If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (1 Viewer)

[Mr Two Cents]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

How strange, didn't realize that the team that wins or loses a game is based only on what the QB does. I expect you don't see exactly how stupid your statement is.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

yeah, he was running laps around a bunch of chumps therefore best ever.

shark pool be sharkin'

 

[Niles Standish]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

Just 24 didn't happen in 8 straight playoff games against those Giant teams. Half of those games being against Brady and Rodgers.

 

[Fariq]

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

yeah, he was running laps around a bunch of chumps therefore best ever.

shark pool be sharkin'

You make a very compelling argument. I now see that Geno Smith should be ranked ahead of Johnny Unitas just for playing in this era. I also think I overrated **** Butkus and Deacon Jones all these years. They played in the same era as Unitas so they obviously sucked. Butkus was probably not even better than Vincent Rey.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

yeah, he was running laps around a bunch of chumps therefore best ever.

shark pool be sharkin'

You make a very compelling argument. I now see that Geno Smith should be ranked ahead of Johnny Unitas just for playing in this era. I also think I overrated **** Butkus and Deacon Jones all these years. They played in the same era as Unitas so they obviously sucked. Butkus was probably not even better than Vincent Rey.

so, if a guy's not the best ever that means he's garbage.

shark pool be sharkin'

 

[Fariq]

If the argument is that his numbers mean less because the league was smaller, that's also idiotic. A larger league dilutes talent, not amplifies it. Unitas was playing against Pro-Bowl level defensive backfields and LB's every game -- just as his competition was. And he was running laps around them.

yeah, he was running laps around a bunch of chumps therefore best ever.

shark pool be sharkin'

You make a very compelling argument. I now see that Geno Smith should be ranked ahead of Johnny Unitas just for playing in this era. I also think I overrated **** Butkus and Deacon Jones all these years. They played in the same era as Unitas so they obviously sucked. Butkus was probably not even better than Vincent Rey.

so, if a guy's not the best ever that means he's garbage.

shark pool be sharkin'

Not only do you not understand NFL history, you also are not familiar with sarcasm.

 

[cstu]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

Roethlisberger and it's not even close. Flacco is the wild card. Cutler would probably have his dad fight for him. Brees just doesn't have the build and I'm not sure would fight dirty enough. Peyton would respectfully decline. Brady would probably get beat up by a person of his wife's strength and temperament although I can see him as being the guy who would have a buddy lurking in the dark to help him out. the rest just don't strike me as the fighting type. Roeth has an, um, edge physically and probably mentally on the rest when it comes to fighting.

Definitely Roethlisberger. He's the biggest. He's the guy who seems to like being hit on the field. And he's a criminal so he'll fight dirty.

Ben vs. Cam would be a good PPV.

 

[cstu]

You will have a difficult time convincing me that any QB was a dominant in their era as Unitas was from '57 to '67.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

Just 24 didn't happen in 8 straight playoff games against those Giant teams. Half of those games being against Brady and Rodgers.

Ya that doesn't combat the circular argument point at all. Most teams that get to the SB don't give up a lot of pts on their way.

That's not even right anyway - they played Rodgers once and not in flawless Glendale weather.

 

[Jayded]

He'd have to retroactively win a collegiate national championship. That fifth ring on Montana's hand in the Heisman commercial? A national championship ring. On top of his pro success, Montana also topped the college scene at one point as well.

Brady did win the National Championship with Michigan.

Being a bench warmer on a half champion <> starting QB for a national champion

To be clear, the distinct difference is Joe was the starting QB for a champion vs. Brady tossing 15 passes all year when Michigan won it.

 

[Bri]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.

Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

So DVOA is imperfect.

If you can't appreciate a line of Osi, Strahan, Tuck, and JPP with Kiwi able to sub....

I can't think of an NFL OL in today's game that could stop them.

It was very unique that a team could have so many talented DEs and that they could play inside.

 

[Bri]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

Just 24 didn't happen in 8 straight playoff games against those Giant teams. Half of those games being against Brady and Rodgers.

Ya that doesn't combat the circular argument point at all. Most teams that get to the SB don't give up a lot of pts on their way.

That's not even right anyway - they played Rodgers once and not in flawless Glendale weather.

Giants played GB twice. They lost by a FG and then a few weeks later in the playoffs.

 

[Buffaloes]

Serious question, who wins in a fight between Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Cutler, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger and Romo?

I feel like its a toss up between Rivers and Brady - but could see a compelling case for Roethlisberger.

