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

[GMR]

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?

I'd say that's a fair list of the top 15 players ever. The same guys I'd list. Except maybe Moses. He had a great peak but was underwhelming late in his career. There's several others I'd rank above him at other positions.

 

[WingsFan95]

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.

Okay, are you ignoring that most players back then had second jobs? And yes, just like the original six era outside of the creamiest of crop are overrated. Some of those guys that got into the Hall of Fame would struggle with the same style in juniors today. It's not disrespectful, it's just honest.

And when it comes to basketball, as someone who played varsity let me tell you there's a giant difference between a 1-2 men team like Wilt usually had especially in his prime and essentially two starting rotations. Hell even having a clear cut 3rd guy on one team over the other can massively tilt the balance. The MVPs were a joke in those days, voted on by the players if I'm not mistaken. Russell won one of those in a eyar Oscar averaged a triple double and Wilt average 50-30. Don't even get started on bringing that joke into the equation. And I urge you to look up the film of Russell vs. Wilt. It's really sad to see Wilt do his best and get mugged while Russell stands around here and there. Wilt was on another plain of existence.

Lastly on parity in the NBA. Some seasons there were clear cut 2 teams yes, but most of the time there are a handful of contenders. If that wasn't the case you would see a lot less 6 & 7 game series. This is why Jordan and LeBron should get credit as they elevated above adverisity come playoff time. But having to play those extra rounds means you're more prone to injury or fatigue, that's inarguable.

[/quote]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.[/QUOTE]

Mario Lemieux statistically measured up to Gretzky which to me eliminates the aura and some of Lemieux's 90s seasons were played against tougher goalies (in part due to equipment) than Wayne especially first half of the 80s.

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.

In either 94 or 95 playoff run, Hakeem lead his team in all 5 statistical categories. That in the modern era is beyond insanity. That's what I mean by Jordan never coming close to that type of workload. He was the offensive head of typically defensive teams.

Now in response to another poster about Jordan's teams. They were indeed deep, especially for that time.

The first Threepeat had Grant as the 3rd guy while Rodman on the 2nd. But in addition on both teams you also had four support players to round out. And guys like Armstrong & Kukoc did get individual recognition when given the opportunity. Ron Harper on that 2nd threepeat is a joke (look up his numbers before he came in, dude was ring chasing). Paxson and Cartwright also unbelievable bench players.

Rule of thumb in the NBA generally is if you have multiple top 10 all-stars coupled with borderline 3 all-star support players, that is indeed a stacked team. Both Threepeats had the Bulls with arguably three Top 10 players.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Both Threepeats had the Bulls with arguably three Top 10 players.

am i reading you wrong or are you suggesting that horace grant and one of rodman/kukoc were top ten players?

 

[GMR]

Okay, are you ignoring that most players back then had second jobs? And yes, just like the original six era outside of the creamiest of crop are overrated. Some of those guys that got into the Hall of Fame would struggle with the same style in juniors today. It's not disrespectful, it's just honest.

And when it comes to basketball, as someone who played varsity let me tell you there's a giant difference between a 1-2 men team like Wilt usually had especially in his prime and essentially two starting rotations. Hell even having a clear cut 3rd guy on one team over the other can massively tilt the balance. The MVPs were a joke in those days, voted on by the players if I'm not mistaken. Russell won one of those in a eyar Oscar averaged a triple double and Wilt average 50-30. Don't even get started on bringing that joke into the equation. And I urge you to look up the film of Russell vs. Wilt. It's really sad to see Wilt do his best and get mugged while Russell stands around here and there. Wilt was on another plain of existence.

Lastly on parity in the NBA. Some seasons there were clear cut 2 teams yes, but most of the time there are a handful of contenders. If that wasn't the case you would see a lot less 6 & 7 game series. This is why Jordan and LeBron should get credit as they elevated above adverisity come playoff time. But having to play those extra rounds means you're more prone to injury or fatigue, that's inarguable.

Wilt had great players around him. He had Arizin, Cunningham, and Greer in Philadelphia. West and Baylor in Los Angeles. All voted to the top 50 team. Yes, Russell's teammates were better, but Wilt wasn't surrounded by nothing.

