Does football, baseball, and basketball have superstars like hockey does ?
edmundfitzgerald
Posts: 4,306 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, and Mario Lemieux are clearly the greatest hockey players of our generation.
There are other VERY GOOD ones, but none of them were on the level of those three.
Do the other 3 sports have ones similar to the greats of hockey ?
Do Magic, Bird, and Jordan stand alone in their sport ?
Do Emmitt and Montana stand alone in their sport ?
Does baseball have anyone who is heads and tails above the rest ?
There are other VERY GOOD ones, but none of them were on the level of those three.
Do the other 3 sports have ones similar to the greats of hockey ?
Do Magic, Bird, and Jordan stand alone in their sport ?
Do Emmitt and Montana stand alone in their sport ?
Does baseball have anyone who is heads and tails above the rest ?
0
Comments
<< <i>Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, and Mario Lemieux are clearly the greatest hockey players of our generation.
There are other VERY GOOD ones, but none of them were on the level of those three.
Do the other 3 sports have ones similar to the greats of hockey ?
Do Magic, Bird, and Jordan stand alone in their sport ?
Do Emmitt and Montana stand alone in their sport ?
Does baseball have anyone who is heads and tails above the rest ? >>
Its all a matter of opinion as there is no scientific formula to rate every player in pro sports, different generations and different games. You cant compare a 1950's Player to a 2000's player.
Whether he is comparing across Decades or not it IS a major factor when considering which athlete/s were better or who is the greatest ect..in Baseball or Football though so I dont think there is a definite answer.
<< <i>I agree if you're talking about a definitive all-time greats list, but I interpreted the original post to mean which trio in a given sport completely towers above its contemporaries. In that case, differences between, say, the dead ball era and the steroid era don't really matter as much since you're examining players within a distinct time period. I think that's what edmund meant, but even then we would need to somehow clarify what constitutes a generation, which is what my previous post was attempting to get at. >>
Ok I understand where your going with this now, maybe Edmund will clarify and we can point- counter point this discussion better.
What players in basketball, baseball, and football are heads and shoulders above the other players in their league in
the past twenty or thirty years.
<< <i>I don't think edmund is looking to compare across decades, but I also don't think that I'd consider Orr part of the Gretzky-Lemieux generation. Obviously my being born in '73 has a lot to do with that, but there's no overlap between Orr's career and Gretzky's. I'd characterize the Orr years as the early days of the post-Original 6 era while Gretzky's heyday was basically the post-WHA/pre-Sun Belt era. But for argument's sake, those three probably do tower over everybody else over the last 40 years or so. >>
I think you could also safely add Brodeur to that list. I don't know if you'd kick any of those three off the boat, but I can't think of a reason why Brodeur would be on a lower tier than those three.
In baseball, I'd go with Bonds, Mariano Rivera and Greg Maddux, with Clemens my first honorable mention. (Or dishonorable, depending on your attitude toward PEDs.) If his career trajectory continues, I'd swap in Pujols for Maddux.
I don't really follow basketball closely enough to choose a troika, but you'd obviously have to start with Jordan and then include some combination of Magic, Bird, Shaq or Kobe.
<< <i>I can't think of a reason why Brodeur would be on a lower tier than those three. >>
Because he plays in New Jersey!!!
I've heard that line for years. Mostly from Rangers fans that still think Richter was a better goalie than Brodeur. Sadly, Marty doesn't get the respect that he derserves, especially around these parts. He's still highly regarded north of the border, but in the States, many still put Roy, Hasek and Dryden in front of him. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Having watched him since his first game (he wore #29), I can honestly say that he's the best goalie I've ever seen over a career and he does it year in and year out. The model of consistency and excellence and he's the nicest guy in the world when you sit and chat with him. Not a pompous, elitist know-it-all...
So, for post 1980 hockey, I'd go with Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky and Brodeur. Mark Messier, Patrick Roy and Ray Bourque get honorable mention.