Roethlisberger and it's not even close. Flacco is the wild card. Cutler would probably have his dad fight for him. Brees just doesn't have the build and I'm not sure would fight dirty enough. Peyton would respectfully decline. Brady would probably get beat up by a person of his wife's strength and temperament although I can see him as being the guy who would have a buddy lurking in the dark to help him out. the rest just don't strike me as the fighting type. Roeth has an, um, edge physically and probably mentally on the rest when it comes to fighting.

Definitely Roethlisberger. He's the biggest. He's the guy who seems to like being hit on the field. And he's a criminal so he'll fight dirty.

Ben vs. Cam would be a good PPV.

it would be like one of those Tyson fights where you pay for the PPV and it's over before the end of the 1st round. Roeth would annihilate and then fake an injury after the fight to make it look more heroic

 

[Niles Standish]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

Just 24 didn't happen in 8 straight playoff games against those Giant teams. Half of those games being against Brady and Rodgers.

Ya that doesn't combat the circular argument point at all. Most teams that get to the SB don't give up a lot of pts on their way.That's not even right anyway - they played Rodgers once and not in flawless Glendale weather.

You're right Favre another guy mentioned here.

If you don't let up more than 20 in 2 playoff runs you are pretty good. The Patriots great Ds never did that and they only played 3 games each time.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.

Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

So DVOA is imperfect.

If you can't appreciate a line of Osi, Strahan, Tuck, and JPP with Kiwi able to sub....

I can't think of an NFL OL in today's game that could stop them.

It was very unique that a team could have so many talented DEs and that they could play inside.

I'm sure by imperfect you don't mean useless.

How do you rank these 2014 Ds? Seattle, Indy, Buffalo, Tampa, Detroit.

I'll let you guess which were the two lower ranking and which three were the three best.

I don't know if 11th > 13th or 16th > 19th (this could be said of every stat/ranking ever)...

It's probably a very safe bet that 13th or 19th in a given year wasn't historically great though, no matter how many players you've heard of.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

Watching those Giant Ds do you think they were 13th and 19th? In 8 playoff games they let up 20 points or less every time. 20 to the packers both years, less to everyone else.

No clearly they weren't that mediocre at the end of the year.

At the same time, it gets overstated a lot how great they were. They were below average relative to most SB winners (better than the '06 Colts and maybe the '12 Ravens, but worse than most). If the highest scoring offense of all time just puts up 24, they [meaning NYG] go down as just another also-ran that had a nice run like the '79 Rams or '94 Chargers. So it's a bit of a circular argument.

Just 24 didn't happen in 8 straight playoff games against those Giant teams. Half of those games being against Brady and Rodgers.

Ya that doesn't combat the circular argument point at all. Most teams that get to the SB don't give up a lot of pts on their way.That's not even right anyway - they played Rodgers once and not in flawless Glendale weather.

You're right Favre another guy mentioned here.

If you don't let up more than 20 in 2 playoff runs you are pretty good. The Patriots great Ds never did that and they only played 3 games each time.

The 2001 Patriots say hello. Ya know, that postseason where Brady engineered a grand total of 2 offensive TD drives.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

Lol. I guess you didnt see the end of his career in KC.

Let's see what happens at the end of Brady's career before playing this card. Most of the greats looked pretty bad at the end, it's called getting old.

 

[Run It Up]

Getting old

 

[Raider Nation]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

How strange, didn't realize that the team that wins or loses a game is based only on what the QB does. I expect you don't see exactly how stupid your statement is.

I don't particularly care what you think of my statement.

 

[Dismattle]

How about taking two different teams (ala BF) In a similar fashion to both MN and NYJ and making some people believe they were SB worthy Teams.

Could he be the X- Factor in Detroit and/or Arizona? I believe he could, but its still something to see to believe..

I do not believe its a very favorable example in Team comparisons (especially AZ) But, the ability to come in raw, and develop a SB Winning attitude is pretty special. (perhaps the Chargers would be a better example?) Im a Rivers Fan, so its kinda hard to believe if True..

Lets not forget Montana was kinda scary special too..

If you ever were to believe TB was better than Johnny Unitas, while I guess were all wrong sometimes..

Does anyone have the slightest clue of what the hell this guy is talking about ?

Anyone who opens with Brett Farve loses credibility instantly.

Now if you already believe another QB is better than Unitas (my apologies) My grandfather (who taught me how to enjoy Football) explained to me that Unitas was the best ever. Too add some credibility, I will let ya know he was a Bears fan (local team)

Basically were discussing second best QB (imho)

First, we probably need to entertain some actual viewpoints..

