EOM
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Cards with 3 or more players on them that had incredible lifetime statistics.
1- Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Banks. 1962 Topps
2- Ruth, Aaron, Mays. 1973 Topps
1 - Bird, Magic, Erving. 1980 Topps
1 - Gretzky, Lafluer, Dionne. 1980 opc
Football ???
Give us some others, and n the end, which card should be #1 as the greatest “stat” card ever in their sport.
No cards after 1988 please.
0
Comments
If you're referring to the 1962 Topps Manager's Dream, #8 is Johnny Roseboro. The piping around the collar and white squatchee on top of the hat clearly identifies that as a Dodgers' uniform.
964 Wins
13,490 Strikeouts
1968 Topps Super Stars #490 Killebrew, Mantle and Mays; 1769 combined HRs
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
73 Topps Ruth/Aaron/Mays All Time HR Leaders.
Jordan/Kareem outscores Bird/Magic/Erving by 1,155 career points (not even counting the other guy #44)
Then there's this card (Jordan, Erving, Drexler, Dominique)
Dryden is #1 all time with Hasek in save percentage at .922
Throw in Parent and Tony and this one is tough to beat.
For those that don’t know Bobby Orr was per game the most statistically dominant player ever in any of the four major sports. So I’m going to go for now with this one over the Gretzky/Lafluer/Dionne card.
Football:
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
3 on football cards is a tough one...
this is my best that I could do for now...
I'd say Pete Rose 4,000 hits
2,892 Home Runs
14,941 Hits
hey stevebay,
Cool card...
Hard to beat that NL HR Leaders card with five HOFers on it.
Always looking for Mantle cards such as Stahl Meyer, 1954 Dan Dee, 1959 Bazooka, 1960 Post, 1952 Star Cal Decal, 1952 Tip Top Bread Labels, 1953-54 Briggs Meat, and other Topps, Bowman, and oddball Mantles.
agreed
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
For fun, entire 1981 All Star Game Roster. Is there any other card that has more than 61 players? 19 HOFers including: Brett, Carew, Fisk, Reggie, Simmons, Winfield, Murray, Carter, Dawson, Schmidt, Ozzie, Raines, Carlton, Fingers, Gossage, Morris, Seaver, Sutter, Ryan, plus non-HOFer Pete Rose.
Bonus: Honorary Captains that year were HOFers Warren Spahn and Bob Feller
How 'bout them stats.....
2 Homer all Star game
I'm huge into hockey but I don't quite get what statistical data point you're going for here? Bossy is all time goals per game leader, and Gretzky is all time assists per game as well as points per game. What category has Orr on top?
(Orr is 5th on points per game, 3rd on assists per game, and 93rd on goals per game)
Jordan and Chamberlain, same points per game.
NFL RB leaders, similar yards per game and gain.
Mark McGwire needed the least amount of AB’s to hit home runs. Ruth and Bonds right behind him.
Ruth and Ted Williams similar OPS+ per game.
All these players played mostly healthy. Bobby Orr had over 12 knee operations. Clarke said he couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning in 1976 when he was tournament MVP and mostly finished.
Now onto hockey.
Bossy, Gretzky, and Lemieux, forwards with similar goals per game. Gretzky and Lemieux similar points per game. All forwards equal in those categories.
Paul Coffey played well over half his career on two very good knees with Gretzky and Lemieux and averaged 1.08 points per game. He was 2nd all time in points per game for D men.
Bobby Orr averaged 1.39 points per game on one good leg, and had no 99 or 66 or Bossy to play with.
1.39 to 1.08 points per game is like Jordan averaging 33 a night, and along comes a kid with 12 knee operations who averages 41 points a night.
Plus minus is a bad stat if you’re a great player on a bad team or a poor player on a good team.
The top 10 NHL all time plus minus leaders all played on multiple cup teams and only two of them is above a +0.5 per game. Larry Robinson is one of them at barely above +0.5 per game and he played a lot of his career with the all time save percentage leader Ken Dryden.
