@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Wilt was the Shaq of his day. A unique physical specimen who was bigger and stronger and faster than any other big man around. Period. This can happen at any time, historically speaking. In both cases, the leagues they played in changed the rules to make it harder on them. I never like the idea of cheapening what a big guy accomplished because of his size. You think Michael Jordan took a beating? Not like a big...
Conversely, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning and 2019 MLB baseball players* benefits significantly from rule changes that helped to benefit them. Significantly.
Please consider this.
*2019 being the year baseballs began to be made by Titliest.
Shaq's limitations also preclude him from this discussion, just like Wilt's limitations.
Wilt only accomplished his things, not because of his size, but the size limitations of his competition. As posted above, the smallness and unathleticness of his competition is the main reason he averaged 50 points a game, instead of the 25 or 30 a big guy from another generation could only average due to the league being filled with players as big or bigger as him(and as athletic).
And again, 1951wheaties, you have in the past put much credence into post season performance. You must also put that onto Wilt's post season failures. Can't pick and choose when you apply that.
I am not sure why you are eliminating either player, @Skin2
I understand why Michael Jordan is a popular choice as he was a phenomenal player. If you know that I weight postseason, you also know that I do so rationally. I don’t presume guys like Ted Williams and Wilt Chamberlain suck because they didn’t win titles or underperformed. Context and sample size matter - obviously - and the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens and Patriots didn’t leave a lot for players of their respective eras. I try to be fair with it - and we’re also talking the best of the best. It’s a team sport - winning should be given some weight since each man is playing to win the game (or should be).
I also think that when comparing eras, I do not believe that because athletes today are ‘better athletes’ that we default to say that players in the past couldn’t play today’s game or couldn’t be ‘the best’. Again, you presume too much with this - going either direction in time - to say with certainty that today’s players are better simply because they play today. What if Mike Trout didn’t grow up with the batting cages, workout gyms, a century of data, and fields on which to play - most of which exist in no small part because of Babe Ruth_. And it comes - for me - down to the least en vogue stat of all these days. Batting average. The ability to hit the ball safely and put it into play is the skill that transcends eras. F*ck the home run. With the right amount of MONEY behind you, if you have been blessed with desire, good eyes and twitch, the rest can be taught. Swing plane, launch angle, zone percentages, etc. We’re seeing that more and more through modern baseball study - and guys like JD Martinez and Jose Altuve are living proof.
I believe guys like Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, Musial, Cobb, DiMaggio - they’d be great in any era. No question. They had the corse skills necessary. And while I don’t weight the ability to outperform your peers as heavily as others, what sets Babe Ruth apart is less the unmatched peer over peer domination he enjoyed but more the simple fact that he pitched. Quite well. For a long enough span to have him trounce any other player who could possibly lay claim to being more accomplished with the bat (the aforementioned plus Trout, Bonds, Mantle, Pujols, Mays, Aaron and Griffey all perhaps giving the Sultan of Swat a run for his money).
Similarly, Wilt played against the guys out there. He was considerably better and with no three point shot there was almost never a reason to go away from the biggest strongest guy on the floor. Getting in close for easy baskets. The three (and subsequent Jordan Rules, there’s a literal book about it) changed it all - such that talented big men have been basically legislated out of the game making it completely guard oriented instead. It’s literally not the same sport anymore when you consider that plus the changes in rule enforcement. Can you really take three steps and then a pro hop?
That’s a travel and it’s done by every guard in the league today. Know why?
Sometimes I dream...that he is me...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Skin2 said:
Dallas, your metrics all come down to Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Hornsby, Gehrig, Collins, Lajoie, Walter Johnson, and Cy young all being better than anyone past 1980.
I honestly stopped reading after the first sentence since I knew what followed would be nothing but frustrating. You used the word "your" to describe the metrics that place that entire list of players above everyone past 1980. But since I don't rank all of those players above everyone past 1980, I know they aren't "my" metrics, and it sounds like you are insisting that I argue for someone else's position. I won't do that, I'll only argue for my own position. But I've stated my position many times, so any "argument" at this point requires you to state your own position, something that you have steadfastly and repeatedly refused to do. You got, maybe, 10% of the way to an argument by bringing up strength of competition, and you supplemented a few actual facts with a whole bunch of numbers that you made up out of thin air.