Football- Brady, Rice, Sanders
Basketball- Jordan, Bird, Shaq
Hockey- Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier
Agreed. Babe Ruth dominated his sport as much or more as Tiger Woods has dominated golf. Someone made the point, and I agree, that the Babe would be in the Hall of Fame as a pitcher if he stayed at that position.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Agreed. Babe Ruth dominated his sport as much or more as Tiger Woods has dominated golf. >>
Give Babe steroids and protein shakes instead of beer and hot dogs, and he hits over 1000 HR's.
Wilt Chamberlain also had enough advantages inherent to his era to make him look better than he really was, compared to other players who came later...
Jim Brown also had inherent advantages to allow him to average 5.0 yards per carry for his career.
Some eras in all sports had certain advantages that allowed players to look so much better than anyone else, that to compare them to other era's without taking this into account, is an exercise in futility.
All these dominant players put up numbers that were mind boggling...numbers that simply could not be achieved in other eras.
For example, it would be basically impossible for a player to out homer every team in the league in 1985, like Ruth did one year. It isn't because Ruth is THAT great, but rather the nuiances of the era allowing for such an accomplishment to take place...something that other era players have no chance of achieving.
Pedro Martinez had an ERA that was three runs below league average. With the suck fest of expansion pitchers pitching in the league and blowing up the league ERA to 5.00(among other reasons that don't affect super stars as much), it allowed it to happen.
In 1968, the league ERA was 2.99...so how can a pitcher match an ERA three runs below league average?
Yeah, I know that the ERA was 2.99 for environmental reasons, and that is another aspect as well.
Know the era, understand why things happened, and it gets a little more clear.
No
No
Yes
<< <i>Babe Ruth already had enough advantages that allowed him to look so great, relative to his peers, compared to any other player in history...
Wilt Chamberlain also had enough advantages inherent to his era to make him look better than he really was, compared to other players who came later...
Jim Brown also had inherent advantages to allow him to average 5.0 yards per carry for his career.
Some eras in all sports had certain advantages that allowed players to look so much better than anyone else, that to compare them to other era's without taking this into account, is an exercise in futility.
All these dominant players put up numbers that were mind boggling...numbers that simply could not be achieved in other eras.
For example, it would be basically impossible for a player to out homer every team in the league in 1985, like Ruth did one year. It isn't because Ruth is THAT great, but rather the nuiances of the era allowing for such an accomplishment to take place...something that other era players have no chance of achieving.
Pedro Martinez had an ERA that was three runs below league average. With the suck fest of expansion pitchers pitching in the league and blowing up the league ERA to 5.00(among other reasons that don't affect super stars as much), it allowed it to happen.
In 1968, the league ERA was 2.99...so how can a pitcher match an ERA three runs below league average?
Yeah, I know that the ERA was 2.99 for environmental reasons, and that is another aspect as well.
Know the era, understand why things happened, and it gets a little more clear. >>
<<< Wilt Chamberlain also had enough advantages inherent to his era to make him look better than he really was, compared to other players who came later... >>>
This wasn't an "era comparison" - Yes, in today's game Chamberlain wouldn't be as dominant as he was...however to make a statement like "made him look better than he really was" shows a lack of knowledge about the situation. The question should be asked...If all the rule changes weren't put in place because of Chamberlain, then how dominant would he have been then?
Yes, of course Ruth, Brown and others are good examples, but Chamberlain by far is the best example. I don't recall any rule changes specifically made for Ruth or Brown or any of the others. Yes, they took advantage of the particular situations at the time, as any athlete would, and I would say a blanket could be placed on Ruth and others mentioned as the second best examples...but no specific rule changes went into effect because of Ruth or the others. I'll stand corrected if anyone posts rule changes made because of any of the other player's dominance over their competition.
SteveK, you use World Series wins, and WS appearances as evidence of Ryan Howards ability, and use it to inflate his true ability. 'Winning' is a big criteria for you when making indivdiual player analysis(I don't know why you use it, but you do all the time with HOward).
I am going to throw your own method back at you with Wilt Chamberlain. If he were so dominant, then why did Bill Russell win more championships?? Not by just one mind you, but by several, and in the same era. PLEASE DO NOT SAY TEAMMATES! You ALWAYS discount the role of teammates when compaing Howard to other people, and ALWAYS point to the playoff apperances. Don't be two faced.
