|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 7, 2024 6:22:27 GMT
If we accept these as the (more or less) consensus GOATs - who is 2nd doomed to always be in the shadow of "consensus" number 1's? I know, I know Lawrence Taylor or Jerry Rice might be better than Brady in a way and you can't compare different positions or some shit - but play along ........ who is the best athlete who is NOT "usually" considered the best - per sport?Manning? Lebron? Lemieux, McDavid? Basketball - Jordan
NFL - Brady
Hockey - Gretzky
Baseball - Willie Mays (?)
Tennis Male / Female - Djokovic and Serena
Soccer - Messi
 |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 7, 2024 6:42:32 GMT
Well...Pele and Maradona could still have a claim on Messi but Messi is undoubtedly the best player since Maradona.
What's funny is that that 3-3 most recent world cup final was probably the best final game since Maradona so GOATs like to play fucking awesome games to blessedly entertain us.
Maradona is one of those players who can play every position. He's a midfielder but put him at forward and he'll get you 1 goal per game guaranteed. Is Messi more finesse and artistic with the ball? Yeah. But he can't play in every position.
I'm not arguing who's better between these 2, just pointing out what they do better.
And please, LeDouche doesn't deserve to pick the ticks off of the space between Jordans toes.
By 36 years old, LeDouche (get him out of my town, and bring glory back again) was 12th in the NBA in scoring.
Messi at 36 is tied 1st in goals in the MLS. LeDrake isn't anywhere close to Messi and Jordan.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 7, 2024 15:17:42 GMT
Well to start with the consensus number 1's are-
NFL- Brady (for QB's)
MLB- Still Babe Ruth whether you think that's fair for a guy who played 100 years ago or not. No doubt he'd win a poll of the general public and probably baseball fans too
Basketball- Jordan
Tennis- Djokovic and Serena
For the number 2's-
NFL- Definitely Peyton for QB's. 5 MVPs, 7x 1st team all pro, 3x 2nd team all pro. He was a top 2 QB in the league for a decade, that's insane. The greatest regular season QB of all time, but yes, Brady's post season performance puts him ahead.
MLB- Although Ruth is the consensus number 1 I'd put Mays in first so he would be my answer. Some people would say Griffey and then there's people who want to disregard the steroid thing with Bonds too.
NBA- Either Wilt or Lebron. People want to disregard it but Wilt's statistical dominance is Gretzky like, his peak is easily the biggest gap there's ever been between the number one and two player. Then there's Lebron where it's the opposite where he started early and played forever so he's racked up all the longevity records (scoring record, most all NBA teams) even if his peak isn't as dominant.
Tennis- I'll take Fed and Navratilova. Obviously the debate is between Fed and Nadal for the men, Nadal got a couple more slams, but Fed has more regular titles, was more consistent in the slams (more finals, semis), won 5 tour finals to 0 for Nadal, and didn't win 2/3s of his slams at one event. I know most people would say Graf for women but she got bailed out in a huge way by Seles getting stabbed whereas Navratilova had to deal with Evert with their primes overlapping. I used to have she and Evert as 1/2 and Graf at third before Serena established herself. Her dominance of the regular tour was also comical, including doubles titles she has twice as many WTA titles as any other player. I'd still put Serena at no. 1 but if someone wanted to argue for Navratilova I wouldn't laugh it out of the room.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 27, 2024 20:06:59 GMT
Well to start with the consensus number 1's are- Tennis- Djokovic and Serena For the number 2's- Tennis- I'll take Fed and Navratilova. Obviously the debate is between Fed and Nadal for the men, Nadal got a couple more slams, but Fed has more regular titles, was more consistent in the slams (more finals, semis), won 5 tour finals to 0 for Nadal, and didn't win 2/3s of his slams at one event. I know most people would say Graf for women but she got bailed out in a huge way by Seles getting stabbed whereas Navratilova had to deal with Evert with their primes overlapping. I used to have she and Evert as 1/2 and Graf at third before Serena established herself. Her dominance of the regular tour was also comical, including doubles titles she has twice as many WTA titles as any other player. I'd still put Serena at no. 1 but if someone wanted to argue for Navratilova I wouldn't laugh it out of the room. Fed also fits your previous argument for Maddux over Clemens in his "peak" seasons - Fed is clearly more dominant - 237 weeks staright as #1 vs Nadal's 209 total.......the way you wouldn't laugh Navratilova out of the room - sometmes I put Sampras ahead of Nadal ........usually not, but depending on the amount of beers I've had............it's not that crazy to me either |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 28, 2024 1:33:40 GMT
Well to start with the consensus number 1's are- Tennis- Djokovic and Serena For the number 2's- Tennis- I'll take Fed and Navratilova. Obviously the debate is between Fed and Nadal for the men, Nadal got a couple more slams, but Fed has more regular titles, was more consistent in the slams (more finals, semis), won 5 tour finals to 0 for Nadal, and didn't win 2/3s of his slams at one event. I know most people would say Graf for women but she got bailed out in a huge way by Seles getting stabbed whereas Navratilova had to deal with Evert with their primes overlapping. I used to have she and Evert as 1/2 and Graf at third before Serena established herself. Her dominance of the regular tour was also comical, including doubles titles she has twice as many WTA titles as any other player. I'd still put Serena at no. 1 but if someone wanted to argue for Navratilova I wouldn't laugh it out of the room. Fed also fits your previous argument for Maddux over Clemens in his "peak" seasons - Fed is clearly more dominant - 237 weeks staright as #1 vs Nadal's 209 total.......the way you wouldn't laugh Navratilova out of the room - sometmes I put Sampras ahead of Nadal ........usually not, but depending on the amount of beers I've had............it's not that crazy to me either The big three have accomplished so much more than anyone else cumulatively I just don't think there's a debate for anyone else. And I'd put Laver 4th and Sampras fifth. Borg was probably a better player too but quit too soon. My big issue with Sampras is he was such a non factor on clay, really only a two surface player. Nadal was inconsistent on grass and had a lot of early Wimbledon exits but still managed to win it twice. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 28, 2024 4:09:47 GMT
NBA- Either Wilt or Lebron. People want to disregard it but Wilt's statistical dominance is Gretzky like, his peak is easily the biggest gap there's ever been between the number one and two player. Then there's Lebron where it's the opposite where he started early and played forever so he's racked up all the longevity records (scoring record, most all NBA teams) even if his peak isn't as dominant. The thing that holds Wilt back is his statistical dominance of his early years did not coincide with consistent winning, which does matter in a sport like basketball where an individual player can dictate the game so heavily on the offensive side of the ball and where Wilt rarely had much of an excuse given he often played almost every minute in his prime. When he was scoring a lot, he wasn't complimenting it much with playmaking so it wasn't elevating his team offense a ton. 1962 is the best case for Wilt the scorer since he scored 50 ppg that year and the Warriors lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics by only 2 points, but it's surrounded by consistently underperforming seasons where the Warriors had mediocre offenses that became flat-out bad in the playoffs when Wilt's scoring massively regressed. By the time the Warriors traded Wilt, the team had bottomed out as the worst offense in the league (despite Wilt scoring 39 ppg) but would immediately rebound by drafting Rick Barry and be back to similar offensive numbers that they had with Wilt, even losing to him and the 76ers in the Finals in Barry's 2nd season. That '67 76ers version of Wilt is far and away his best version, the perfect balance of being a scoring threat while getting teammates involved and playing lockdown defense. If Wilt had mentally been that version of himself his whole career, he would've knocked off at least 4 more of Bill Russell's titles. But that's the issue with Wilt: he had far and away the most talent but did not have the situational intelligence that Russell had. If he hadn't been so concerned about his stats, then maybe he'd have a legit GOAT claim, but it's personally hard for me to even see him as significantly better than Russell (not nearly the scorer, but generally better at complimentary team offense and a strong case for GOAT defender) let alone Kareem. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 28, 2024 5:13:13 GMT
