- 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 4:17 pm to Baloo
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.
1
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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News