Regarding the Bulls, I remember their second three peat better. Longley was below average compared to most NBA centers for that era. Steve Kerr was a great shooter but did nothing else and wasn't a consistent scorer off the bench. Couldn't score off the drible. Regulars like Wennington, Buechler and Brown would be lucky to play for other teams. It really was just Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman. Harper was decent but past his prime offensively. Rodman provided no offense. They won because of attitude, coaching, defense, and Jordan. Not because of raw talent on the roster. It's true that you could argue Hakeem's title runs were more impressive but Jordan had more of them. Also, many believe Hakeem doesn't win those titles if Jordan doesn't retire for 1994 and most of 1995. They're probably correct.

FYI, I have Mario Lemieux also ranked above Brady. Same with Orr. Those guys stood out from their peers more than Brady does. Just didn't have anywhere near the longevity and health Brady has. They dominated their peers more.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd say that's a fair list of the top 15 players ever. The same guys I'd list. Except maybe Moses. He had a great peak but was underwhelming late in his career. There's several others I'd rank above him at other positions.

Disagree about Moses Malone.

Three time MVP. All-time leader in offensive rebounds (by a lot). Second most free throws made. 8th in scoring all-time. Perhaps the best basketball IQ for a center I've seen.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

If I were picking a non-QB I'd probably go with Brown first, then Rice. But if you are picking a player to have on your team for 20 years are you picking Rice over Brady? I'm not.

 

[GMR]

If I were picking a non-QB I'd probably go with Brown first, then Rice. But if you are picking a player to have on your team for 20 years are you picking Rice over Brady? I'm not.

I wouldn't pick anyone over Brady for 20 years. Dude never misses a game and has a magical horseshoe up his ass. Does that make him the GOAT? I'd pick Bourque for 20 years over Lemieux. Doesn't mean he was better necessarily at his position.

 

[Big Phil]

I wouldn't pick anyone over Brady for 20 years. Dude never misses a game and has a magical horseshoe up his ass. Does that make him the GOAT? I'd pick Bourque for 20 years over Lemieux. Doesn't mean he was better necessarily at his position.

If I had Bourque for 20, and Lemieux for 20, I take Mario. Football is different that way though. It is much harder for a WR to dominate than a QB. I didn't make up the rules, but a QB is always more valuable.

 

[GMR]

Disagree about Moses Malone.

Three time MVP. All-time leader in offensive rebounds (by a lot). Second most free throws made. 8th in scoring all-time. Perhaps the best basketball IQ for a center I've seen.

Yeah, his peak was amazing. Dominated Kareem several times in big series. Just played too long and hurt his ranking a little IMO. Also wasn't a great defensive center.

I don't have a problem with him ranked 15th all time. He'd be competing with players like Baylor and Thomas on my list for that spot.

 

[GMR]

If I had Bourque for 20, and Lemieux for 20, I take Mario. Football is different that way though. It is much harder for a WR to dominate than a QB. I didn't make up the rules, but a QB is always more valuable.

A QB is more valuable for sure than a WR. I just believe Jerry Rice dominated his position more than any other football player dominated theirs. Maybe Lawrence Taylor and Jim Brown are the closest to dominating their peers in similar fashion. Brady has the longevity but I never thought he was WAY better than Manning, Brees, or Rodgers.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Wayne Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

What athlete in another sport can say that ?

 

[GMR]

Wayne Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

What athlete in another sport can say that ?

Yeah, but he hasn't played in 10 Super Bowls. That evidently makes Beliveau........I mean Brady better than him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Similarity when comparing Brady & Gretzky to the rest:

Both saw the field (or ice) like no one else. It was their greatest asset.

They both exploited the opponents weaknesses better than anyone else. They made lesser players better by finding them in optimum spots for success. The classic "eyes in the back of the head", an innate feel for where everyone is in the game. Offensive geniuses.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Wayne Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

What athlete in another sport can say that ?

One year ('22?) Ruth had more home runs than any other entire team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wayne Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

What athlete in another sport can say that ?

One year ('22?) Ruth had more home runs than any other entire team.

i wonder if there was a year where wilt had more dunks than anyone else had field goals?

for a few years before harden perfected his travel step back, curry had bonkers separation between him and the next guy in three pointers

 

[Sadekuuro]

One year ('22?) Ruth had more home runs than any other entire team.

Is that a fair comparison though? A hockey team can't win without putting up goals/points, whereas a baseball team can do fine without home runs. (Especially at that time -- were the other teams even swinging for the fences back then, or does that stylistic difference account for much of the gap? I'm no baseball expert, nor any of these other sports actually, just wondering how useful Ruth's HR dominance actually is as a metric relative to these other mega-elite performers.)

