Getting each other's G.O.A.T.

[BUCKYLE]

MJ has 6 rings and 6 Finals MVPs.

When LeBron gets 3 of each, I'll engage in the debate.

In that case, Bill Russell is the greatest of all time. Dan Marino isn't close, and John Elway only made the discussion at the end of his carreer?

 

[TRON 2.0]

In that case, Bill Russell is the greatest of all time.

No doubt.

 

[BB73]

In that case, Bill Russell is the greatest of all time. Dan Marino isn't close, and John Elway only made the discussion at the end of his carreer?

Championships aren't the only measure, but they're important. Career stats and numbers of annual awards are also important factors. How good your teammates are/were also needs to be considered.

Russell's certainly someone that can make the case as being the greatest player ever, he belongs in the discsussion. But the game was much different back then - there were only 2 rounds in the playoffs, and more importantly, there was no free agency so his team didn't lose guys in the middle of their careers.

Marino isn't close to being the the 'greatest of all time' in his sport because he won no titles. A Hall-of-famer and a great player, but in my opinion he doesn't have a legit claim as the greatest ever because he won no rings. The same would be true of Elway if he hadn't won any titles.

Titles are more important for QBs because they control so much of what happens in the game. Moreso than RBs, WR, or defensive players.

In basketball, one guy can dominate because there are only 5 players on the court, and a guy can be on the court 80 to 90% of the time over his career. In baseball, there are 9 guys, and pitchers can dominate a game, but they only play every 4 or 5 days; so a pitcher has less influence on a team getting a title than a QB or a basketball player.

And I wasn't saying that the discussion about LeBron being the greatest ever shouldn't take place. He has a chance to become that - I was just saying that I wasn't going to bother taking part in that discussion for quite a while, since it's based mostly on speculation. It's hard to evaluate his career when it's only about 1/3 over.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Championships aren't the only measure, but they're important. Career stats and numbers of annual awards are also important factors. How good your teammates are/were also needs to be considered.

Agreed somewhat. I don't think Championships are as important in Football, especially considering what is needed to win one. Football requires so much more than any single player can give on his own. Marino, imo, HAS to be in the discussion, especially considering his recievers during his carreer.

Russell's certainly someone that can make the case as being the greatest player ever, he belongs in the discsussion. But the game was much different back then - there were only 2 rounds in the playoffs, and more importantly, there was no free agency so his team didn't lose guys in the middle of their careers.

True that teams were able to stay together without free agency. Also true that with only...what...8 teams in the league druing Russell's years, that the talent was much more concentrated. The year the Bulls won 72 games, iirc, about fifteen wins came against the first year expansion Raptors and Grizzlies. Not nearly as impressive, imo, as earlier teams with great regular season records.

Marino isn't close to being the the 'greatest of all time' in his sport because he won no titles. A Hall-of-famer and a great player, but in my opinion he doesn't have a legit claim as the greatest ever because he won no rings. The same would be true of Elway if he hadn't won any titles.

Eh, agree to disagree. When Marino retired, he held damn near every record a QB could have, despite never having what I, or most, would consider an elite WR.

Titles are more important for QBs because they control so much of what happens in the game. Moreso than RBs, WR, or defensive players.

While they control more, imo, football is so much different from basketball and baseball in that no matter how good one player does, his teammates can ruin or save a game on one play.

In basketball, one guy can dominate because there are only 5 players on the court, and a guy can be on the court 80 to 90% of the time over his career. In baseball, there are 9 guys, and pitchers can dominate a game, but they only play every 4 or 5 days; so a pitcher has less influence on a team getting a title than a QB or a basketball player.

Agreed, even though I don't compare a QB with a pitcher because of how often a pitcher can determine the outcome. An everyday player in baseball, C, OF, etc, can have a greater influence on the season than a QB, imo. I mean, a guy that wins the triple crown could damn near win fifty games with his bat during the course of the season. Not to say he doesn't need any help, just less so than a QB...again, just my two cents.

And I wasn't saying that the discussion about LeBron being the greatest ever shouldn't take place. He has a chance to become that - I was just saying that I wasn't going to bother taking part in that discussion for quite a while, since it's based mostly on speculation. It's hard to evaluate his career when it's only about 1/3 over.

Yeah, I knew that. I just think that even if Lebron never wins a title, he still has to be in the discussion eventually.

 

[BB73]

Agreed, even though I don't compare a QB with a pitcher because of how often a pitcher can determine the outcome. An everyday player in baseball, C, OF, etc, can have a greater influence on the season than a QB, imo. I mean, a guy that wins the triple crown could damn near win fifty games with his bat during the course of the season. Not to say he doesn't need any help, just less so than a QB...again, just my two cents.

I really don't think an outfielder can have the same effect on a team as a QB. He's 1/9 of the offense, although a great hitter can contribute a higher percentage than that. He does play defense, but an outfielder's defense is a relatively small factor of a team trying to prevent runs. So it looks like we're agreeeing to disagree on that.

I'd also say that taking a triple crown winner off a good team (and replacing him with an average position player) would decrease their production by closer to 50 runs than by 50 wins. Knocking a team from 100 wins to 50 wins would likely change a team from the 1st or 2nd best in the league to the worst in the league.

