- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When deciding GOAT player, how you you rank these factors?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:06 pm to pvilleguru
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:06 pm to pvilleguru
I think some of it depends on sport. IMO championships are more important in some sports than others. For instance in baseball championships are less important b/c there are so many other teammates and one person can only do so much. You could be by far the greatest pitcher of all time, but you only play once every three or four games and I would not have a problem with the GOAT having zero or one championship if all the stats, longevity, etc were there.
In basketball it is more important b/c there are only five guys on the court at once and you have more ability to control the outcome.
In individual sports (I'm thinking tennis and golf) championships are much more important still b/c you are the only one out there.
In basketball it is more important b/c there are only five guys on the court at once and you have more ability to control the outcome.
In individual sports (I'm thinking tennis and golf) championships are much more important still b/c you are the only one out there.
0
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:12 pm to pvilleguru
Oh yeah...world beaters...
Jack Haley
Will Perdue
Bill Cartwright
Stacy King
Bill Wennington
Corie Blount
Bison Dele
Those were his centers during the age of centers in the league. Awesome guys to go against Shaq.
:format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/30627727/78670119.0.jpg)
Add the other players -
Horace Grant
BJ Armstromg
JohnvPaxson
Steve Kerr
Toni Kukoc
Jack Haley
Will Perdue
Bill Cartwright
Stacy King
Bill Wennington
Corie Blount
Bison Dele
Those were his centers during the age of centers in the league. Awesome guys to go against Shaq.
Add the other players -
Horace Grant
BJ Armstromg
JohnvPaxson
Steve Kerr
Toni Kukoc
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:17 pm to Baloo
quote:
But I tend to favor black/grey ink stats. How many times did you lead the league in something. How many times were you top 10. How did you, relative to your peers? That cuts down a lot a noise regarding fluctuating scoring averages.
You can only compare stats for that era.
And awards help in determining what contemporaries thought of you instead of hindsight.
So stats only matter in how much better you were than your peers.
If a guy in the 90's was leading the league in something...that now seems paltry by comparison...who cares? You can't compare different eras...you can compare by how much they separated themselves from their peers in each respective era.
If a pitcher had a 2.00 ERA but tons of other guys had the same for that era, how important is that all-time? Of like QB ratings and completion % these days...it's a joke. Top 25 QB ratings, almost all are after 1998.
It's all context. And context is only era specific.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:32 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:this is less true now more than ever... unless by championships you mean first round losses
Titles mean EVERYTHING to a large degree in basketball. If you are supremely talented you can carry Tom, Dick and Harry to a championship
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:36 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Jordan never played a team in the finals that had more hall of famers than his team had.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:39 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
I'm not sure how that is in opposition to my point.
Black/grey ink is about leaderboards. So, in your example, if a guy had a 2.00 ERA but tons of other guys had a better ERA, he wouldn't appear on the leaderboard.
It's quick and easy way of determining context. Like how Yaz once led the league in hitting with a battng average of 301. If you just say 301 on the page, you'd think it was good, but nothing special. But by looking at black ink, you realize he was the BEST IN THE LEAGUE (well, at batting average, not all things).
Same with QB ratings. We're not looking at the guy's rank on the CAREER board, but how he ranked within that SEASON. So an unimpressive QB rating to modern eyes that led the league in 1958 (Unitas, 90.0) is more impressive to me because it led the league. That's the way of determining context, the ordinal rank within the season.
And the slow developing leaderboard and how it changes, with the numbers fluctuating, helps tell the story of the game's history, which is sort of cool. It's like reading a foreign language.
Black/grey ink is about leaderboards. So, in your example, if a guy had a 2.00 ERA but tons of other guys had a better ERA, he wouldn't appear on the leaderboard.
It's quick and easy way of determining context. Like how Yaz once led the league in hitting with a battng average of 301. If you just say 301 on the page, you'd think it was good, but nothing special. But by looking at black ink, you realize he was the BEST IN THE LEAGUE (well, at batting average, not all things).
Same with QB ratings. We're not looking at the guy's rank on the CAREER board, but how he ranked within that SEASON. So an unimpressive QB rating to modern eyes that led the league in 1958 (Unitas, 90.0) is more impressive to me because it led the league. That's the way of determining context, the ordinal rank within the season.
And the slow developing leaderboard and how it changes, with the numbers fluctuating, helps tell the story of the game's history, which is sort of cool. It's like reading a foreign language.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:42 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:And look at his opponents in the NBA finals. Besides a second year Divac in 1991, not a single Center was a top player in any of his opponents.
Those were his centers during the age of centers in the league.
quote:And Shaq only made the the playoffs twice during Jordan's 7 year run, and one of those was MJ's short season.
Awesome guys to go against Shaq.
So MJ played Shaq twice in the playoffs , and only once during his 6 finals runs.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:44 pm to buckeye_vol
Not to turn this into yet another Jordan thread, but he did have to go through this Ewing guy a few times. He was pretty good.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:52 pm to Baloo
quote:Yeah 4 times, but one of those was a 3-0 sweep as NYK was a 8 seed, and a 4-1 2nd round when NYK was a 5 seed.
Not to turn this into yet another Jordan thread, but he did have to go through this Ewing guy a few times. He was pretty good.
So the Knicks were an 8, 4, 1, and 5 seed in those 4 series.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:29 pm to buckeye_vol
shoe contracts ...
goat!
goat!
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:27 pm to PeteRose
Assuming this is an nba question..
Titles (success)
Performances
Stats
Awards
Physical attributes
Titles (success)
Performances
Stats
Awards
Physical attributes
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:28 pm to PeteRose
Depends
Am I arguing for Peyton or Jordan?
Am I arguing for Peyton or Jordan?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:28 pm to PeteRose
Spending entire career with same team is important too
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:33 pm to SirWinston
quote:Well probably the 3 GOAT players (MJ, LeBron, and Kareem), all played on more than one team.
Spending entire career with same team is important too
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:35 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Bench McElroy
Was gonna post but the 5 minutes of scrolling your blank space on my mobile killed my enthusiasm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News