, it is as if he is winning championships at will. I think it will take time before we realize how special this was.

 

[bobholly39]

A couple of things hurt Jordan. He retired too often. I wish he didn't in 1993, or in 1998. He did it both times right after winning three in a row. I'd like to have seen what happens if he stays. He was clearly the best player in the league when he was playing in those years. It was obvious. I'll say that it is nearly impossible to be at the Gretzky level of dominance in your sport, or even Ruth, but Jordan would be the next best with that. I can remember the feeling that Magic and Bird both knew that they were witnessing a guy who was not only going to equal them but probably surpass them. Now that is something special.

To put things in perspective with Brady, let's imagine if Gretzky had won the Cup with the Kings in 1989. Or if Jordan won with the Wizards in his comeback. That's what Brady did this year with Tampa. I think once people calm down and his career is long over we'll marvel at this act he did at age 43 and be glad we saw it. That's just silly, it is as if he is winning championships at will. I think it will take time before we realize how special this was.

If you changed this thread to "how do you rank the goats for playoffs" - Brady does so much better in the comparison. It's his regular season that is 'meh'. Not bad - just not Gretzky level. He's more a Crosby type regular season guy. And Crosby is great, but huge gap from Gretzky.

Brady is way better than Gretzky for playoffs (and I have Gretzky as a very clear #1 all time for playoffs in hockey). I was going to say Brady is unanimous #1 all-time across sports for playoffs - but Jordan is actually really strong there too, so hard to say. And of course if you expand the "playoffs" to Olypmics/world championships, Usain Bolt is arguably #1, but completely different sport.

Gretzky would have had to win with LA - but again also with St Louis or NY Rangers (with him clearly being the leader in playoffs) to equal Brady's playoff legacy imo. For playoffs I'd have it:

Brady
Jordan

Gretzky