Maybe Chamberlain wasn't as dominant as you think.
As you always say, the only stat that matters is a WIN. Don't start backtracking now. You can't have it both ways!!
If Ryan Howard is as good as you think he is based on his 'one' World Series title, as you use that as evidence of him being as valuable as Pujols(though you always seem to ignore Pujols's title), THEN Chamberlain cannot be the most dominant player in his era...RUSSELL would be because Russell dominants him in titles.
Basically, you are painted in a corner my friend.
<< <i>SteveK, it is an examination of how tall a man could stand above his tears...and some stand really tall because of the environment, rather than their skill(as compared to the situations of others).
SteveK, you use World Series wins, and WS appearances as evidence of Ryan Howards ability, and use it to inflate his true ability. 'Winning' is a big criteria for you when making indivdiual player analysis(I don't know why you use it, but you do all the time with HOward).
I am going to throw your own method back at you with Wilt Chamberlain. If he were so dominant, then why did Bill Russell win more championships?? Not by just one mind you, but by several, and in the same era. PLEASE DO NOT SAY TEAMMATES! You ALWAYS discount the role of teammates when compaing Howard to other people, and ALWAYS point to the playoff apperances. Don't be two faced.
Maybe Chamberlain wasn't as dominant as you think.
As you always say, the only stat that matters is a WIN. Don't start backtracking now. You can't have it both ways!!
If Ryan Howard is as good as you think he is based on his 'one' World Series title, as you use that as evidence of him being as valuable as Pujols(though you always seem to ignore Pujols's title), THEN Chamberlain cannot be the most dominant player in his era...RUSSELL would be because Russell dominants him in titles.
Basically, you are painted in a corner my friend. >>
Comparing this thread content with Chamberlain and the thread with Howard is apples and oranges, and would be silly. You go there if you want, but I'm not gonna waste my time on such a silly, pointless endeavor.
Your points about Chamberlain clearly illustrate your and other's ignorance when they've never seen a player play and only rely on stats, and you often make this mistake...such as those who voted Bill Mazeroski into the MLB Hall of Fame. Firstly, Bill Russell himself, I've seen him interviewed on TV, has stated a number of times without hesitation, that Chamberlain was a better basketball player than he was...so that case is closed. And I'll open another case for ya...my father attended Overbrook High School when Chamberlain was playing and saw him numerous times on the court and as a pro. He said, and I've heard others state this as well, that Chamberlain was lightening quick, quicker than any player he ever saw when Chamberlain was in his prime. It wasn't just Chamberlain's height (your "tall" metaphor)...it was his pure athletic skill and also his brains. I'm not gonna elaborate on this...but I know someone well who did a lot of business with Chamberlain for many years, and he stated that Chamberlain was one of the smartest individuals he had ever known. All these factors combined made him great on the court...it wasn't only his height.
About the "NBA championships" - The fact is if it wasn't for the Boston Celtics, Chamberlain and his teams would have won a number of other championships, and that isn't even remotely debatable. Despite Chamberlain's tremendous ability, he alone wasn't able to overcome the difference with the Celtics who had one of the greatest NBA teams of all time.
I've got a question for you...How many MLB game rule changes have taken place directly because of Albert Pujols? Or...game rule changes because of any other individual player in any of the four major sports, other than Wilt Chamberlain?
Sanders has to be on that list, if only because the Lions teams he played for were nowhere near as great as the Niners, Cowboys or Pats. What he accomplished was truly special.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
P.S. The NBA wasn't a very old league when Chamberlain started and they changed rules. I am sure if you look hard enough that during the infancy of all the major leagues that rule changes were made after certain players showed ways to 'circumvent' the existing rules, either by the changing of their physical size/ability or their smartness. Not a big deal in what was changed for Chamberlain. What is a big deal is your two faced approach to evaluating playrs based on their team's ability.
Also, Chamberlains' circumventing of the free throw rule(causing a change in the rule) is actually kind of a bad mark on his game, because that was a poor aspect of his game, and probably did cause the loss of some close games by being a bad free throw shooter. Maybe he should have spent time shooting free throws better, instead of trying to 'cheat' the spirit of the game. That rule change sheds BAD light on Chamberlain, not good.