Tell me who your GOAT is, the rest of your top 10, and the metrics you used to rank them and then we can argue about the metrics being used. But keeping yours a secret, and making up metrics and assigning them to me is getting us nowhere.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Brick said:
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
What a bunch of hog wash! I expected better from you Brick.
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
@Brick said:
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
What a bunch of hog wash! I expected better from you Brick.
He has a lot of credibility, you should listen to what others say once in a while.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Brick said:
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
What a bunch of hog wash! I expected better from you Brick.
He has a lot of credibility, you should listen to what others say once in a while.
@Brick said:
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
Not really hating just pointing out the facts. All three of those players are spectacular in their own way. They also all enjoyed the fruits from the rules that were changed to directly benefit them.
It doesn’t diminish their careers or accomplishments but requires context...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Not really hating just pointing out the facts. All three of those players are spectacular in their own way. They also all enjoyed the fruits from the rules that were changed to directly benefit them.
It doesn’t diminish their careers or accomplishments but requires context...
After their receivers were manhandled during the 2003 AFC Championship Game, Bill Polian and the Colts cried hard enough that the league decided to open up the game and make receivers untouchable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
After their receivers were manhandled during the 2003 AFC Championship Game, Bill Polian and the Colts cried hard enough that the league decided to open up the game and make receivers untouchable.
That's really laughable. All the games I watch the receivers get more than "touched"!
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
I have Brady as the Goat. Let it be stated that the league changed these rules because Manning, the player the league wanted to make its " face", could not succeed within the then rule set. Brady, the Goat, had already proven he could.
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
I have Brady as the Goat. Let it be stated that the league changed these rules because Manning, the player the league wanted to make its " face", could not succeed within the then rule set. Brady, the Goat, had already proven he could.
Brady’s a fine choice.
This was the first change - I am not listing them all. There’s also now rules about hitting running QBs, who handles the balls, not hitting their heads, not hitting below the knee, etc.
Many most made with the two star QBs in mind.
In both cases, it was about the protecting the stars, enhancing the brand and increasing revenue. And it worked in both cases, too.
In an era where statistics are king, they’re also even easier to manufacture.
Again, all three guys are marvelous players. But think of it this way, it’s not that different than boxers being given steel lined gloves and then saying today’s boxers are better because LOOK, there’s more knockouts!
The rules have changed and that merits consideration. I for one can’t go to crazy over the HR hit in MLB this year. It was a joke of a season for HR from opening day until playoffs.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Skin2 said:
For those of you who have used post season performance as a criteria for greatness, please be consistent and also apply that to Chamberlain.
For Chamberlain's playoff career he averaged only 22 points a game and shot an abysmal 46% from the free throw line. That free throw shooting is simply unacceptable for a "God". Perhaps that is why they didn't win as much with having a God on their team?
He was a bad free throw shooter, that is true.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
I have Brady as the Goat. Let it be stated that the league changed these rules because Manning, the player the league wanted to make its " face", could not succeed within the then rule set. Brady, the Goat, had already proven he could.
Brady’s a fine choice.
This was the first change - I am not listing them all. There’s also now rules about hitting running QBs, who handles the balls, not hitting their heads, not hitting below the knee, etc.
Many most made with the two star QBs in mind.
In both cases, it was about the protecting the stars, enhancing the brand and increasing revenue. And it worked in both cases, too.
In an era where statistics are king, they’re also even easier to manufacture.
Again, all three guys are marvelous players. But think of it this way, it’s not that different than boxers being given steel lined gloves and then saying today’s boxers are better because LOOK, there’s more knockouts!
The rules have changed and that merits consideration. I for one can’t go to crazy over the HR hit in MLB this year. It was a joke of a season for HR from opening day until playoffs.
But I think this a very important point still. Peyton Manning, #1 pick, NFL annointed face of the league, could not get to a SB. From everything I read, this was the catalyst for those prior referenced changes after the 2003 AFC championship game.
I know about this. I'm not disputing it. I just meant Brady won 2 Superbowls under the old defensive rules.