Bobby Orr played with goalies who are WAY down the all time save percentage list and he is a +0.9 his entire career, which doubles and triples the results of Gretzky, Lemieux, Potvin, Coffey, Lidstrom, and others.
Scotty Bowman told his great teams not even to skate it down Orr’s side. He said skate down the other D lane. He also said Connor McDavid is the only player in NHL history who has Orr’s speed burst and quick feet. Once they go, you can’t catch them.
Bobby owned the rink statistically like no other player has in hockey, or any other sport ever.
He was the greatest defensive defenseman ever because you couldn’t beat him, or get the puck from him, and puck possession is great defense.
He has no equal. Other great athletes in other sports do.
I think you make good points here, though I think it's worth giving a nod to Phil Esposito (as well as some other strong Bruins players) as being a contributing factor to points for Orr. How many of Orr's assists were points due to Espo's goals (or Bucyk, Hodge, etc.)? (all the best players equally had good teammates so I think that portion evens out; Gretzky w/ Messier/Kurri, Lemieux w/ Jagr, etc. ) Orr was on a good team. Those Bruins were not as a team on par with '70's Canadiens, early '80's Islanders or mid to late '80's Oilers when you consider the complete package of every contributing player combined. Orr is (was) phenomenal, no question. Bruins goalies were not as good as a support crew but the team was decent.
Lemieux had a notorious bad back and also non hodgkin's lymphoma. It doesn't take anything away from what Orr accomplished, and certainly Orr's knees had a bigger overall impact on stats that Lemieux's health problems. But, can't acknowledge one without the other.
Also, remember that Larry Robinson only played with Ken Dryden for 6 seasons, but played 20 seasons of fantastic +/- hockey. Most of his career was without Dryden, though he did pull a ridiculous +120 in 76-77.
In summary, I'm not contesting your points about Orr. Just adding a few more bits of context.
Too bad there's not a combo card of Tretjak/Dryden/Hasek
I got an opportunity to play in a hockey game with Red Wings alum a few years back. On the bench, I was chatting with Mickey Redmond about his perspective on greatest goalies ever. I asked him about his pick/order and mentioned to him that he played with Ken Dryden as a teammate, against Tretjak, and spent the best years of his broadcasting career analyzing Hasek. Those three being my vote for the best 3 ever, I wanted to hear his thoughts comparatively. He agreed that those 3 were his top as well. His talking points about one vs the other made for a very interesting conversation.
You use some very, um, interesting statistics to "prove" greatness.
Yeah, this statement just isn’t supportable. I’m a hockey guy, a Boston guy, and an Orr guy. A case can certainly be made that he’s the greatest player of all time. But those arguments are subjective, as you later argue. Objectively the “most statistically dominant” isn’t the case for hockey, much less all four major sports.
Don Cherry, Scotty Bowman, Bobby Clarke, and everyone from that era don’t feel it’s subjective at all. Orr was statistically dominant like no other.
To each their own.
Tretiak is by himself on the back of this card.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "subjective"??
As a TV analyst for the Panthers, Denis Potvin who played with and against Bobby Orr, and against Gretzky said, there is the Beatles and everyone else. There is also Bobby Orr any everyone else.
The earth is round is not subjective. Neither is the greatest hockey player of all time.
So his "opinion" makes it law? Just to be clear I'm not arguing the ability of Bobby Orr with my comment.
Does Potvin's comment help further your narrative? If he actually said it, sure. Is everyone supposed to just fall in line with something he might have said, no.
Not a Hockey guy, but know some about the sport and the greatness of Orr and Gretzky. But the argument here seems sort of like Wilt vs Russell. Wilt gets a lot of recognition for his amazing sports feats, but at the end of the day only has 2 titles to his name. He played on teams where he essentially was the team, the other 4 guys almost didn't need to even be on the court. Where Russell was surrounded by future HoFer's and won 11 titles, but gets (in my opinion) little respect compared to Wilt because of this. Now I know rings aren't the entire measure of greatness, but hard to argue they add a good heft to the conversation. So my point relating back to Orr vs Gretzky, does it really matter that he played injured more or that he was more like the Chamberlain lone wolf that found a pack to fit in, or do the career numbers and accomplishments mean more when deciding greatness such as Gretsky being more like Russell and having a solid team backing him to get the career stats he did? I know Goldenage also brings up the point that Orr was clearly a more standout player of his time, again such as Wilt's numbers, but to the topic being greatest "stats" cards ever made, does it matter if those stats were more similar to the next guy in line or if it was a wider gap for the players at the time?
and just to add my submission for a card
To help maybe clear the confusion. You are stating that Orr is the most statistically dominant in points compared to his peers at his position, correct?
Per game Bobby Orr has no statistical equal. All the other great ones in the four major sports do.
He stands alone.
I think maybe what he's trying to say is Orr might be the top spot for overall complete aggregate of all relevant stats per game combined, such as including +/- along with the points categories, and other items too, similar to how players are ranked in a Fantasy Hockey algorithm?
Bobby Orr is well ahead of the number two guy, and the number two guy had Gretzky and Lemieux over half his career.
Just pure dominance.
His plus minus per game is even more dominant over every player in NHL history. Not even close.
This is the only poster I've ever seen attempting to rank players by +/- per game. It is a very odd stat to claim a player is definitively the best of all time, much less of any sport. There are several stats which purport to be "all in one" stats to more easily compare players of any position and across eras. +/- per game doesn't even attempt to be one of them.
By the way, Point Shares does attempt to be an "all in one" stat as described above. Orr ranks 41st, third among long time Bruins defensemen behind Bourque and Chara. Not sure how to adjust for the fact that Orr was done at 30, but it is, a la Koufax, hard to give him credit for seasons he didn't play. Also, again by Point Shares, Gretzky and Bourque are enough above number 3 that I'm comfortable saying that the discussion of best of all time begins and ends with those two. I can also say I'm surprised. I would never have guessed that Bourque would be so close to Gretzky or that the two would be so far above everyone else. Incidentally, Ovechkin is the top active player.
Not much of a hockey fan but two guys from the same high scoring era being one-two seems to be problematic. When comparing players across eras, acknowledging the era they played in matters. I don’t believe in the stats that attempt to go across eras and level them evenly so you have to apply some common sense, too.
I also believe the opinions of your peers matters; the contemporaries of Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, etc. we’re in awe of the talents these guys possessed. Often it’s not just the physical talents but that ‘third eye’ or ‘head for the game’ or ‘6th sense’ where they see and feel the game on another level.
As a football parallel, in ten more years every guy who played QB before 1998 will have terrible stats compared to the players playing today. Today’s players are not in any way better, they just play a game with different rules that allow for greater statistical production.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This point is in line with describing the comparative greatness of players such as Eddie Shore and Howie Morenz relative to more modern examples.
Well, yes and no. https://hockey-reference.com/leaders/ps_career.html#stats_career_NHL/ Of the 200 PS guys, only Bourque and Gretzky are chronological peers. Jagr, Lidstrom, and Brodeur are a generation later, and Luongo a generation later than that. Then, of course, we have Gordie Howe who stands in time far removed from any of them. The highest ranked player to have mid career season before Howe debuted is Turk Broda at 97, just between Gary Suter and Ron Suter. I don't believe Gary Suter was better than anyone who played before 1935.
But that is not my argument. My argument is not even that Orr is not the best player of all time. My points are just that objective stats don't say he is, and not "clearly", and that +/- per game is a terrible way of measuring greatness.
Approximate Value https://pro-football-reference.com/leaders/av_career.htm#av_leaders does the same thing for football. By AV, Brady is clearly the best of all time, ahead of Brees and Manning, and you'd be forgiven if you think the list is biased in favor of quarterbacks of that era, but then comes Favre (half a generation older) and then Rice, Tarkenton, White, and Smith. Not sure what that says, but I think two things at least: one, that AV does a better job correcting for era than would naively be expected, and two, quarterbacks are almost as overvalued by AV as they are by the average fan.
3 time MVP and Stanley Cup champ Bobby Clarke played against Orr and Gretzky.
Of which one did he say, “It’s too bad he didn’t have a better league to play in.” ?
Bowman scouted two kids in a 16-21 junior league. Bowman said the best kid on the ice was a 13 year old named Bobby Orr.
Orr was too hurt for the 72 summit series. If he played, no one would remember Paul Henderson today.
Those who saw him play know there is no debate. It’s either you saw him or you didn’t.
Orr is one of the greatest, no doubt, and a whole lot of opinions from people that matter think he is the best ever. Point conceded.
What folks are asking you about, that seems to be missed, is the statement "For those that don’t know Bobby Orr was per game the most statistically dominant player ever in any of the four major sports."
"For those that don't know" and "most statistically dominant" imply there is compelling objective evidence forthcoming. There has been a vague reference to plus/minus per game. That isn't a stat that's traditionally used and is a bit of a stretch to prove dominance.
If you just want to say "me and a whole bunch of smart hockey people think this way", well, then, yeah. But the empirical evidence is lacking. If you just say "statistically dominant", it's going to be really, really hard to make an argument against Gretzky.
Gretzky and Lemieux are equal in points per game.
Bobby Orr has no equal. Coffey is well below him.
Per game Orr was the most dominant point getter hockey ever saw.
I think Gretzky averaged more points per game then Orr did over their careers. I think Gretzky was around 1.9 and Orr was in the neighborhood of 1.4.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
Um, no. This kind of stuff is pretty easy to look up to be honest. Orr is 5th all time points per games, and Gretzky is 1 while Mario is 2
https://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_per_game_career.html
Points per game is way better than +/- per game, but you have a ways to go, unless you're willing to claim that Ziggy Palffy was way better than Maurice Richard (to mick almost at random), oh, and that Orr was fifth best of all time. Oh, and as people are increasingly pointing out, expert testimony is 100% subjective. It's not necessarily invalid, but it's not objective.
I'm not sure what a 13-year-old Bobby Orr being the best player in a 16-21 league says. But again, that's objective, one game, 40 players. And there are any number of prospects who don't pan out.
And, again, none of this is to say that Orr isn't the best player of all time, just that it's not objectively clear.
Also, as good as Orr was, it is going to be very difficult for a lot of people to see the best of all time in any sport as a guy who was essentially finished at 26. Don't misunderstand me, Orr was much better than Koufax, but the arguments him are pretty much the same. It's awfully easy to favor a Gretzky who played a full career or a Howe who played forever.
You can only compare forwards with forwards and D men with D men.
You can not compare forwards against D men. Gretzky goal hung. Orr defended and played the point. He didn’t play two feet in front of the net like a Bossy did.
His main job was to defend. He was the best at that too. Incredible plus minus per game with average to below average goalkeepers
We are starting to find common ground. I agree with this quote (not the part about goal hanging, just this part).
But if you can't compare F to D, then how can you also make the argument Orr was "the most statistically dominant player ever in any of the four major sports"? I mean, if you can't compare hockey players to other hockey players, then maybe you can't compare to quarterbacks, pitchers, or shooting guards?
Orr blows away Gretzky and Lemieux in plus minus per game because of his ability to dominate in defense, offense, and puck possession.
He has no equal. No one is even close in plus minus.
You couldn’t get the puck from him. You couldn’t beat him, and he owned the ice. You had to see it to believe it.
He was great, but I think many go a little overboard on assigning God-like status. The difference between the absolute best and the second best is a lot closer than many seem to think. In sports, the environment of the era can wreck havoc with all the numbers and give impressions that are not quite as accurate as one may think they are.
Then there is the issue of teammates and coach's system/philosophy in sports like Hockey, Football, and basketball that have big impacts on the stats that emerge for a single player.
Baseball hitting measurements have the highest validity in a statistical evaluation among the four major sports. Fans make many errors there as well, but those errors are pretty easy to show with some objective common sense. Usually the confusion arising there stems from longevity/peak that can cause confusion in a different area.