82

[Kalen Braley]

Hey John,

Some good points for sure and I had forgotten Magic's career was a bit short.

There are several ratings systems out there. https://prosportsanalytics.com/2017/05/03/basketball-statistics-whats-out-there/ , and they can all be effective tools in measuring players both individually and in the aggregate.

But when it comes to the best of the best, the elite of the elite, I would think that championships must be used as well. And this is especially true for Basketball where one player has the best opportunity to take over a game both offensively and defensively, as opposed to other team sports like Football or Baseball.  So while players like Malone, Barkely, and Paul have/had terrific and long careers, their inability to win championships must surely be factored in.  These guys may score high in several quantity categories, but what about quality and the ability to win on the biggest stage?  Its similar to why no one is making a case for Greg Norman in these discussions because while he has 88 wins world wide, and was world #1 for a long time, he faltered in the majors.

P.S.  If you were GM for a day and had the chance to draft anyone, would you really take those three guys over a Kobe or Kevin Durant?  I know what my answer is.. 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

Jordan vs James? Surely you jest

Montana vs Marion?  Surely you're off your rocker...

Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! 

Kalen,

You COULD try reading what I wrote.  I didn't say, and don't think James compares to Jordan, even though he is going to surpass many, if not most of MJ's career records.  And I didn't say and don't think Marino compares to Montana, even though Marino threw for more yards and threw more TD passes and won more games as a starter than Montana did.  The obvious differences in those two comparisons is championships, and I do think those are a big deal.  Jordan was 6 for 6 in NBA finals, and Montana, along with Brady, has to be considered the greatest winner as a QB in NFL history.

Given the differences in the depth of competition, I don't think the difference between Woods and Nicklaus in majors won is particularly compelling, even if Woods doesn't win any more before he finally hangs it up.  So, to return to the idea of peak value (Mantle) vs. career value, IF you put aside majors, or at the very most make it one third of the picture, with peak value and career value as the other two, Woods is the GOAT, hands down.

And I'm an old guy who watched and marveled at Nicklaus for pretty much his whole career.  But I don't typically fall victim to "good old days" thinking, and that's the ONLY way Nicklaus comes out ahead in this comparison, with the myopic use of majors as the only "evidence" available.

[Ira Fishman]

A.G.,


How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball?  Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years?  Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs?  I go back and forth on these all of the time.  Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

A.G.,


How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball?  Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years?  Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs?  I go back and forth on these all of the time.  Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.


Ira

If it wasn't for the damn '69 collapse they would be higher up.
Also I want to go on record to point out that performing in the playoffs, 4th quarter, Sunday of a major, etc. takes tremendous concentration, confidence and mental toughness.  It doesn't just happen and those that have performed under those stressful situations have that championship gene that others simply don't.  Difference between shooting 63 in a practice round and 63 on Sunday, or leading the league in passing, but throw a couple interceptions in the playoff game.  The line is so fine at the professional sports level that there isn't room for many at the top.

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


I agree that performance in clutch situations is a fair metric.  But in team sports, getting to the Championship is seldom he function of a single person although obviously more likely in Basketball than other team sports.  Trout might really test the notion of whether a player never to make it to the championship can be in consideration as the GOAT (or at least in the post-Babe Ruth era).


And why do people have to keep reminding me of 1969?  I was 11 at the time and still have not gotten completely over it.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

A.G.

I'm happy to hear i incorrectly interpreted what you wrote.  It sounded like you were trying to equate them, which seemed a bit absurd.

P.S. Ira does make a good point.  It seems like individual sports vs teams sports where one player can take over a game vs larger team sports where the star depends on external help from teammates should be evaluated differently in at least some of the criteria items.  That being said, I still don't think you can ignore rings, as difficult as that can be to process in sports like Football and Baseball.

P.P.S  I've also read Marino was partially to blame for not having better RBs in his career because he demanded to throw the ball so much.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,


How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball?  Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years?  Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs?  I go back and forth on these all of the time.  Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.


Ira

Ira,

These are great questions.  I'll say first that I think baseball is different from pro basketball and football in that the baseball playoffs are much more of a crapshoot.  Most of the time, the best teams during the season are the best teams in the playoffs in football and basketball; that is often NOT the case in baseball.  Billy Bean has said, "My s**t doesn't work in the playoffs.", by which he meant that he builds "macro" teams for a 162 game schedule; the playoffs are "micro".

As to Kershaw:  His playoff record is mixed, and puzzling.  He has the highest number of quality starts in playoff baseball since 2013, but he also has the largest number of bad starts of any pitcher in baseball history.  The performance of the bullpen in games where Kershaw has pitched well has just been brutal, but his ERA is much higher in the playoffs than during the regular season.  And the Dodgers have used him on short rest and out of the bullpen several times, with pretty consistently terrible results.  He's been the best pitcher of his generation by a LOT, and so expectations have been high, of course.  But even if you factor out the short rest and bullpen games, and even if the relievers for him had performed better, his record is still mixed.  I don't know what value that subtracts from his career, but I think playoff performances in baseball are generally assigned less value than they are in pro football and basketball.