Only 2 of the 12 Triple Crown winners since the World Series began managed to win the World Series that year. (Mantle '56, F Robinson '66). Taking Mantle or Frank Robinson off of those teams might have cost them the World Series, but it wouldn't have cost them 50 wins (or 47 in Mantle's case, allowing for the 154-game schedule).

 

[BUCKYLE]

I really don't think an outfielder can have the same effect on a team as a QB. He's 1/9 of the offense, although a great hitter can contribute a higher percentage than that. He does play defense, but an outfielder's defense is a relatively small factor of a team trying to prevent runs. So it looks like we're agreeeing to disagree on that.

I'd also say that taking a triple crown winner off a good team (and replacing him with an average position player) would decrease their production by closer to 50 runs than by 50 wins. Knocking a team from 100 wins to 50 wins would likely change a team from the 1st or 2nd best in the league to the worst in the league.

Only 2 of the 12 Triple Crown winners since the World Series began managed to win the World Series that year. (Mantle '56, F Robinson '66). Taking Mantle or Frank Robinson off of those teams might have cost them the World Series, but it wouldn't have cost them 50 wins (or 47 in Mantle's case, allowing for the 154-game schedule).

Point conceded. My main point really was intended to focus on Marino and the fact that his supporting cast, imo, was the main reason behind him not having a 'ship. You put Jerry Rice with him instead of Montana, and I seriously have doubts that Joe is held in as high regard as he is.

 

[BB73]

Point conceded. My main point really was intended to focus on Marino and the fact that his supporting cast, imo, was the main reason behind him not having a 'ship. You put Jerry Rice with him instead of Montana, and I seriously have doubts that Joe is held in as high regard as he is.

I'll buy that. Personally, I've got Elway above Montana.

I guess I'll split this off somewhere now.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I'll buy that. Personally, I've got Elway above Montana.

I guess I'll split this off somewhere now.

Nice title.

 

[Brutus1]

I think we can all agree on one G.O.A.T : BB73 with his BP gambling winnings.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I think we can all agree on one G.O.A.T : BB73 with his BP gambling winnings.

Eh, I think when discussing GOAT vgamblers, you have to take into account who the bookie is for the bets he's won. I mean, he sets the odds, and we all know he's a crooked sumbitch. Think about it. Piney is the true GOAT. He has no inside info yet still manages to come out near the top consistently.

 

[BB73]

That deserves a GPA.







Grotesque
Personal
Attack

:tongue2:

 

[buckiprof]

In baseball, there are 9 guys, and pitchers can dominate a game, but they only play every 4 or 5 days; so a pitcher has less influence on a team getting a title than a QB or a basketball player.

Orel Hershiser with the Dodgers in 1988 might have something to say about that.

 

[BB73]

Orel Hershiser with the Dodgers in 1988 might have something to say about that.

Somebody else trying to get my G.O.A.T.?

A single pitcher in the playoffs can have more of an effect than in the regular season. Getting 2 starts out of 5, or possibly 3 out of 7, gives him a higher % of participation then he can get over the course of the season. It's a big reason why postseason pitchers get more MVPs than they do in the regular season. But the guy's been in the games less than 20% of the innings the team played all year - he needs a lot of help to get to the playoffs. I'll counter Orel with Steve Carlton in 1973 (27-10, 1.97 ERA on a Phillies team that went 59-97).

And just another reason why baseball is fucked up.

 

[purplehaze1213]

Somebody else trying to get my G.O.A.T.?

A single pitcher in the playoffs can have more of an effect than in the regular season. Getting 2 starts out of 5, or possibly 3 out of 7, gives him a higher % of participation then he can get over the course of the season. It's a big reason why postseason pitchers get more MVPs than they do in the regular season. But the guy's been in the games less than 20% of the innings the team played all year - he needs a lot of help to get to the playoffs. I'll counter Orel with Steve Carlton in 1973 (27-10, 1.97 ERA on a Phillies team that went 59-97).

And just another reason why baseball is fucked up.

Cliff Lee last year is another great example of that. The guy went 22-3 and one the Cy Young on a team that barely managed to finish .500.

 

[buckiprof]

Somebody else trying to get my G.O.A.T.?

A single pitcher in the playoffs can have more of an effect than in the regular season. Getting 2 starts out of 5, or possibly 3 out of 7, gives him a higher % of participation then he can get over the course of the season. It's a big reason why postseason pitchers get more MVPs than they do in the regular season. But the guy's been in the games less than 20% of the innings the team played all year - he needs a lot of help to get to the playoffs. I'll counter Orel with Steve Carlton in 1973 (27-10, 1.97 ERA on a Phillies team that went 59-97).

And just another reason why baseball is fucked up.

I'll let Buckyle keep your G.O.A.T. .

My point of mentioning Hershiser (besides the fact that it was with the Dodgers) is that when I read the part stating "so a pitcher has less influence on a team getting a title than a QB or a basketball player" I simply focused on the post-season. And that 1988 post-season, Orel picked up at least one (maybe 2) saves during the post-season, in addition to the wins.

To get to the post-season is baseball, one obviously needs more than just one outstanding pitcher. Carlton and even better, Lee from last year illustrate that. But again, only 4 teams from each league make it to the post-season in baseball whereas twice as many make the post-season in basketball. And let's not even mention that the baseball season is twice as long (games played) as the basketball season.

And who gives a flying fuck about hockey?!?