I believe King Kelly bypassed the sub rule in baseball by substituting himself(or another player) in defensively when a pop foul was in the air near the dugout so that he/they can come off the bench to make a catch that would not have been otherwise made by the player currently in the game. Again, concentrate more on YOUR consistency of your methods. Don't be two-faced.
<< <i>SteveK, you bring up the point that the Celtics had a better TEAM, thus more championships, but you completely ignore that team aspect when it is brought up about the PHillies in the Howard conversations. You cannot have it both ways.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
P.S. The NBA wasn't a very old league when Chamberlain started and they changed rules. I am sure if you look hard enough that during the infancy of all the major leagues that rule changes were made after certain players showed ways to 'circumvent' the existing rules, either by the changing of their physical size/ability or their smartness. Not a big deal in what was changed for Chamberlain. What is a big deal is your two faced approach to evaluating playrs based on their team's ability.
Also, Chamberlains' circumventing of the free throw rule(causing a change in the rule) is actually kind of a bad mark on his game, because that was a poor aspect of his game, and probably did cause the loss of some close games by being a bad free throw shooter. Maybe he should have spent time shooting free throws better, instead of trying to 'cheat' the spirit of the game. That rule change sheds BAD light on Chamberlain, not good.
I believe King Kelly bypassed the sub rule in baseball by substituting himself(or another player) in defensively when a pop foul was in the air near the dugout so that he/they can come off the bench to make a catch that would not have been otherwise made by the player currently in the game. Again, concentrate more on YOUR consistency of your methods. Don't be two-faced. >>
You've never understood my point with you about Ryan Howard because your infatuation with stats doesn't allow you to be flexible. Stats aren't flexible...they are what they are...however seeing a live person perform, along with using statistics, is the proper way to evaluate a team athlete. Perhaps Ryan Howard when all is said and done won't windup to be a Hall of Fame player...only time will tell...but he for sure will never be as bad as you make him out to be...and your "Ryan Howard morphing into Dave Kingman" thread was just plain silly and ignorant...I would nominate that as dumbest CU thread of 2009 if I knew who to send my ballot to.
Your further comments about Chamberlain are too pathetic for a reply. Wilt can easily stand on his own amazing, remarkable merits, and doesn't need any further accolades from me. And for your information, Chamberlain's career in the NBA was in the 1960's and 1970's which would be considered the "modern era" for the NBA...maybe when you Googled it to find out more, you thought it read 1860's and 1870's.
Here's a holiday lesson for ya Hoopster...don't debate Philly fans about Philly players...you'll only make yourself look even more silly and ignorant than you usually do...although giving you credit where credit is due...you do know how to cut and paste stats from websites on to here...if you could find a company who wants someone to cut and paste off the internet, you would be a great candidate for the job. LOL
<< <i>Football- Brady, Rice, Sanders >>
This comment truly offends me Paul.
Brady, Rice, Smith is the correct lineup.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
SteveK, you bring up the point that the Celtics had a better TEAM, thus more championships, but you completely ignore that team aspect when it is brought up about the PHillies in the Howard conversations. You cannot have it both ways.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
No matter how you spin it, this is a dilemma you put yourself in.
When people bring up the fact that Howard had better teammates, thus more wins, a lone WS title, and more MVP votes...you discount the ability of his teammates as the primary reason that occured.
When people bring up Russell as having more titles than Chamberlain(by a wide margin), you say it is because Russell had better teammates.
You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, Howard is MUCH closer to Dave Kingman than to a legit HOF hitter. Did he just strike out again in the World Series? What happened to the notion of him being a big game player? Just another myth you believe in.
Philly fans are dumb...always have been. They have proved to be the most retarded on this board, no question.
Care to wager? Oh yeah, you lost all your money gambling...this shows what kind of fool I am talking to. By the way you talk out of both sides of your mouth you should have been one of those 800 gambling numbers and make money off of suckers.