 

[notDatsyuk]

i wonder if there was a year where wilt had more dunks than anyone else had field goals?

for a few years before harden perfected his travel step back, curry had bonkers separation between him and the next guy in three pointers

I'm not really a basketball fan, so I don't know the relationship between baskets and field goals.

Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. Bryant is the only one close, with 81, and that was with the benefit of 3-pointers.

Only six players have scored 60 or more points on more than one occasion: Wilt did it 32 times, while Bryant managed six and Jordan five.

Not necessarily the greatest, but dominant in his time.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Is that a fair comparison though? A hockey team can't win without putting up goals/points, whereas a baseball team can do fine without home runs. (Especially at that time -- were the other teams even swinging for the fences back then, or does that stylistic difference account for much of the gap? I'm no baseball expert, nor any of these other sports actually, just wondering how useful Ruth's HR dominance actually is as a metric relative to these other mega-elite performers.)

Is it fair comparing hockey assists to anything in any other sport?

I'm sure there are lots of arguments both ways, and in several other directions.

I wasn't necessarily comparing them, beyond them showing huge dominance in one aspect, similar to Chamberlain's 32 60+ point games (see above).

 

[Johnny Engine]

I'm not really a basketball fan, so I don't know the relationship between baskets and field goals.

Imagine if Ovechkin scored more one-timer goals than anyone else scored with any other kind of shot. That's the sort of relationship the post you're responding to is describing.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Regarding GOATs, some might consider this person to be the greatest hitter in baseball history...possibly better than Ruth or Cobb.

Some highlights for Williams:

-led the AL in WAR 6 times, 2nd 3 times, and 3rd 3 times
-led the AL in OWAR 7 times, 2nd 3 times, and 3rd 5 times
-led the AL in batting average 6 times, 2nd 4 times, 3rd once, and 4th once
-led the AL in on-base % a staggering 12 times
-led the AL in slugging % a staggering 9 times, 2nd once, 3rd once and 4th twice
-led the AL in OPS 10 times
-led the AL in Runs Scored 6 times, 2nd once, 3rd twice, and 5th once
-led the AL in Home Runs 4 times, 2nd 4 times, 3rd 2 times
-led the AL in Adjusted OPS+ (adjusted for ballparks) 9 times, 2nd once, 3rd twice

Williams missed 5 years of his prime serving in WW2 and the Korean War. He only played a little over 2200 games. Yet he still managed to accumulate:

-121.9 career WAR - 11th all-time
-125.1 careeer OWAR - 6th all-time
-.344 career batting average - 8th all-time
-.482 career on-base% - 1st all-time!
-.634 career slugging % - 2nd all-time
-1.116 career OPS - 2nd all-time
-1798 Runs Scored - 20th all-time
-521 Home Runs - 20th all-time
-1839 RBIs - 15th all-time
-2021 walks - 4th all-time
- 191 Career Adjusted OPS+ (for ballparks) - 2nd all-time

I suspect if Williams had not missed those 5 seasons he is likely still the career leader in career WAR, OWAR, Runs, RBIs, and walks to this very day. Likely top -5 in career homers and career batting average...possibly number one in slugging %, career OPS.

The numbers he put are just cartoonish. Imagine getting on base nearly 50% of the time for your entire career! How about being the last player in MLB to hit over .400 (.406 to be precise) in 1941 80 years ago!?

Williams had the longevity of Brady but he had a greater career and higher peak. In just his third season, at the ripe old age of 22, Williams lead the league in average .406 (2nd place was .359), on-base % .553 (2nd place .452), slugging % .735 (2nd .643), OPS 1.287 (2nd 1.083), Home runs 37 (2nd place was 33), WAR 10.4 (2nd place was 9.4) OWAR 10.7 (2nd place was 8.6). Several offensive categories between Williams and the next best player are Gretzky-like.

Williams followed up that season with another spectacular season in 1942 - lead the league in average at .356 (2nd place was .331), on-base % .499 (2nd place was .417), slugging % .648 (2nd place was .513), on-base % 1.147 (2nd place was .930), home runs 36 (2nd place was 27), WAR 10.4 (2nd place 7.7), OWAR 9.9 (2nd place was 6.4). Again, the gaps from first to second in several of these categories are Gretzky-like.

Brady sure didn't do anything like this in his third and fourth season. and arguably nothing like this in his entire career with regards to gap in statistics with respect to the next best player.

