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

[Big Phil]

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

Fair enough. Three MVPs in the regular season as well though. Has thrown more TDs than anyone else in history though. It is nearly impossible for anyone to duplicate Gretzky's dominance against his peers. Ruth is the closest I think. That being said even in the regular season who has had a better career than Brady? Not to mention there isn't anyone close to him in the playoffs. I am totally fine with him being #4 on that list in the original post. But what confuses me is how there seems to be a debate among some that he doesn't even belong in the #1 category in the NFL, and he should be. I always thought that even the biggest detractors gave up on that after the comeback against the Falcons in the Super Bowl.

 

[GMR]

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

Based on what? More championships? More games played hence more yards, TDs, etc?

Gretzky is the all-time leader in playoff points per game. Lemieux is somewhat close, but nobody else who played over 50 games is anywhere close to Wayne. For Brady to be WAY better than Gretzky in the playoffs, his TDs per game or YPG would have to be substantially better than any other QB in playoff history. Let's say he throws 4TDs per game in the playoffs and 450 YPG. Then I suppose he's on Gretzky's playoff level.

You're confusing team success and longevity with individual dominance over peers.

For comparison, Aaron Rodgers has played 21 playoff games. He's thrown 45TD and 13 INTs, 270 YPG, QBR of 100.5. Completion percentage of 64.6%. His teams are 11-9 in those games.

Brady has played in 45 playoff games. He's thrown for 83 TD, 38 INTs, 276.6 YPG, QBR of 90.4. Completion percentage of 62.7%. His teams are 34-11 in those games.

People will say Brady's all-time rank is #1, while Rodgers will probably be ranked somewhere in the top 10. However, Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen. Not just an arm talent who is a bonehead (like Brett Favre). Mahomes is on track to be even better but he's still only 25. Rodgers can make any throw, has tremendous stats in his career, and doesn't make many mistakes in important moments. However, unlike Brady, he's played his career with a largely incompetent coach in McCarthy and an organization that couldn't surround him with proper success.

 

[bobholly39]

Fair enough. Three MVPs in the regular season as well though. Has thrown more TDs than anyone else in history though. It is nearly impossible for anyone to duplicate Gretzky's dominance against his peers. Ruth is the closest I think. That being said even in the regular season who has had a better career than Brady? Not to mention there isn't anyone close to him in the playoffs. I am totally fine with him being #4 on that list in the original post. But what confuses me is how there seems to be a debate among some that he doesn't even belong in the #1 category in the NFL, and he should be. I always thought that even the biggest detractors gave up on that after the comeback against the Falcons in the Super Bowl.

I'm not an expert on football so I wouldn't be the best to answer the bolded. But - from all I know - even if Brady is in argument for best in regular season (and it sounds like he is) - he is that without being close to Gretzky level.

Imagine a hockey world where Gretz/Lemieux/Orr/Howe never existed - and now consider Crosby/McDavid. That's what the best player ever would look like.

Of course - Brady's playoffs serve to raise him up higher than that.

Based on what? More championships? More games played hence more yards, TDs, etc?

Gretzky is the all-time leader in playoff points per game. Lemieux is somewhat close, but nobody else who played over 50 games is anywhere close to Wayne. For Brady to be WAY better than Gretzky in the playoffs, his TDs per game or YPG would have to be substantially better than any other QB in playoff history. Let's say he throws 4TDs per game in the playoffs and 450 YPG. Then I suppose he's on Gretzky's playoff level.

You're confusing team success and longevity with individual dominance over peers.

For comparison, Aaron Rodgers has played 21 playoff games. He's thrown 45TD and 13 INTs, 270 YPG, QBR of 100.5. Completion percentage of 64.6%. His teams are 11-9 in those games.

Brady has played in 45 playoff games. He's thrown for 83 TD, 38 INTs, 276.6 YPG, QBR of 90.4. Completion percentage of 62.7%. His teams are 34-11 in those games.

People will say Brady's all-time rank is #1, while Rodgers will probably be ranked somewhere in the top 10. However, Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen. Not just an arm talent who is a bonehead (like Brett Favre). Mahomes is on track to be even better but he's still only 25. Rodgers can make any throw, has tremendous stats in his career, and doesn't make many mistakes in important moments. However, unlike Brady, he's played his career with a largely incompetent coach in McCarthy and an organization that couldn't surround him with proper success.

To the bolded.....yes?

QB is such an important position in football, isn't it? I know it's very much a team sport, but I think Brady should get a ton of credit. How much credit do you give Roy for his cups/smythes? I think Brady should get at least as much credit - and he has a whole lot more of them.

I'm not an expert in football. It sounds like you're arguing Brady may not be the "best" in playoffs, even though he's the "greatest". Whereas Gretzky is certainly both the "best" and "greatest" in playoffs. I still think that based on his winning pedigree - which includes his win this year in Tampa and is pretty significant - is superior to Gretzky's greatness in playoffs easily so. It's hard to look past that winning pedigree.

For "best"? Nope. Gretzky dominated way more. But it's hard to look past that winning pedigree.

I still have Gretzky above Brady overall - but if we're looking at just playoffs, it's definitely Brady.

 

[GMR]

I'm not an expert on football so I wouldn't be the best to answer the bolded. But - from all I know - even if Brady is in argument for best in regular season (and it sounds like he is) - he is that without being close to Gretzky level.

Imagine a hockey world where Gretz/Lemieux/Orr/Howe never existed - and now consider Crosby/McDavid. That's what the best player ever would look like.

Of course - Brady's playoffs serve to raise him up higher than that.



To the bolded.....yes?

QB is such an important position in football, isn't it? I know it's very much a team sport, but I think Brady should get a ton of credit. How much credit do you give Roy for his cups/smythes? I think Brady should get at least as much credit - and he has a whole lot more of them.

I'm not an expert in football. It sounds like you're arguing Brady may not be the "best" in playoffs, even though he's the "greatest". Whereas Gretzky is certainly both the "best" and "greatest" in playoffs. I still think that based on his winning pedigree - which includes his win this year in Tampa and is pretty significant - is superior to Gretzky's greatness in playoffs easily so. It's hard to look past that winning pedigree.

For "best"? Nope. Gretzky dominated way more. But it's hard to look past that winning pedigree.

I still have Gretzky above Brady overall - but if we're looking at just playoffs, it's definitely Brady.

Of course Brady should get credit for his success. Saying someone isn't #1 doesn't mean he's a bum. He's the most accomplished QB in history and has the most successful career I've seen probably in any sport. The best combination of talent, longevity, and team success of any QB. However, I don't believe he's the best QB I've seen. To me, Aaron Rodgers is more talented, just as good if not better in the playoffs statistically, doesn't screw up in big moments, yet he's only been to one Super Bowl.

Regarding my initial response to your post, Brady is only WAY better than Gretzky in the playoffs if you're looking at titles. Gretzky was more impressive in the postseason statistically compared to his peers. More so than Brady versus his peers. Once again, not talking about sheer volume of games, yards, and TDs, but per game numbers. Also, football is more of a team sport than hockey. Over 50 players dressed regularly per game. In hockey, it's only 20. I give Brady less credit for team success than I give a Gretzky. Or a Jordan, who played with 11 other players dressed for every game.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

From everything I have seen of Brady the past 20 years, the bolded is the main reason for his individual trophy case.

When Bledsoe went down, it was immediately apparent that Brady was a valid starting QB. 10 years later he was a good starter. In a few specific seasons, he was on the elite tier.

But at no point did I ever look at Brady and think, "wow I've never seen a QB this good before". Any given Sunday you had other guys doing more impressive things on an individual level.

But, Brady was the pace-setter for a dynasty team where no other individual player stood out. There was no Ray Lewis on defense or Jerry Rice at WR. The offensive line was excellent every year, but not stacked with HOF'ers. Brady was the consistent element week after week who was good enough to win the game.

That's certainly good enough to be a first-ballot HOF'er, but it just feels wrong to call someone like that the GOAT. It's like calling Jean Beliveau the GOAT in hockey. Like, I get the argument and there was a time when it wouldn't have sounded crazy. But with the passage of time and a bit of perspective there's a pretty clear difference between a Beliveau and an Orr, between a Brady and a Brown.

 

[Iapyi]

Gretzky

Jordon

Brady

Ruth

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Federer is up there although I believe joker will surpass him.