Instead, you are a pathetic philly fan. Philly is weak! The only good guy from there is Ben Franklin(but that is because he was born in Boston). If it weren't for the Boston guys, Pennsylvania would still be loyal to the king.
Don't be so proud of being from Philadelphia and talk like you guys are the chit...because you are not. Dumb cowards is more in line with a description of you guys(you and Dr J). I argue with the Boston guys all the time...but I respect them. You, and guys like this DR J. character on here are dumb arse clowns.
Merry Christmas fool.
<< <i>SteveK, get your facts straight. Chamberlain started in 1959. The NBA(or BAA) started in 1946. That is basically the infancy of the leauge. Chamberlain 'cheated' certain rules, so they changed them. Why give him credit for that? He was just bigger and stronger than everyone. He still couldn't hit free throws better than a good 6th grade student!!
SteveK, you bring up the point that the Celtics had a better TEAM, thus more championships, but you completely ignore that team aspect when it is brought up about the PHillies in the Howard conversations. You cannot have it both ways.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
No matter how you spin it, this is a dilemma you put yourself in.
When people bring up the fact that Howard had better teammates, thus more wins, a lone WS title, and more MVP votes...you discount the ability of his teammates as the primary reason that occured.
When people bring up Russell as having more titles than Chamberlain(by a wide margin), you say it is because Russell had better teammates.
You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, Howard is MUCH closer to Dave Kingman than to a legit HOF hitter. Did he just strike out again in the World Series? What happened to the notion of him being a big game player? Just another myth you believe in.
Philly fans are dumb...always have been. They have proved to be the most retarded on this board, no question.
Care to wager? Oh yeah, you lost all your money gambling...this shows what kind of fool I am talking to. By the way you talk out of both sides of your mouth you should have been one of those 800 gambling numbers and make money off of suckers.
Instead, you are a pathetic philly fan. Philly is weak! The only good guy from there is Ben Franklin(but that is because he was born in Boston). If it weren't for the Boston guys, Pennsylvania would still be loyal to the king.
Don't be so proud of being from Philadelphia and talk like you guys are the chit...because you are not. Dumb cowards is more in line with a description of you guys(you and Dr J). I argue with the Boston guys all the time...but I respect them. You, and guys like this DR J. character on here are dumb arse clowns.
Merry Christmas fool. >>
Denegrating Wilt Chamberlain's phenomenal NBA accomplishments, sums up your ignorance about properly evaluating sports players...and the rest of your asinine post speaks for itself. I don't mind good zingers...to me that's part of the fun of sports talk...but frankly, your attempt to be insulting is just a dreadful bore. After your junior high school holiday break, you should study better in English class to try and improve your vocabulary.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
No matter how you spin it, this is a dilemma you put yourself in.
When people bring up the fact that Howard had better teammates, thus more wins, a lone WS title, and more MVP votes...you discount the ability of his teammates as the primary reason that occured.
When people bring up Russell as having more titles than Chamberlain(by a wide margin), you say it is because Russell had better teammates.
You cannot have it both ways.
<< <i>SteveK, you bring up the point that the Celtics had a better TEAM, thus more championships, but you completely ignore that team aspect when it is brought up about the PHillies in the Howard conversations. You cannot have it both ways.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
No matter how you spin it, this is a dilemma you put yourself in.
When people bring up the fact that Howard had better teammates, thus more wins, a lone WS title, and more MVP votes...you discount the ability of his teammates as the primary reason that occured.
When people bring up Russell as having more titles than Chamberlain(by a wide margin), you say it is because Russell had better teammates.
You cannot have it both ways. >>
Apples and oranges. Case closed.
Two words.
Red Auerbach.
<< <i>
<< <i>SteveK, you bring up the point that the Celtics had a better TEAM, thus more championships, but you completely ignore that team aspect when it is brought up about the PHillies in the Howard conversations. You cannot have it both ways.
Either Chamberlain isn't as good as you think, or Howard isn't. Pick your hero to get yourself out of the corner.
No matter how you spin it, this is a dilemma you put yourself in.
When people bring up the fact that Howard had better teammates, thus more wins, a lone WS title, and more MVP votes...you discount the ability of his teammates as the primary reason that occured.