And I am not discounting Tom Brady. At all. Please don’t read it that way.
All I have pointed out is that Wilt, Kareem and Shaq - reasonable candidates for GOAT - have had rule changes designed to hamper their play not enhance it. For Jordan, Brady and Manning, the changes to the rules were also made with them in mind but for the proliferation it would provide to both statistics and careers.
Again, both sports fundamentally changed as a result of these rule changes - big men are almost a non factor in the NBA today and the NFL has become a pass first league.
Each of these concepts would have seemed ridiculous 30 years ago.
And I do give Tom credit for winning in both eras. Still, I find Dan Marino’s 5000 yard season to be by far the most impressive of any time it’s been done. Especially since every single other instance has occurred after 2006. In fact, here’s the top 25 passing yard seasons ever. The dates are significant; only Warner, Marino and Fouts went +4800 pre rule changes and that says a lot.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I know about this. I'm not disputing it. I just meant Brady won 2 Superbowls under the old defensive rules.
And I am not discounting Tom Brady. At all. Please don’t read it that way.
All I have pointed out is that Wilt, Kareem and Shaq - reasonable candidates for GOAT - have had rule changes designed to hamper their play not enhance it. For Jordan, Brady and Manning, the changes to the rules were also made with them in mind but for the proliferation it would provide to both statistics and careers.
Again, both sports fundamentally changed as a result of these rule changes - big men are almost a non factor in the NBA today and the NFL has become a pass first league.
Each of these concepts would have seemed ridiculous 30 years ago.
And I do give Tom credit for winning in both eras. Still, I find Dan Marino’s 5000 yard season to be by far the most impressive of any time it’s been done. Especially since every single other instance has occurred after 2006. In fact, here’s the top 25 passing yard seasons ever. The dates are significant; only Warner, Marino and Fouts went +4800 pre rule changes and that says a lot.
EXCELLENT post.
Marino was widely considered the best QB ever until it became apparent that his teams would never win a SB. Fouts was highly regarded and dismissed for the same reason.
I remember Warner destroying a very good Vikings team in 1999. His passing was unbelievable in that game. Every pass seemed to be perfectly thrown. He was absolutely in control that day. Kurt's career was interrupted by injury, although he did come back and play well for his last couple of years in Arizona. He's not the GOAT, but he could have been.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I remember Warner destroying a very good Vikings team in 1999. His passing was unbelievable in that game. Every pass seemed to be perfectly thrown. He was absolutely in control that day. Kurt's career was interrupted by injury, although he did come back and play well for his last couple of years in Arizona. He's not the GOAT, but he could have been.
Whenever you look up a leaders list, and everyone, or almost everyone, is from the same era, you know that being a leader is that category was MUCH easier in that era than in any other. On bb-ref, it's easier to see because they include pictures. Look up the career leaders in triples and there are 24 b&w pictures - much easier to hit triples in the old days; look up OPS+ and there are 18 b&w, 6 color pictures - easier in the old days, but close enough that adjustments can be made; look up home runs and there are 6 b&w pictures, 18 color pictures - much easier to hit HR in the modern era, but close enough that adjustments can be made; look up power-speed number and there is only 1 b&w picture (Mays) and 23 color pictures - MUCH easier to score higher on that metric today.
The lesson is, when you see only one era dominating the leaders in any category, then that category can't be used in cross-era comparisons - it's useless. Career passing yards is one of, if not the poster child for, this principle. It is entirely without value in comparing modern QBs to QBs in other eras.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
I am not sure why you are eliminating either player, @Skin2
I understand why Michael Jordan is a popular choice as he was a phenomenal player. If you know that I weight postseason, you also know that I do so rationally. I don’t presume guys like Ted Williams and Wilt Chamberlain suck because they didn’t win titles or underperformed. Context and sample size matter - obviously - and the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens and Patriots didn’t leave a lot for players of their respective eras. I try to be fair with it - and we’re also talking the best of the best. It’s a team sport - winning should be given some weight since each man is playing to win the game (or should be).