 

[Batis]

New record is one thing (specially considering track got faster over time you would need slower runner for record not to go down), winning against you pears and for that long period of time is what make Bolt the best of all time.

100 metres at the Olympics - Wikipedia

Not one ever "cleanly" won back to back olympic gold medal at the 100 meter, Lewis did it with Johnson elimination and he is on the short list for the greatest athlete in history himself.

Bolt did it 3 time and in quite the fashion, same for the 200 m, no one in history repeated an olympic gold medal at the 200m I think, not even Michal Johnson, and no one ever won more than 2 medal at all. The level of competition is so high (everyone in the world did ran in it's life) that for a person to win, it need to be at it's very peak it seem.

Bolt won the 200m 3 time in a row.

Bolt is a giant step above all is predecessor it seam to me and that not by looking at is time, is separation was so high that even outside of is peak he was the fastest in the world.

I do agree with you on that what makes Bolt the greatest sprinter of all time is his long period of dominance at the Olympics and the World Championships more so than the strenght of his world records. It is however also worth noting that the longevity of his world records already is very impressive. Bolt's 100m world record of 9.58 is already the second longest standing record in the Men's 100m since the start of fully automatic timing and if it stands for about 3 more years it will pass Jim Hines 9.95 from the 1968 Olympics and take the top spot on that list. In 6 months Bolt's 200m world record of 19.19 will pass Michael Johnson's 19.32 from the 1996 Olympics as the second longest standing record in the Men's 200m since the start of fully automatic timing and if it stands for another 5 years after that it will pass Pietro Mennea and his 19.72 from 1979 and become number one on that list as well. So the longevity of the world records of Bolt is already a point in his favour. Still like you pointed out it is definitely his long period of dominance on the big stage that is the most impressive part of his resume. Or to take an example from Women's sprinting where Florence Griffith-Joyner's world records in both the 100m and 200m has stood since 1988 but I would not rank her as the superior sprinter than someone like Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce who simply has had much more sustained success on the big stage throughout her career.

But to get back to the longevity of the world records of Bolt I do believe that his 100m record has the potential to stand for a long time still even with the advancements in track. 11 years and 6 months has now passed since Bolt ran his 9.58 and the closest anyone (outside of Bolt himself) has been to that record is 9.69 and being 0.11 seconds away from tying the record and 0.12 seconds away from beating it is obviously a huge margin in the 100 meters. In that world record run Bolt had both the fastest first 60 meters split of all time with 6.31 and the fastest last 40 meters split of all time with 3.27. That he managed to achieve the clearly fastest split of all time over the last 40 meters should not surprise anyone but that a sprinter as tall as Bolt managed to run the fastest first 60 meters split of all time is absolutely amazing. If we combine the fastest 60 meter split outside of Bolt (Christian Coleman's 6.32) and the fastest last 40 meters split outside of Bolt (Tyson Gay's 3.32) we still only end up with a time of 9.64. So even a imaginary sprinter with the 60 meter ability of Christian Coleman and the top speed and speed endurance of Tyson Gay would still be 0.07 seconds away from beating Bolt's record. Even if the average times of the top sprinters most likely will continue to gradually go lower and lower I personally think that for someone to beat the 100m record within the next say 20 years it will take that either another real outlier with close to Bolt-level dominance over his peers appears or that some top sprinter gets a strong but legal tailwind while running at high altitude.

The 200m record will also be difficult to beat but I don't think that it will be around for quite as long as the 100m record likely will. That is mainly due to that Bolt had worse luck with the wind in the 200m record race (-0.3) than he had in the 100m record race (+0.9) though and not that his actual performance in the 19.19 run was any less impressive.

Edit: Regarding the possibility of another outlier talent to appear within the next 20 years it is interesting to note that last year the 16-year old Erriyon Knighton ran the 200m in 20.33 which is the second fastest time of all time from a 16-year old behind only Bolt who ran 20.13 at that age. However when it comes to teenage sensations in sprinting there are historically very few who actually has lived up to their early promise the way that Bolt did. But considering that Knighton managed to achieve that time in only his second year of competing in track and field he certainly seems to have plenty of talent. It is of course way to early to really start speculating about whether he can be the one to challenge Bolt's world records though.