Boston is sure a fortunate city. On top of all the championship teams and dynasties, they have a claim to the GOATS or near GOATS of all-time in their respective team sports.

Basketball - Russell probably top-5, Bird top-10
Hockey - Orr best d-man and arguably best player all-time
Baseball - Williams top - 5 and arguably best hitter all-time
Football - Brady top-5 and arguably best QB/player all-time.

No other city, not even New York, LA or Chicago can compare.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Is it fair comparing hockey assists to anything in any other sport?

Someone who knows other sports better than I do would have to weigh in on that, but FWIW I'd presume that points are a better measure to use for that sort of thing than just assists.

 

[Big Phil]

Wayne Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

What athlete in another sport can say that ?

Ruth hitting more home runs than entire teams comes to mind. He did it starting in 1920. Actually, as late as 1927 Ruth had more home runs in a season (60) than any other team in the American League. Not overall, since there were a couple in the National League who had more. But still, this is 1927, it isn't as if Ruth wasn't slamming home runs at a record pace for a decade by then, and he still was dominating.

Yeah, but he hasn't played in 10 Super Bowls. That evidently makes Beliveau........I mean Brady better than him.

To be fair I could be wrong here but I'm pretty sure almost everyone - if not everyone - would consider Gretzky to have dominated his sport better than Brady. I think the argument for Brady is that he is more or less clearly the GOAT in the NFL. But not in all sports. He's got too tough of competition.

A QB is more valuable for sure than a WR. I just believe Jerry Rice dominated his position more than any other football player dominated theirs. Maybe Lawrence Taylor and Jim Brown are the closest to dominating their peers in similar fashion. Brady has the longevity but I never thought he was WAY better than Manning, Brees, or Rodgers.

He's had more success. Even at 43 years old he beat Brees and Rodgers on the road to the Super Bowl. No one at the QB position has ever dominated in Gretzky/Ruth fashion. I don't think he is WAY better than the likes of Manning, Unitas, Montana, etc. but it should be clear as water now that he's at the top of that list.

 

[Cas]

Is that a fair comparison though? A hockey team can't win without putting up goals/points, whereas a baseball team can do fine without home runs. (Especially at that time -- were the other teams even swinging for the fences back then, or does that stylistic difference account for much of the gap? I'm no baseball expert, nor any of these other sports actually, just wondering how useful Ruth's HR dominance actually is as a metric relative to these other mega-elite performers.)

The first season Ruth individually out-homered the rest of the league was 1920, and the Yankees did not lead the league in runs that year (finishing 19 behind Cleveland). That was largely because other than Ruth and Bob Meusel, the Yankees were actually a very weak offensive team, whereas Cleveland was pretty deep throughout the lineup and bench (even Cleveland's pitchers were much better hitters than the Yankees' pitchers). He also did it in 1927 but the Yankees were the famous "Murderer's Row" team that year and obviously dominated at the plate.

Ruth's major contribution to baseball was that he consistently swung for the fences and was good enough to change the paradigm of the sport, while also taking advantage of new rules that made hitting for power easier (the near-ban of the spitball and other trick pitches, and rules requiring fresh balls to be used when the previous ball was no longer in acceptable condition). Ruth was just so good at hitting for power, in addition to just being so good at hitting in general (and taking walks - he held the career record in walks until Rickey Henderson finally broke it) - he generated a ludicrous amount of value at the plate during his career (and he still holds numerous advanced statistical records that try to account for the total value he provided as a batter on an equal basis, on both an absolute and a rate basis).

 

[The Panther]

I have no issue with Ruth as the greatest baseball player, and I am his fan.

That said, I kind of agree with what blueandgoldguy is implying, above, that hitters like Ted Williams, or Ichiro Suzuki in more recent times, are actually of comparable or more value to a team.

 

[Cas]

I have no issue with Ruth as the greatest baseball player, and I am his fan.

That said, I kind of agree with what blueandgoldguy is implying, above, that hitters like Ted Williams, or Ichiro Suzuki in more recent times, are actually of comparable or more value to a team.

Williams, in his prime, was comparable to Ruth (but I think never as good at his peak).

Ichiro was never close - his best season would fit in terms of value within Ruth's prime, but the shape of his value is completely different (tons of defense and baserunning, low power). Aside from that season, Ichiro was never within the same universe as Ruth - lack of power and walks really hurt him, and his superior defense and baserunning don't come close to making up that value differential at the plate.