When people bring up Russell as having more titles than Chamberlain(by a wide margin), you say it is because Russell had better teammates.
You cannot have it both ways. >>
Apples and oranges. Case closed. >>
Apples and oranges are both fruits.
Russell, Chamberlain, and Howard all had their fortunes affected greatly by the ability of their teammates. If you disregard the factor of Howard's teammates in 'his' success, then you must also look past Chamberlain's teammates for Chamberlain's 'failures', and attribute his lack of titles to his inability. You cannot have it both ways to suit your desires. Actually, you can...but you look dumb in doing so.
P.S. SoFLPhilly Fan, I know full well the importance of teammates, and to a lesser extent coaches, in deciding the fortunes of individual players' chances on winning. SteveK also recognizes this when it comes to Chamberlain...but he does NOT when it comes to Ryan Howard. Plus, an individual basketball player impacts his team's chances of winning much more than a baseball player does.
Auerbach changed the game and maximized the Celtics chances for success. They were a losing team before him and would have remained a mediocre team without him.
Their is no "lesser extent" when talking about the coaching of the '50s and '60s Celts. It was Auerbach who made the team and helped shape the future of professional basketball. He gave them the advantage.
Truer words have never been spoken, LOL!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Auerbach changed the game and maximized the Celtics chances for success. They were a losing team before him and would have remained a mediocre team without him.
Their is no "lesser extent" when talking about the coaching of the '50s and '60s Celts. It was Auerbach who made the team and helped shape the future of professional basketball. He gave them the advantage. >>
Keith ...thank you...Bob Wiley is now your patient. LOL
But alas, your point about Auerbach proves mine even more!! To judge individuals athletes based on titles is stupid, ESPECIALLY in baseball...and that is what SteveK does with Howard!! There are simply too many things out of an individual players control to base his greatness on how many Wins or title his TEAM gets. Your Auerbach example is just another in a long line of them.
Which brings us back to the entire initial point. SteveK recognizes this with Wilt Chamberlain because it protects his hero from the 'titles' argument. But he uses it with Ryan Howard because it 'enhances' his argument on how good he thinks Howard is(he always points to the Phillies success and the RBI totals) Sure, Howard plays a role, but one of just many important roles...and some guys are even MORE important.
SteveK, which paint do you prefer to get yourself out of that corner you put yourself in? Anytime you use the Phillies success as evidence of Howard's perceived greatness, you put a nail in Chamberlain's coffin whenever somebody mentions Russell and his titles as evidence of being better.
Which hero do you want to save??
I know it may hurt, like when you pop your pimples, but in the end, honesty will set you free.
<< <i>SteveK, I am always crazy, but that does not diminish the fact that you need to make a decision and decide which hero you want to diminish.
I know it may hurt, like when you pop your pimples, but in the end, honesty will set you free. >>
Ya gotta be crazy to post at Sports Talk...it's a prerequisite.
<< <i>SFLphilly fan, he changed that team by acquiring Bill Russell. Sure, he gets credit for the smart moves...but the players are the ones who win the game.
>>
I was speaking more to the fast break and his breaking the color barrier.
His strategy gave the Celtics an advantage over other teams. If not for his coaching the Celtics would not have been a dynasty.
But nonetheless, pioneers of certain offensive sets in all sports have a big impact, especially in the infancy of the game. I don't view Chamberlain's circumventing the spirit of the free throw rule as a bonus to him. It is actually a discredit to him because he couldn't make the free throws like everyone else(and like they were intended to be).
But again, this all proves the point more that individual players can only control what they do, and the dominating variables out of their control go a long way to team success. SteveK needs to know this in relation to Ryan Howard and stop talking like a fool about him and using the team success and the great ability of his teammates as a way to pump up Howard's true ability. Every time he does it, it is just more da#@ing to chamberlain.
Actually, individual basketball players have FAR greater impact in a team's win(and titles) than do baseball players. This even makes Stevek's use of 'winning' even more da#$ing against chamblerain.
What about Walter 'Sweetness' Payton? I think he should be on the list!
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation