Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 147 of 147

Thread: Peyton Manning is the best Qb of all time

  1. #141
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PMarsico9 View Post
    I disagree. Gretzky's statistical dominance is almost beyond comprehension, regardless who he played with. And as an avid hockey fan and Devils season ticket holder since the mid 80's, I have to say the following:

    A) Kurri, Anderson, and Coffey were Hall of Famers BECAUSE of Gretzky, not vice-versa. Fuhr and Messier were regardless, but while the other three were good, I don't think they were HoF'ers without Wayne.

    B) The second leading scorer in NHL history, Mark Messier, has over 1000 less points than the next closest guy. You can back out all 894 goals that Gretzky amassed and he's still more than 200 points higher than Mess.

    C) You can't compare Gretzky with anybody. No team sport athlete has ever (and probably never will) dominate a professional sport to the degree that he has. You can't compare Ruth, Mays, MJ, Rice, anybody, to how big the gap is between Gretzky and the next guy up on the all-time list. You are talking about a guy who in 400 FEWER games than #2 on the list has the most goals and and assists by such a large margin that #2 would effectively have to double his career point total to match what Gretzky did.

    Think about that for a second.

    D) Messier and Gordie Howe are top 2 in games played all time to still finish behind Gretzky. Gretzky is 17th.

    There's no comparison. At all.

    And I just want to add:

    Statistically, without Asterisks, Willie Mays is the greatest baseball player, ever.

    Rice I would say is the greatest football player ever.

    Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever, but that has less to do with stats than it does to do with changing the game entirely.

    Gretzky is far, far beyond any of them.
    Gretzky, the year he was traded, takes a Kings team with no business all the way to the finals, where he almost pulls it off.

    I don't know how you take May over Ruth. You can argue the best hitter was Williams, who lost time to 2 wars, although he could not carry May's glove.

    Jim Brown played 9 years, won 8 rushing titles, and still is #1 all time in YPC and Yards per game.

    Wilt didn't change the game? They made a rule book to bring him under control. His only problem was he couldn't beat the machine that was the Celts. People say Russell contained Wilt. Look at the #s, Wilt played great, but the team disparity was too great.

  2. #142
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chirorob View Post
    Gretzky, the year he was traded, takes a Kings team with no business all the way to the finals, where he almost pulls it off.

    I don't know how you take May over Ruth. You can argue the best hitter was Williams, who lost time to 2 wars, although he could not carry May's glove.

    Jim Brown played 9 years, won 8 rushing titles, and still is #1 all time in YPC and Yards per game.

    Wilt didn't change the game? They made a rule book to bring him under control. His only problem was he couldn't beat the machine that was the Celts. People say Russell contained Wilt. Look at the #s, Wilt played great, but the team disparity was too great.
    I can't dispute Brown or Wilt. I never trashed Wilt. Those two are more subjective to me. Rice's performance over 12 straight seasons (ignoring his blown leg in '97) are just unheard of. That's why I said Rice. I'll stick with him, too. He played against Champ and Deion and other great corners. Brown was generally bigger than most D-linemen. That's my basis.

    Mays to me:

    Best CF ever.
    Stolen bases.
    More modern era with improved pitching.
    Less protection in his lineup around him.

    Granted, Babe might have been the best pitcher of his era, too, if the Yanks had decided to allow that to continue.

    Baseball's tough...........

    Overall it's clear though:

    Gretzky is far and away the greatest team sport athlete of all time.

  3. #143
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PMarsico9 View Post
    I can't dispute Brown or Wilt. I never trashed Wilt. Those two are more subjective to me. Rice's performance over 12 straight seasons (ignoring his blown leg in '97) are just unheard of. That's why I said Rice. I'll stick with him, too. He played against Champ and Deion and other great corners. Brown was generally bigger than most D-linemen. That's my basis.

    Mays to me:

    Best CF ever.
    Stolen bases.
    More modern era with improved pitching.
    Less protection in his lineup around him.

    Granted, Babe might have been the best pitcher of his era, too, if the Yanks had decided to allow that to continue.

    Baseball's tough...........

    Overall it's clear though:

    Gretzky is far and away the greatest team sport athlete of all time.
    I don't think that claim is true. Leaving aside the fact ice hockey is only played by a very small segment of the world's population, the only way we have of comparing athletes from different sports is statistical. Statistically, how far is Gretzky ahead of his competition in ice hockey? And how does that compare to other freakish athletes from other sports? In other words how far from the average is Gretzky? If you look at it, he's really only in the area of a Michael Jordan; probably above a Federer and a Tiger Woods/Jack Nicklaus. Gretzky is a bona fide legend (even I've heard of him, but never saw him play) but he's not the greatest of all time across any ball sport.

    Statisically the best of all time in ball sports is Bradman; in male sports, a tennis player would have to get about 28-30 grand slam wins to compare. Golf your looking at about 30-32 grand slam wins. Baseball it would require about 1300-1400 home runs across a career. They even invented a word to describe excellence in sport with his name in it; there are freakish athletes, and then there is Bradman - he really does stand alone in the history of sport as the greatest ever. And cricket is the second most popular sport in the world - a dominant sport in countries with populations that tally in the region of billions of people.

  4. #144
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Whichfan View Post
    Considering the WORST years of Tom Brady's career as a passer were during the Spygate years, your argument holds 0 weight.