NBA- Either Wilt or Lebron. People want to disregard it but Wilt's statistical dominance is Gretzky like, his peak is easily the biggest gap there's ever been between the number one and two player. Then there's Lebron where it's the opposite where he started early and played forever so he's racked up all the longevity records (scoring record, most all NBA teams) even if his peak isn't as dominant. The thing that holds Wilt back is his statistical dominance of his early years did not coincide with consistent winning, which does matter in a sport like basketball where an individual player can dictate the game so heavily on the offensive side of the ball and where Wilt rarely had much of an excuse given he often played almost every minute in his prime. When he was scoring a lot, he wasn't complimenting it much with playmaking so it wasn't elevating his team offense a ton. 1962 is the best case for Wilt the scorer since he scored 50 ppg that year and the Warriors lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics by only 2 points, but it's surrounded by consistently underperforming seasons where the Warriors had mediocre offenses that became flat-out bad in the playoffs when Wilt's scoring massively regressed. By the time the Warriors traded Wilt, the team had bottomed out as the worst offense in the league (despite Wilt scoring 39 ppg) but would immediately rebound by drafting Rick Barry and be back to similar offensive numbers that they had with Wilt, even losing to him and the 76ers in the Finals in Barry's 2nd season. That '67 76ers version of Wilt is far and away his best version, the perfect balance of being a scoring threat while getting teammates involved and playing lockdown defense. If Wilt had mentally been that version of himself his whole career, he would've knocked off at least 4 more of Bill Russell's titles. But that's the issue with Wilt: he had far and away the most talent but did not have the situational intelligence that Russell had. If he hadn't been so concerned about his stats, then maybe he'd have a legit GOAT claim, but it's personally hard for me to even see him as significantly better than Russell (not nearly the scorer, but generally better at complimentary team offense and a strong case for GOAT defender) let alone Kareem. Well Wilt was carrying those teams and those Celtics teams were stacked, not just Russell, they were starting five future HOFmers sometimes. The modern analogy I can think of is the 07 Cavs team against the Spurs in the finals. LeBron/Wilt were the best players on the floor but when you've got a team with that many good to very good players and you're doing it all on your own it's a close to impossible task. The fact that so many of the series were close shows how great Wilt was. Agree that late 60's Wilt was best and that just adds to the point, leading the league in fg%, rebounds, and assists is insane, feel safe in saying no one's ever doing that again even in modern positionless basketball. I know everyone loves Bill but he's one of the most overrated to me, great rebounder but mediocre on offense, never averaged 20 a game and to make it worse was always a sub 50% FG shooter, usually below 45%, and that's despite playing center and being close to the basket. Suggesting he's better than Wilt is ridiculous to me, if the argument is the head to head is anyone going to honestly suggest that any of the series Bill won would change outcomes if he and Wilt switched teams? He and Kareem are close but it's important to note that with Kareem in his physical prime and Wilt in his 30's after injuries the two of them had a legit rivalry with Wilt outrebounding Kareem, holding him well below his scoring averages and the Lakers knocking them out of the playoffs. Kareem's early career is very much like Wilt's with his carrying the Bucks and pre Magic Laker teams into the playoffs, managing one titles, but usually losing to better teams despite being the best player. Kareem racked up all those rings as the second, even third best player on the Magic and Worthy teams in the 80's when he was older. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 28, 2024 9:31:21 GMT
Yeah Wilt should be #2.
It's Jordan. It's Wilt. Then take your pick between Kareem, Magic and you can kinda slide Olajuwon, Russell, Robertson, and Bird in somewhere.
One player cannot win championships no matter how good he is. Just makes me think of Game 7 1990 Eastern Conference Finals - Bulls vs Pistons.
The Bulls and Michael Jordan had a chance to make the Pistons the ultimate fluke team and end their little run
Scottie Pippen then scores 2 points and they get blown out. Sure....he was dealing with a migrane but this just emphasizes that a lack of contribution coming from any 1 player out of the 5 and it's hard to win at this critical point of the season.
I dont think Kareem was considered the 3rd best player on the Lakers tho. I think he was still 2nd at worst.
I think he was kinda like what O'Neal became when he joined the Lakers, at least towards the end few years. Kobe was the franchise player they drafted. O'Neal was the seasoned veteran but still the main offensive weapon they had.... At least the first few years.
By the late 80s tho, Magic casted a huge shadow on the rest of the league, considered easily the leagues best player. Kareem was old as fuck at that point. Bird was finished - Pistons did a number on him. Jordan dominated the stats and was the man of Chicago, but Magic was man of the rest of the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2024 10:03:18 GMT
Yeah Wilt should be #2. It's Jordan. It's Wilt. Then take your pick between Kareem, Magic and you can kinda slide Olajuwon, Russell, Robertson, and Bird in somewhere. Thoughts on Kobe? |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 28, 2024 10:17:26 GMT
Yeah Wilt should be #2. It's Jordan. It's Wilt. Then take your pick between Kareem, Magic and you can kinda slide Olajuwon, Russell, Robertson, and Bird in somewhere. Thoughts on Kobe? He's good. The ultimate volume shooter. Misses a lot of shots but he takes a lot so that's kinda his m.o. I did start to lose some interest in the NBA during the Lakers early 00s run tho. Im more of Spurs guy, at least the balanced Spurs teams of 2013-2016. It's a damn shame they only caught 1 title during that run. But they let a few slip away. I think Kobe means more to the team than LeBron does. LeBron has the win over the Spurs and the Warriors but still he's usually owned by those teams is why I don't care that he has 1 fluke win over them. Kobe changed a franchise in a way that LeBron never did. Here's my top 10: 1. Jordan 2. Wilt 3. Kareem 4. Magic 5. Russell 6. Bird 7. Robertson 8. Olajuwon 9. O'Neal 10. Kobe I don't care if some people wanna get into a war with me over not including LeBron in my Top 10. I stand firm. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 28, 2024 12:15:05 GMT
The thing that holds Wilt back is his statistical dominance of his early years did not coincide with consistent winning, which does matter in a sport like basketball where an individual player can dictate the game so heavily on the offensive side of the ball and where Wilt rarely had much of an excuse given he often played almost every minute in his prime. When he was scoring a lot, he wasn't complimenting it much with playmaking so it wasn't elevating his team offense a ton. 1962 is the best case for Wilt the scorer since he scored 50 ppg that year and the Warriors lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics by only 2 points, but it's surrounded by consistently underperforming seasons where the Warriors had mediocre offenses that became flat-out bad in the playoffs when Wilt's scoring massively regressed. By the time the Warriors traded Wilt, the team had bottomed out as the worst offense in the league (despite Wilt scoring 39 ppg) but would immediately rebound by drafting Rick Barry and be back to similar offensive numbers that they had with Wilt, even losing to him and the 76ers in the Finals in Barry's 2nd season. That '67 76ers version of Wilt is far and away his best version, the perfect balance of being a scoring threat while getting teammates involved and playing lockdown defense. If Wilt had mentally been that version of himself his whole career, he would've knocked off at least 4 more of Bill Russell's titles. But that's the issue with Wilt: he had far and away the most talent but did not have the situational intelligence that Russell had. If he hadn't been so concerned about his stats, then maybe he'd have a legit GOAT claim, but it's personally hard for me to even see him as significantly better than Russell (not nearly the scorer, but generally better at complimentary team offense and a strong case for GOAT defender) let alone Kareem. Well Wilt was carrying those teams and those Celtics teams were stacked, not just Russell, they were starting five future HOFmers sometimes. The modern analogy I can think of is the 07 Cavs team against the Spurs in the finals. LeBron/Wilt were the best players on the floor but when you've got a team with that many good to very good players and you're doing it all on your own it's a close to impossible task. The fact that so many of the series were close shows how great Wilt was. Agree that late 60's Wilt was best and that just adds to the point, leading the league in fg%, rebounds, and assists is insane, feel safe in saying no one's ever doing that again even in modern positionless basketball. I know everyone loves Bill but he's one of the most overrated to me, great rebounder but mediocre on offense, never averaged 20 a game and to make it worse was always a sub 50% FG shooter, usually below 45%, and that's despite playing center and being close to the basket. Suggesting he's better than Wilt is ridiculous to me, if the argument is the head to head is anyone going to honestly suggest that any of the series Bill won would change outcomes if he and Wilt switched teams? He and Kareem are close but it's important to note that with Kareem in his physical prime and Wilt in his 30's after injuries the two of them had a legit rivalry with Wilt outrebounding Kareem, holding him well below his scoring averages and the Lakers knocking them out of the playoffs. Kareem's early career is very much like Wilt's with his carrying the Bucks and pre Magic Laker teams into the playoffs, managing one titles, but usually losing to better teams despite being the best player. Kareem racked up all those rings as the second, even third best player on the Magic and Worthy teams in the 80's when he was older. I think it's a bit overstated how stacked those Celtics teams were. Russell literally played with more HOFers than All-Stars - what are the chances guys like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders make the Hall when they could never even make an All-Star game at a time where there were only 9 teams? What made those teams legendary was their defense, and Russell was the primary reason as the Celtics had an all-time defensive run literally his entire career and didn't the years immediately preceding and following. Plus, I wouldn't say several of the Wilt-Russell series were close because of Wilt. '62 is the only time it was close despite Russell having the better team. '68 was a rematch of the one time Wilt beat Russell when their squads were pretty evenly match with Russell barely pulling ahead. And in '69 Wilt made the Lakers the first true superteam alongside Jerry West and Elgin Baylor but Russell won anyway as Wilt famously was left out of the last few minutes of game 7 by Van Breda Kolff with a knee injury. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 28, 2024 17:25:47 GMT
Well Wilt was carrying those teams and those Celtics teams were stacked, not just Russell, they were starting five future HOFmers sometimes. The modern analogy I can think of is the 07 Cavs team against the Spurs in the finals. LeBron/Wilt were the best players on the floor but when you've got a team with that many good to very good players and you're doing it all on your own it's a close to impossible task. The fact that so many of the series were close shows how great Wilt was. Agree that late 60's Wilt was best and that just adds to the point, leading the league in fg%, rebounds, and assists is insane, feel safe in saying no one's ever doing that again even in modern positionless basketball. I know everyone loves Bill but he's one of the most overrated to me, great rebounder but mediocre on offense, never averaged 20 a game and to make it worse was always a sub 50% FG shooter, usually below 45%, and that's despite playing center and being close to the basket. Suggesting he's better than Wilt is ridiculous to me, if the argument is the head to head is anyone going to honestly suggest that any of the series Bill won would change outcomes if he and Wilt switched teams? He and Kareem are close but it's important to note that with Kareem in his physical prime and Wilt in his 30's after injuries the two of them had a legit rivalry with Wilt outrebounding Kareem, holding him well below his scoring averages and the Lakers knocking them out of the playoffs. Kareem's early career is very much like Wilt's with his carrying the Bucks and pre Magic Laker teams into the playoffs, managing one titles, but usually losing to better teams despite being the best player. Kareem racked up all those rings as the second, even third best player on the Magic and Worthy teams in the 80's when he was older. I think it's a bit overstated how stacked those Celtics teams were. Russell literally played with more HOFers than All-Stars - what are the chances guys like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders make the Hall when they could never even make an All-Star game at a time where there were only 9 teams? What made those teams legendary was their defense, and Russell was the primary reason as the Celtics had an all-time defensive run literally his entire career and didn't the years immediately preceding and following. Plus, I wouldn't say several of the Wilt-Russell series were close because of Wilt. '62 is the only time it was close despite Russell having the better team. '68 was a rematch of the one time Wilt beat Russell when their squads were pretty evenly match with Russell barely pulling ahead. And in '69 Wilt made the Lakers the first true superteam alongside Jerry West and Elgin Baylor but Russell won anyway as Wilt famously was left out of the last few minutes of game 7 by Van Breda Kolff with a knee injury. They were at one point starting Cousy and Sam Jones at guard, Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn at forward, with of course Russell at center. That's five legit HOFmers. Plus Auerbach was just so much ahead of everyone as a coach, he was calling sophisticated set plays from the bench like the modern NBA when everyone else was just doing "three passes and shoot" or something like in Hoosiers. Even Russell generally admitted Chamberlain was better but would say "but the Celtics were champions" which sums it up. They were one of the great teams and organizations and it's reductionist to imply they won 11 titles from Russell dad dicking everyone with rebounding. Well I don't think they have any chance of beating the Celtics in 67 without Wilt and by the time he got to the Lakers Elgin had hurt his knee. I know a lot of people cite the 69 series as a big upset because the Celtics only won 48 games or something, but they had a weird, outlier regular season where they lost a disproportionate amount of their close games. There projected win loss based on point differential was still better than the Lakers that year. The Celtics were always just a great team. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 28, 2024 18:58:48 GMT
I think it's a bit overstated how stacked those Celtics teams were. Russell literally played with more HOFers than All-Stars - what are the chances guys like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders make the Hall when they could never even make an All-Star game at a time where there were only 9 teams? What made those teams legendary was their defense, and Russell was the primary reason as the Celtics had an all-time defensive run literally his entire career and didn't the years immediately preceding and following. Plus, I wouldn't say several of the Wilt-Russell series were close because of Wilt. '62 is the only time it was close despite Russell having the better team. '68 was a rematch of the one time Wilt beat Russell when their squads were pretty evenly match with Russell barely pulling ahead. And in '69 Wilt made the Lakers the first true superteam alongside Jerry West and Elgin Baylor but Russell won anyway as Wilt famously was left out of the last few minutes of game 7 by Van Breda Kolff with a knee injury. They were at one point starting Cousy and Sam Jones at guard, Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn at forward, with of course Russell at center. That's five legit HOFmers. Plus Auerbach was just so much ahead of everyone as a coach, he was calling sophisticated set plays from the bench like the modern NBA when everyone else was just doing "three passes and shoot" or something like in Hoosiers. Even Russell generally admitted Chamberlain was better but would say "but the Celtics were champions" which sums it up. They were one of the great teams and organizations and it's reductionist to imply they won 11 titles from Russell dad dicking everyone with rebounding. Well I don't think they have any chance of beating the Celtics in 67 without Wilt and by the time he got to the Lakers Elgin had hurt his knee. I know a lot of people cite the 69 series as a big upset because the Celtics only won 48 games or something, but they had a weird, outlier regular season where they lost a disproportionate amount of their close games. There projected win loss based on point differential was still better than the Lakers that year. The Celtics were always just a great team. I think this sums up a lot of my argument with Wilt and Russell. Russell was just a fundamentally smarter player at the team concept - it wasn't just rebounding, it was defense (specifically help defense), setting screens, being smart with his blocks, initiating the fast break with his running and outlet passes. Not all of them showed up on the stat sheet, but the impact was there for the entire team. And despite the talk of Auerbach's genius (which is legit) and the team being stacked, those Celtics teams were usually mediocre at best on offense and even the worst in the league some of their title years. It was dynastic defense that won them their rings, and nobody would say Russell wasn't the primary catalyst for that, especially given such defensive dominance was not there before he got there or after he hung it up despite roster runover for the Celtics being fairly minimal year-to-year. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 1, 2024 10:04:36 GMT
Keep in mind, Bill Russell was on an extremely balanced team. His point per average totals are not gonna be there because the wealth is spread across the entire starting 5 of the Celtics.
Lots of stat sheet guys are on teams that are not really relevant besides the one main star - that's why they get all the points.
Magic Johnson is another example of being on an extremely balanced team robbing him of some stats he otherwise would have.
Also later Duncan from 2012-2016 when Popovich integrated every single player down to depth chart #11 into something useful.
Balanced teams are always gonna have statistically lacking players.
|
|