I also think that when comparing eras, I do not believe that because athletes today are ‘better athletes’ that we default to say that players in the past couldn’t play today’s game or couldn’t be ‘the best’. Again, you presume too much with this - going either direction in time - to say with certainty that today’s players are better simply because they play today. What if Mike Trout didn’t grow up with the batting cages, workout gyms, a century of data, and fields on which to play - most of which exist in no small part because of Babe Ruth_. And it comes - for me - down to the least en vogue stat of all these days. Batting average. The ability to hit the ball safely and put it into play is the skill that transcends eras. F*ck the home run. With the right amount of MONEY behind you, if you have been blessed with desire, good eyes and twitch, the rest can be taught. Swing plane, launch angle, zone percentages, etc. We’re seeing that more and more through modern baseball study - and guys like JD Martinez and Jose Altuve are living proof.
I believe guys like Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, Musial, Cobb, DiMaggio - they’d be great in any era. No question. They had the corse skills necessary. And while I don’t weight the ability to outperform your peers as heavily as others, what sets Babe Ruth apart is less the unmatched peer over peer domination he enjoyed but more the simple fact that he pitched. Quite well. For a long enough span to have him trounce any other player who could possibly lay claim to being more accomplished with the bat (the aforementioned plus Trout, Bonds, Mantle, Pujols, Mays, Aaron and Griffey all perhaps giving the Sultan of Swat a run for his money).
Similarly, Wilt played against the guys out there. He was considerably better and with no three point shot there was almost never a reason to go away from the biggest strongest guy on the floor. Getting in close for easy baskets. The three (and subsequent Jordan Rules, there’s a literal book about it) changed it all - such that talented big men have been basically legislated out of the game making it completely guard oriented instead. It’s literally not the same sport anymore when you consider that plus the changes in rule enforcement. Can you really take three steps and then a pro hop?
That’s a travel and it’s done by every guard in the league today. Know why?
Sometimes I dream...that he is me...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@Skin2
Also, let me say that I do respect your opinion and I enjoy reading your posts.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Skin is my #1 all time poster 👍👍
I honestly stopped reading after the first sentence since I knew what followed would be nothing but frustrating. You used the word "your" to describe the metrics that place that entire list of players above everyone past 1980. But since I don't rank all of those players above everyone past 1980, I know they aren't "my" metrics, and it sounds like you are insisting that I argue for someone else's position. I won't do that, I'll only argue for my own position. But I've stated my position many times, so any "argument" at this point requires you to state your own position, something that you have steadfastly and repeatedly refused to do. You got, maybe, 10% of the way to an argument by bringing up strength of competition, and you supplemented a few actual facts with a whole bunch of numbers that you made up out of thin air.
Tell me who your GOAT is, the rest of your top 10, and the metrics you used to rank them and then we can argue about the metrics being used. But keeping yours a secret, and making up metrics and assigning them to me is getting us nowhere.
Please tell us all the rules that were changed in the NBA to "help" Jordan?? As if he needed help. This should be a good laugh!
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
There has to be a reason why a rule that was on the books for 10 years suddenly gets applied. Jerry Reinsdorf (or Maybe Phil Knight?) got into David Stern’s ear somehow and the reason was because the Pistons kept taking Michael’s lunch money.
If you think that rule change was for anyone else, you are kidding yourself.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
What a bunch of hog wash! I expected better from you Brick.
What a pile of crap this post is. And besides the Pistons were the dirtyist bunch of a$$holes to ever play the game. They actually had bounty's on Jordan because they couldn't beat the Bull's any other way!
He has a lot of credibility, you should listen to what others say once in a while.
@Brick said:
A few changes in the rules. Traveling was not to be called on Michael unless the Bulls were up by twenty. It became a foul to stand to close to Michael or to breath directly on him. It was considered a foul to stand between Michael and the basket when Michael wanted that avenue.
Do you actually believe this $hit !!!
It’s really no different than the rule changes for Brady/Manning.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Haters will be haters.
Not really hating just pointing out the facts. All three of those players are spectacular in their own way. They also all enjoyed the fruits from the rules that were changed to directly benefit them.
It doesn’t diminish their careers or accomplishments but requires context...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@DIMEMAN
See above post.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
What changes benefited these 3????