 

[Big Phil]

From everything I have seen of Brady the past 20 years, the bolded is the main reason for his individual trophy case.

When Bledsoe went down, it was immediately apparent that Brady was a valid starting QB. 10 years later he was a good starter. In a few specific seasons, he was on the elite tier.

But at no point did I ever look at Brady and think, "wow I've never seen a QB this good before". Any given Sunday you had other guys doing more impressive things on an individual level.

But, Brady was the pace-setter for a dynasty team where no other individual player stood out. There was no Ray Lewis on defense or Jerry Rice at WR. The offensive line was excellent every year, but not stacked with HOF'ers. Brady was the consistent element week after week who was good enough to win the game.

That's certainly good enough to be a first-ballot HOF'er, but it just feels wrong to call someone like that the GOAT. It's like calling Jean Beliveau the GOAT in hockey. Like, I get the argument and there was a time when it wouldn't have sounded crazy. But with the passage of time and a bit of perspective there's a pretty clear difference between a Beliveau and an Orr, between a Brady and a Brown.

I think a lot of it stems from the fact that he doesn't "wow" you physically. He's tall, but not muscular, not fast, not acrobatic, etc. Think of it this way, Jerry Rice was not the fastest wide receiver in the NFL. Lots of guys were faster, taller or could jump higher. I'd say Rice was very much a finesse type of receiver, but some guys did other things better than him. But no one was more effective, and part of that was he worked harder than anyone else. There is a story about Rice, the day after Super Bowl 23 he just wins his 1st Super Bowl and wins the MVP with 215 receiving yards. He is running up and down the practice field catching passes and doing all sorts of practicing. This is a day he could have gone to Disneyland and no one would have blamed him, but he was gunning to be even better, and he had a heck of a playoff run the next year when the 49ers won again. In fact, Rice was always good in big games and there is a reason he has the records for wide receivers even in the regular season.

I think that applies to Brady. I doubt few have studied defenses better than him or focus on the game as well. He has a competitive edge that is like few as well. He works hard and he continues at age 43. He didn't win with Belichick breathing down his neck, he won with Bruce Arians. If people don't see the common denominator then they aren't trying. I am not sure what games you were watching though, Brady has always struck me as a guy who could be classified as the GOAT in the NFL. What is he missing?

 

[GMR]

I think a lot of it stems from the fact that he doesn't "wow" you physically. He's tall, but not muscular, not fast, not acrobatic, etc. Think of it this way, Jerry Rice was not the fastest wide receiver in the NFL. Lots of guys were faster, taller or could jump higher. I'd say Rice was very much a finesse type of receiver, but some guys did other things better than him. But no one was more effective, and part of that was he worked harder than anyone else. There is a story about Rice, the day after Super Bowl 23 he just wins his 1st Super Bowl and wins the MVP with 215 receiving yards. He is running up and down the practice field catching passes and doing all sorts of practicing. This is a day he could have gone to Disneyland and no one would have blamed him, but he was gunning to be even better, and he had a heck of a playoff run the next year when the 49ers won again. In fact, Rice was always good in big games and there is a reason he has the records for wide receivers even in the regular season.

I think that applies to Brady. I doubt few have studied defenses better than him or focus on the game as well. He has a competitive edge that is like few as well. He works hard and he continues at age 43. He didn't win with Belichick breathing down his neck, he won with Bruce Arians. If people don't see the common denominator then they aren't trying. I am not sure what games you were watching though, Brady has always struck me as a guy who could be classified as the GOAT in the NFL. What is he missing?

Rice dominated his position a lot more. Separated himself from his peers by his play and his stats. Nobody has approached his regular season or playoff numbers. Randy Moss was a highlight reel but was frequently a ghost because of his work ethic. Rice didn't have lots of moments where he was invisible.

Brady has separated himself from his peers in Championships. Nothing else. Yes, he's going to retire with the most TDs and yards, but that's just because he's played forever. Brees is the same way. He was never dominating statistically over his peers like Rice was. Didn't stand out like Rice did from others who played the position.

If Rice isn't the best football player ever, you're basically saying nobody besides a QB can be the best football player.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Wayne Gretzky is light years ahead of any athlete in any sport.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. The fact that this thread hasn't been closed yet is an insult to Mr. Gretzky, imo.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Wayne Gretzky is light years ahead of any athlete in any sport.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. The fact that this thread hasn't been closed yet is an insult to Mr. Gretzky, imo.

Federer

 

[MadLuke]

Wayne Gretzky is light years ahead of any athlete in any sport.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. The fact that this thread hasn't been closed yet is an insult to Mr. Gretzky, imo.

Hakuhō Shō - Wikipedia

Don Bradman - Wikipedia
Everyone greatest of all time batting average are between 58 and 62, is was 99.94, making is standard deviation among the best quite special:

Athlete	Sport	Statistic	Standard deviations
Bradman	Cricket	Batting average	4.4
Pelé	Association football	Goals per game	3.7
Ty Cobb	Baseball	Batting average	3.6
Jack Nicklaus	Golf	Major titles	3.5
Michael Jordan	Basketball	Points per game	3.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The chance that among the 10 billions human born in the 20th century that a Canadian is light years ahead of any athlete in any sport (including Pele, Jordan, etc...) seem just incredibly small.

Canada was what, 0.5, 0.6% of the world and not a specially sport oriented nation either. Being the best among canadian/swede/fin some limited part of the soviet block and USA playing hockey is not an automatic ticket to being ahead of any athlete in any sport.

 

[Cas]

Hakuhō Shō - Wikipedia

Don Bradman - Wikipedia
Everyone greatest of all time batting average are between 58 and 62, is was 99.94, making is standard deviation among the best quite special:

Athlete	Sport	Statistic	Standard deviations
Bradman	Cricket	Batting average	4.4
Pelé	Association football	Goals per game	3.7
Ty Cobb	Baseball	Batting average	3.6
Jack Nicklaus	Golf	Major titles	3.5
Michael Jordan	Basketball	Points per game	3.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The chance that among the 10 billions human born in the 20th century that a Canadian is light years ahead of any athlete in any sport (including Pele, Jordan, etc...) seem just incredibly small.

Canada was what, 0.5, 0.6% of the world and not a specially sport oriented nation either. Being the best among canadian/swede/fin some limited part of the soviet block and USA playing hockey is not an automatic ticket to being ahead of any athlete in any sport.

I know for a fact that batting average in baseball is just one measure of one skill, and I assume the same is true in cricket. This is an interesting chart but ultimately doesn't tell us much about a player's actual value.

 

[WingsFan95]

Problem with ranking Gretzky is positioning and era. It was simply far easier to score goals from 79-96. To boot he was on super stacked teams his entire prime, even when he went to Los Angeles and raised them from the basement they did have a guy named Robitaille who was great beforehand while Nichols and Duschene weren't exactly mediocre and Wayne's 2nd season the team dropped down to the similar record they had prior to him arriving. By his 4th year there the team was quietly built up with Rob Blake being a full starter, old man Larry Robinson still good at least the 3rd and 4th years and new supporters Sandstrom and Granato. They also had Coffey for a bit although not in playoffs.

I've always had Orr as #1. And then of course you have the goaltenders which let's face it skew team results, so how do you measure a Hasek or Roy with a Gretzky?

Tom Brady is the GOAT of GOATs though. Many of his winning records are double next closest guy, he'll retire with all the regular season career numbers and 2nd most league MVPs. And in a sport where he's shattered the longevity standards, even for his position which is certainly a softer touch but still gridiron football.

Baseball in a similar fashion makes it even more tricky to consider past greats. Take Ty Cobb for example, kinda like the Suzuki of modern times where his homerun numbers are paltry but his hitting is other worldly while he won zero titles. Obviously Ruth with his homeruns and 7 titles split between two teams and being a great pitcher along with hitting has him defacto #1. And yes I'd put him below only Brady.

1. Brady
2. Ruth
3. Jordan/Wilt
4. Orr/Gretzky/Roy
5. Pele/Maradona/Messi

Now I will admit soccer/football is not high on my list but given it's 10 players on the field plus a goalkeeper and you have world tournaments that put emphasis on stacked national teams, it's extremely difficult to properly assess.

Meanwhile a sport like tennis is far easier to consider GOATs, unfortunately you have a Big 3 issue right now there.

 

[GMR]

Problem with ranking Gretzky is positioning and era. It was simply far easier to score goals from 79-96. To boot he was on super stacked teams his entire prime, even when he went to Los Angeles and raised them from the basement they did have a guy named Robitaille who was great beforehand while Nichols and Duschene weren't exactly mediocre and Wayne's 2nd season the team dropped down to the similar record they had prior to him arriving. By his 4th year there the team was quietly built up with Rob Blake being a full starter, old man Larry Robinson still good at least the 3rd and 4th years and new supporters Sandstrom and Granato. They also had Coffey for a bit although not in playoffs.

I've always had Orr as #1. And then of course you have the goaltenders which let's face it skew team results, so how do you measure a Hasek or Roy with a Gretzky?

Tom Brady is the GOAT of GOATs though. Many of his winning records are double next closest guy, he'll retire with all the regular season career numbers and 2nd most league MVPs. And in a sport where he's shattered the longevity standards, even for his position which is certainly a softer touch but still gridiron football.

Baseball in a similar fashion makes it even more tricky to consider past greats. Take Ty Cobb for example, kinda like the Suzuki of modern times where his homerun numbers are paltry but his hitting is other worldly while he won zero titles. Obviously Ruth with his homeruns and 7 titles split between two teams and being a great pitcher along with hitting has him defacto #1. And yes I'd put him below only Brady.

1. Brady
2. Ruth
3. Jordan/Wilt
4. Orr/Gretzky/Roy
5. Pele/Maradona/Messi

Now I will admit soccer/football is not high on my list but given it's 10 players on the field plus a goalkeeper and you have world tournaments that put emphasis on stacked national teams, it's extremely difficult to properly assess.

Meanwhile a sport like tennis is far easier to consider GOATs, unfortunately you have a Big 3 issue right now there.

Those are team records. This isn't tennis or golf. Gretzky's individual dominance in stats is more impressive than Brady's having twice as many playoff wins as anyone else. You can't put him above Jordan or Gretzky simply because of this factor.

 

[WingsFan95]

Those are team records. This isn't tennis or golf. Gretzky's individual dominance in stats is more impressive than Brady's having twice as many playoff wins as anyone else. You can't put him above Jordan or Gretzky simply because of this factor.

But then all team sport GOATs are out the window.

Pound for pound in basketball I take Hakeem Olajuwon over Jordan for value and how he carried two teams to a title in a way Jordan never did (again stacked teams people gloss over in both Threepeats). But wins on the biggest stage are exactly what they are. It's how we always end up talking about clutch factor.

Tom Brady 8 consecutive conference championships and 10 super bowls can also hardly be boiled down to his team being great. Of course it had to be in the top end for the defense to give him an edge but there's a reason he was a constant and then moved to another team and wins his first year. Let's also not forget his own statistics in the big games, including not winning one throwing 500 yards at 40.

Let's also not beat around the bush with regards to what GREATNESS means and what MOST TALENTED or MOST VALUABLE means. Greatness is winning, sport is literally about competing to win. So no, the face of that winning become the GOAT and it's not easy to argue otherwise. In Brady's sport there is literally nobody except a guy called Otto Graham who won 4 AAFC titles and 3 NFL Championships between the 40s and 50s.

In basketball you have Bill Russell but like in hockey, number of teams and playoff rounds cannot be ignored because the metric is different. Russell wins 11 rings because the league was 8-12 teams, 2 playoff series and his team usually had over 5 Hall of Famers not including himself. Which is why I scoff at anyone saying he's above Wilt Chamberlain. The other aspect of those type of era comparisons is what pro sports were in those days. Most players in the NFL, NBA and NHL had second jobs. As in, regular jobs of middle income because their pro sports checks didn't cover a whole year of middle class expenses and sometimes even bounced (stories abound in the NFL up to the 90s of players not getting paid).

 

[MadLuke]

Pound for pound in basketball I take Hakeem Olajuwon over Jordan for value and how he carried two teams to a title in a way Jordan never did

The fact you consider someone that never played basketball before 15 higher than Jordan, but pound for pound over Jordan, do seem to be an extreme case of what I was talking about, how much height skew things in that sport.