    Considering Brady and the Pats offense set NFL historic records when everyone was staring at them under the microscope and went 16-0 during the regular season the year after the scandal, once again, your argument holds 0 weight.

    To add to the stupidity of your claims, Spygate had mostly to do with learning offensive signals, so if anything it benefited the Patriots D, not their offense. Brady and every other NFL quarterback plays versus defenses.
    It's not the first time this guy has come off looking foolish after attempting to take the high ground but the lack of facts and infantile thinking backfire on him. Total fail on his part.

  5. #145
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    I don't think that claim is true. Leaving aside the fact ice hockey is only played by a very small segment of the world's population, the only way we have of comparing athletes from different sports is statistical. Statistically, how far is Gretzky ahead of his competition in ice hockey? And how does that compare to other freakish athletes from other sports? In other words how far from the average is Gretzky? If you look at it, he's really only in the area of a Michael Jordan; probably above a Federer and a Tiger Woods/Jack Nicklaus. Gretzky is a bona fide legend (even I've heard of him, but never saw him play) but he's not the greatest of all time across any ball sport.

    Statisically the best of all time in ball sports is Bradman; in male sports, a tennis player would have to get about 28-30 grand slam wins to compare. Golf your looking at about 30-32 grand slam wins. Baseball it would require about 1300-1400 home runs across a career. They even invented a word to describe excellence in sport with his name in it; there are freakish athletes, and then there is Bradman - he really does stand alone in the history of sport as the greatest ever. And cricket is the second most popular sport in the world - a dominant sport in countries with populations that tally in the region of billions of people.
    This is the truth. Bradman is by far the best sportsman of all time, statistically he's without peer - by far. Tendulkar is great but he doesn't have the consistent excellence of The Don. I had the pleasure of visiting his home town of Adelaide and absorb some of the atmosphere.
    Comparing the little master Tendulkar with the Don is lunacy.
    The hyena who started this thread should take notes.

  6. #146
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    I don't think that claim is true. Leaving aside the fact ice hockey is only played by a very small segment of the world's population, the only way we have of comparing athletes from different sports is statistical. Statistically, how far is Gretzky ahead of his competition in ice hockey? And how does that compare to other freakish athletes from other sports? In other words how far from the average is Gretzky? If you look at it, he's really only in the area of a Michael Jordan; probably above a Federer and a Tiger Woods/Jack Nicklaus. Gretzky is a bona fide legend (even I've heard of him, but never saw him play) but he's not the greatest of all time across any ball sport.

    Statisically the best of all time in ball sports is Bradman; in male sports, a tennis player would have to get about 28-30 grand slam wins to compare. Golf your looking at about 30-32 grand slam wins. Baseball it would require about 1300-1400 home runs across a career. They even invented a word to describe excellence in sport with his name in it; there are freakish athletes, and then there is Bradman - he really does stand alone in the history of sport as the greatest ever. And cricket is the second most popular sport in the world - a dominant sport in countries with populations that tally in the region of billions of people.
    Tennis isn't a team sport.

    How far ahead is Gretzky?

    Here's your point of reference:

    Ignoring Bonds:

    Hank Aaron had 755 Home Runs in 23 years.

    The comparison to this stat would be goals. Arbitrarily, Gretzky's equivalent would be somewhere around 800 homers in roughly 18 years.

    Jabbar had 38,387 points in 1560 games.

    Gretzky's equivalent ratio output in Basketball would have been roughly 76,000+ in around 1200 games.

    I'm just trying to give you perspective. You have to go look at the stats. It looks like it's fiction or made up.

    His stretch from 1981-1987 Gretzky AVERAGED over 200 points a season.

    That's in 82 game seasons.

    The only dominance I can think of like that is roided out Bonds and he would have had to double his numbers during that time frame to come close to what Gretzky was doing.

    Perhaps you should youtube Gretzky highlights.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFX0dVXNDXw

  7. #147
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PMarsico9 View Post
    Tennis isn't a team sport.

    How far ahead is Gretzky?

    Here's your point of reference:

    Ignoring Bonds:

    Hank Aaron had 755 Home Runs in 23 years.

    The comparison to this stat would be goals. Arbitrarily, Gretzky's equivalent would be somewhere around 800 homers in roughly 18 years.

    Jabbar had 38,387 points in 1560 games.

    Gretzky's equivalent ratio output in Basketball would have been roughly 76,000+ in around 1200 games.

    I'm just trying to give you perspective. You have to go look at the stats. It looks like it's fiction or made up.

    His stretch from 1981-1987 Gretzky AVERAGED over 200 points a season.

    That's in 82 game seasons.

    The only dominance I can think of like that is roided out Bonds and he would have had to double his numbers during that time frame to come close to what Gretzky was doing.

    Perhaps you should youtube Gretzky highlights.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFX0dVXNDXw
    That's fair enough but a baseballer to compare to Bradman would have to hit 1300 homers at least, a basketballer average over 50 points a game for an entire career: feats that you would think impossible. This is not to run down Gretzky who is the obvious great from his sport, but Bradman is at the very extreme of ball sports outliers: this is what he looks like compared to the rest of his competition in cricket - the blue dot at the right:



    Edit: graph doesn't show for some reason, but can be viewed here
    Last edited by Soberphobia; 10-18-2012 at 08:40 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us