As to Trout:  That the Angels aren't a perennial playoff team doesn't detract in the least from his greatness, at least for me; I see a clear difference here between him and Kershaw.  Ty Cobb never won a World Series.  Ted Williams never won a WS.  Ernie Banks never won a WS.  Yaz never won a WS.  Ichiro never won a WS.  Tony Gwynn never won a WS.  I could go on, but you get the idea; I just don't think you can hold a guy who puts up epic, historic numbers responsible if the guys around him aren't good enough to get him to the playoffs or World Series in the first place.

[Ira Fishman]

A.G.


I think your post is spot on. In baseball, performance in the playoffs is a factor in evaluating a career, but less of one than in other team sports, particularly the QB or Number 1 regardless of position in Basketball. I was quite glad when Oscar Robertson finally won a championship. He is a legit part of discussion for GOAT in Basketball even though MJ is clear choice for me.


I am curious how our Posters from around the globe think about regular season versus major competitions in evaluating players in team sports.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity.  Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.

It aids Tiger's competitors, too. And what hurt Jack, hurt his competitors as well.

They can only play the people that are in the same tournaments as them.

Also… Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly.

[Rob Marshall]

Most of Jacks competition was driving in the 70’s and 80’s? While Jack was flying?

[Jeff Schley]

There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity.  Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.

It aids Tiger's competitors, too. And what hurt Jack, hurt his competitors as well.

They can only play the people that are in the same tournaments as them.

Also… Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly.

Yes, but that is like saying you are racing a Ferrari against a Prius and you both run out of gas.  If there is more gas for both, will that help the Prius overcome the Ferrari?  Didn't think so. It gave the Ferrari more time to distance itself.


Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.

No, because Tiger isn't the only player to benefit from modern medicine. His competitors have as well.

Just like Jack wasn't the only one he played against to not benefit from modern (by current standards) medicine: his competitors also failed to get it.

[Michael Felton]

Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.

No, because Tiger isn't the only player to benefit from modern medicine. His competitors have as well.

Just like Jack wasn't the only one he played against to not benefit from modern (by current standards) medicine: his competitors also failed to get it.

Erik


I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.

[Rob Marshall]

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.

I'm not denying that, but… so? Are we giving credit to him or taking it away? Because one could easily see that if he was a bit more fortunate, he might have already surpassed Jack's 18.

Was Tiger "lucky" to have modern medicine to help him get back, or was he unlucky in just how many injuries, etc. he had over time?

I generally prefer not to weight people on "what ifs." Only on what actually happened. Tiger's 15 are more impressive than Jack's 18, to me. 82 >> 72. Etc.

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

Those guys were flying, too. I'm talking about the "others" on the Tour, the "fillers" who were living tournament to tournament. I didn't say ALL of Jack's competitors, nor did I say his "top" competitors.

Jack being able to afford to fly gave him an advantage over a lot of other players. That's it.

[Jason Thurman]

Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?

[Rob Marshall]

I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.

I'm not denying that, but… so? Are we giving credit to him or taking it away? Because one could easily see that if he was a bit more fortunate, he might have already surpassed Jack's 18.

Was Tiger "lucky" to have modern medicine to help him get back, or was he unlucky in just how many injuries, etc. he had over time?

I generally prefer not to weight people on "what ifs." Only on what actually happened. Tiger's 15 are more impressive than Jack's 18, to me. 82 >> 72. Etc.

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

Those guys were flying, too. I'm talking about the "others" on the Tour, the "fillers" who were living tournament to tournament. I didn't say ALL of Jack's competitors, nor did I say his "top" competitors.

Jack being able to afford to fly gave him an advantage over a lot of other players. That's it.

I don't see where you say "others or fillers" You said most of his competitors.







"Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?

He never had the chipping yips. 

I don't see where you say "others or fillers" You said most of his competitors.

And your list had about ten players listed, many of whom didn't even overlap very much. PGA Tour fields had more than eleven people in them, no?

Or, to put it another way, if you looked at the field of a random 1976 PGA Tour event, how many of the players flew versus drove to the tournament? I would wager that "most" drove.

[Rob Marshall]

Which one wasn't playing when Jack was winning majors?

If you were talking about "fillers" and "others" what difference did it make if they drove or road a bike. "fillers and others" don't win a lot of majors and weren't a factor in Jack winning or losing majors, right? They were just "fillers"...........

[Pete_Pittock]

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.

[Rob Marshall]

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.

I thought so too......

[Tim Martin]

The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.

I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.

I thought so too......

I agree and am pretty sure Palmer was flying his own plane when Jack was still in high school.

[Jason Thurman]

Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?

He never had the chipping yips. 

LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY

[Erik J. Barzeski]

LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY

That’s bad technique. Not “yips.”

And y’all can say what you want: Jack’s ability to fly while others had to drive was an advantage to him.

I also didn’t say he was the first. Arnie used to fly the two of them places.

[Rob Marshall]

LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY

That’s bad technique. Not “yips.”

And y’all can say what you want: Jack’s ability to fly while others had to drive was an advantage to him.

I also didn’t say he was the first. Arnie used to fly the two of them places.

Yes, it was an advantage over “fillers and others”.......