In basketball you have Bill Russell but like in hockey, number of teams and playoff rounds cannot be ignored because the metric is different. Russell wins 11 rings because the league was 8-12 teams, 2 playoff series and his team usually had over 5 Hall of Famers not including himself. Which is why I scoff at anyone saying he's above Wilt Chamberlain.

I agree with you that greatness is much more linked to winning than who was the best, but then you seem to shift the idea about it that it is the end of it all to context surrounding it is quite important.

 

[GMR]

But then all team sport GOATs are out the window.

Pound for pound in basketball I take Hakeem Olajuwon over Jordan for value and how he carried two teams to a title in a way Jordan never did (again stacked teams people gloss over in both Threepeats). But wins on the biggest stage are exactly what they are. It's how we always end up talking about clutch factor.

Tom Brady 8 consecutive conference championships and 10 super bowls can also hardly be boiled down to his team being great. Of course it had to be in the top end for the defense to give him an edge but there's a reason he was a constant and then moved to another team and wins his first year. Let's also not forget his own statistics in the big games, including not winning one throwing 500 yards at 40.

Let's also not beat around the bush with regards to what GREATNESS means and what MOST TALENTED or MOST VALUABLE means. Greatness is winning, sport is literally about competing to win. So no, the face of that winning become the GOAT and it's not easy to argue otherwise. In Brady's sport there is literally nobody except a guy called Otto Graham who won 4 AAFC titles and 3 NFL Championships between the 40s and 50s.

In basketball you have Bill Russell but like in hockey, number of teams and playoff rounds cannot be ignored because the metric is different. Russell wins 11 rings because the league was 8-12 teams, 2 playoff series and his team usually had over 5 Hall of Famers not including himself. Which is why I scoff at anyone saying he's above Wilt Chamberlain. The other aspect of those type of era comparisons is what pro sports were in those days. Most players in the NFL, NBA and NHL had second jobs. As in, regular jobs of middle income because their pro sports checks didn't cover a whole year of middle class expenses and sometimes even bounced (stories abound in the NFL up to the 90s of players not getting paid).

Who cares how many teams played in the NBA during Russell's era? There's like 2 or 3 legit contenders every season in the NBA. Same as it was back then. The other 27 teams are just playing for participation. There is no parity in the NBA, unlike other sports. For the umpteenth time in this thread, I'll repeat that Russell took titles away from Wilt, Baylor, West, Oscar, Pettit. Same as Jordan taking titles away from the 90's greats. Russell also won 5 regular season MVPs, taking many MVPs away from those greats. It was an 8 team league but all the best players played for those teams. Just like the Original 6 in hockey. Doesn't mean the league sucked back then or was lacking talent.

That said, Russell is not the best basketball player ever. Nobody ever makes that argument anymore. So you can win WAY more championships than anyone else and still not be the best. Why would it be any different in football?

Regarding Gretzky v. Brady, there is no argument other than titles. I'll take Gretzky's 8 consecutive MVPs over Brady's 8 consecutive Conference championships. Gretzky stands out from his peers in statistical dominance and per game stats. Brady stands out from sheer volume of playoff games. That's why he has way more playoff TDs and yards that the next closest player. Impressive? Sure is. More impressive than Gretzky decimating his sport and making every other player look silly? No.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Pound for pound in basketball I take Hakeem Olajuwon over Jordan for value and how he carried two teams to a title in a way Jordan never did (again stacked teams people gloss over in both Threepeats). But wins on the biggest stage are exactly what they are. It's how we always end up talking about clutch factor.

i agree that hakeem is super underrated historically by casual fans. but i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at with the "against stacked teams" part.

weren't all the teams houston beat also teams that jordan's bulls beat?

houston's finals opponents were orlando, which the '96 bulls murdered, and new york, who seemed to get eliminated by the bulls every year.

and the bulls faced and beat all of houston's western conference rivals in the finals i believe — portland, seattle, phoenix, utah.

but maybe i'm reading you wrong?

in any event, to this day i think the biggest loss in my basketball watching life is never getting to see jordan vs hakeem in the finals. would love to have seen those teams face each other in a playoff environment.

 

[GMR]

i agree that hakeem is super underrated historically by casual fans. but i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at with the "against stacked teams" part.

weren't all the teams houston beat also teams that jordan's bulls beat?

houston's finals opponents were orlando, which the '96 bulls murdered, and new york, who seemed to get eliminated by the bulls every year.

and the bulls faced and beat all of houston's western conference rivals in the finals i believe — portland, seattle, phoenix, utah.

but maybe i'm reading you wrong?

in any event, to this day i think the biggest loss in my basketball watching life is never getting to see jordan vs hakeem in the finals. would love to have seen those teams face each other in a playoff environment.

Hakeem was amazing indeed. It always baffles me when people rank Shaq ahead of him. Behind the big three (Wilt, Kareem, Russell) Hakeem is easily the best center remaining. He could dominate on both ends like Jordan couldn't, primarily because of his size and shot blocking. I don't rank him in the top 10 though. Certainly not above Jordan. Maybe if we're just looking at peak, Hakeem cracks the top 10 during his 1994 form. The rest of his career, though, is not on the level of a Jordan. Also, Jordan's teams were not stacked. The 1996 Bulls had a roster full of plugs except for Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Kukoc. And Rodman couldn't score off the dribble. Great defensive team but offensively Jordan carried the load.

 

[MadLuke]

I know for a fact that batting average in baseball is just one measure of one skill, and I assume the same is true in cricket. This is an interesting chart but ultimately doesn't tell us much about a player's actual value.

Know nothing about that sport (that show trying to claim something like that when you include all sports is a strange thing to do, there would be a long list of sport you do not know enough to include them in the conversation, what you said could easily be more true for point per game in basketball.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hakeem was amazing indeed. It always baffles me when people rank Shaq ahead of him. Behind the big three (Wilt, Kareem, Russell) Hakeem is easily the best center remaining. He could dominate on both ends like Jordan couldn't, primarily because of his size and shot blocking. I don't rank him in the top 10 though. Certainly not above Jordan. Maybe if we're just looking at peak, Hakeem cracks the top 10 during his 1994 form. The rest of his career, though, is not on the level of a Jordan. Also, Jordan's teams were not stacked. The 1996 Bulls had a roster full of plugs except for Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Kukoc. And Rodman couldn't score off the dribble. Great defensive team but offensively Jordan carried the load.

agree totally on hakeem > shaq. to me, it's like gretzky vs mario. you *could* maybe make the argument that shaq/mario could have been better if mario was healthier or if shaq tried harder, but on what they did do, .

i don't have a literal basketball top ten list in my head, but imo i think maybe 10-15 years ago hakeem and shaq would have been on the fringes of my top ten, but duncan passed hakeem and lebron passed them all. in the end, kobe might belong slightly ahead shaq, or maybe not, i'm not super invested in that comp, but because of the timing of his career relative to tim and lebron i don't think kobe ever cracked the top ten.

 

[GMR]

agree totally on hakeem > shaq. to me, it's like gretzky vs mario. you *could* maybe make the argument that shaq/mario could have been better if mario was healthier or if shaq tried harder, but on what they did do, .

i don't have a literal basketball top ten list in my head, but imo i think maybe 10-15 years ago hakeem and shaq would have been on the fringes of my top ten, but duncan passed hakeem and lebron passed them all. in the end, kobe might belong slightly ahead shaq, or maybe not, i'm not super invested in that comp, but because of the timing of his career relative to tim and lebron i don't think kobe ever cracked the top ten.

Duncan and Kobe are both top 10 for me. Lebron probably top 5. Hakeem and Shaq just outside the top 10.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Duncan and Kobe are both top 10 for me. Lebron probably top 5. Hakeem and Shaq just outside the top 10.

oscar is the really hard one for me to place. but i think i probably have a bunch of guys after hakeem that you could put in any order—shaq, kobe, moses, dr j, maybe someday kd and/or steph, and probably jerry west belongs there.

not sure if oscar belongs there, even as the best of those guys, or if he's higher. but it's been weird to watch him fall in my lifetime from almost unanimous top five to fringe top ten. i guess it just goes to show that as time goes on titles are what keep you relevant.

but just to actually do a list, which i don't think i've ever sat down and done,

jordan
russell
kareem/lebron
magic
wilt
(oscar?)
bird/duncan
(oscar?)
hakeem
(oscar?)
west/dr j/moses/shaq/kobe

did i forget anyone?