@DIMEMAN
After their receivers were manhandled during the 2003 AFC Championship Game, Bill Polian and the Colts cried hard enough that the league decided to open up the game and make receivers untouchable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
That's really laughable. All the games I watch the receivers get more than "touched"!
I have Brady as the Goat. Let it be stated that the league changed these rules because Manning, the player the league wanted to make its " face", could not succeed within the then rule set. Brady, the Goat, had already proven he could.
Brady’s a fine choice.
This was the first change - I am not listing them all. There’s also now rules about hitting running QBs, who handles the balls, not hitting their heads, not hitting below the knee, etc.
Many most made with the two star QBs in mind.
In both cases, it was about the protecting the stars, enhancing the brand and increasing revenue. And it worked in both cases, too.
In an era where statistics are king, they’re also even easier to manufacture.
Again, all three guys are marvelous players. But think of it this way, it’s not that different than boxers being given steel lined gloves and then saying today’s boxers are better because LOOK, there’s more knockouts!
The rules have changed and that merits consideration. I for one can’t go to crazy over the HR hit in MLB this year. It was a joke of a season for HR from opening day until playoffs.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
But I think this a very important point still. Peyton Manning, #1 pick, NFL annointed face of the league, could not get to a SB. From everything I read, this was the catalyst for those prior referenced changes after the 2003 AFC championship game.
http://archive.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/03/24/brady_rule_steps_taken_to_protect_qbs_knees/
A few years later...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Here's dallas defiantly crying out "Ken Anderson is the greatest of all time" to an unsuspecting skin.
I know about this. I'm not disputing it. I just meant Brady won 2 Superbowls under the old defensive rules.
Why do some people think opinions are facts?
Are you referring to me, or someone else specifically?
And here's Darin not understanding a single word either of them is saying:
Fact 👍
And I am not discounting Tom Brady. At all. Please don’t read it that way.
All I have pointed out is that Wilt, Kareem and Shaq - reasonable candidates for GOAT - have had rule changes designed to hamper their play not enhance it. For Jordan, Brady and Manning, the changes to the rules were also made with them in mind but for the proliferation it would provide to both statistics and careers.
Again, both sports fundamentally changed as a result of these rule changes - big men are almost a non factor in the NBA today and the NFL has become a pass first league.
Each of these concepts would have seemed ridiculous 30 years ago.
And I do give Tom credit for winning in both eras. Still, I find Dan Marino’s 5000 yard season to be by far the most impressive of any time it’s been done. Especially since every single other instance has occurred after 2006. In fact, here’s the top 25 passing yard seasons ever. The dates are significant; only Warner, Marino and Fouts went +4800 pre rule changes and that says a lot.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Single Season Passing Yardage Leaders (All Time)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I didn’t realize Manning beat Brees by 1 yard
EXCELLENT post.
Marino was widely considered the best QB ever until it became apparent that his teams would never win a SB. Fouts was highly regarded and dismissed for the same reason.
I remember Warner destroying a very good Vikings team in 1999. His passing was unbelievable in that game. Every pass seemed to be perfectly thrown. He was absolutely in control that day. Kurt's career was interrupted by injury, although he did come back and play well for his last couple of years in Arizona. He's not the GOAT, but he could have been.
@JoeBanzai said:
HOF grocery store stocking shelves
Whenever you look up a leaders list, and everyone, or almost everyone, is from the same era, you know that being a leader is that category was MUCH easier in that era than in any other. On bb-ref, it's easier to see because they include pictures. Look up the career leaders in triples and there are 24 b&w pictures - much easier to hit triples in the old days; look up OPS+ and there are 18 b&w, 6 color pictures - easier in the old days, but close enough that adjustments can be made; look up home runs and there are 6 b&w pictures, 18 color pictures - much easier to hit HR in the modern era, but close enough that adjustments can be made; look up power-speed number and there is only 1 b&w picture (Mays) and 23 color pictures - MUCH easier to score higher on that metric today.
The lesson is, when you see only one era dominating the leaders in any category, then that category can't be used in cross-era comparisons - it's useless. Career passing yards is one of, if not the poster child for, this principle. It is entirely without value in comparing modern QBs to QBs in other eras.