IS the QB position to be solely based on pocket-passing ability? Or should we include ability to scramble if not Run the Ball... In other words, base the better QB on "passing only" or most well rounded player?

I will start with Farve... It is tough to not at least consider the idea that Farve is one of the best.. One of the most important things to consider, is that you never could really count his Team out, and or not playing to Win the game. I could go on about his Coach's or lack there of, but GB was not the Champion Dynasty Team for years because of other positions on the Field. QB was locked and loaded!

I realize that some less informed did not watch near as many games played Or People may get stuck on some bad play during a nationally played Monday night game. But the facts are the Facts! Check the records! YES, he has a record for picks that I insist will never be Broken.. But, for example are you that hung up on the great RB's who FUMBLED too?

Finally, I believe Farve willed himself to complete his objective.. I wouldn't confuse his running w/ Cam, but I think he tried his all out best every play, and whatever that entailed.

Personally Im not Montana's biggest Fan.. I did respect his Team, and his Coachs! But I would get irritated when he Won..

fwiw When Joe left SF, I don't believe too many people believed KC had a chance at the SB.

So, Id like to see how Tom does w/ a different gig.. New Coach / New Ideas / New Players Can he throw that Team on his back and yell "Hang ON" I doubt it, but until that day, theres always the chance..

 

[thatguy]

Every year lately I am annoyed he doesn't get the preseason reps and seems to start out the season weak and then it's like the light goes on in week 4-5 or so and he's great. I feel like if they pushed him like the others in camp, he'd start off the season far better. Maybe this keeps him healthy? All in all, it works so I suppose don't change it.

Be glad about this. As a Denver fan I'd gladly take that. The Broncos, and Peyton in particular, have peaked way too early the past two seasons, and it's difficult if not impossible to play at a high level for a full NFL regular season and post-season.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Every year lately I am annoyed he doesn't get the preseason reps and seems to start out the season weak and then it's like the light goes on in week 4-5 or so and he's great. I feel like if they pushed him like the others in camp, he'd start off the season far better. Maybe this keeps him healthy? All in all, it works so I suppose don't change it.

I think that's a bit of a specious observation.

a few years ago i think he put, like, 500 yds on miami in week 1, and the last couple years his receiving corps has turned over pretty regularly.

are we basically supposed to lay a game like kc on brady?

I think the whole team has traditionally played better as the year went on, but that's probably how it should be, shouldn't it?

don't all those practices and live game reps mean anything?

 

[thatguy]

Every year lately I am annoyed he doesn't get the preseason reps and seems to start out the season weak and then it's like the light goes on in week 4-5 or so and he's great. I feel like if they pushed him like the others in camp, he'd start off the season far better. Maybe this keeps him healthy? All in all, it works so I suppose don't change it.

I think the whole team has traditionally played better as the year went on, but that's probably how it should be, shouldn't it?

Absolutely. The best coaches know how to get their teams to peak at the right time. I think that was the problem in the 18-1 year. It is incredibly hard if not impossible to perform at an elite level for that long.

 

[thatguy]

It's also what made that season so impressive, even without the Super Bowl.

 

[Hooper31]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

Babe Ruth? Its not rocket science to compare players from past eras to players of today. You only have to know some basic statistics like z scores. How did a player in an era compare to the mean of their era in terms of standard deviations above or below the mean?

Ruth is an extreme outier. He was near 6 sigma above the mean for his era for home runs hit.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

Babe Ruth? Its not rocket science to compare players from past eras to players of today. You only have to know some basic statistics like z scores. How did a player in an era compare to the mean of their era in terms of standard deviations above or below the mean?

Ruth is an extreme outier. He was near 6 sigma above the mean for his era for home runs hit.

great -- if I'm 6 sigma above the mean for my local softball league it means I'm better than babe ruth!

 

[thatguy]

So who should be considered more of a genius? The people that defined and built the first cars and plans or the ones today that make vehicles 10,000 times more sophisticated?

There is not righ answer for some of his stuff. Babe Ruth may have hit 700 home runs, but he didn't face guys throwing 100 mph cheese with splits and all types of slop to go with it. In his condition, he might not even make it to the majors in his era.

Babe Ruth? Its not rocket science to compare players from past eras to players of today. You only have to know some basic statistics like z scores. How did a player in an era compare to the mean of their era in terms of standard deviations above or below the mean? Ruth is an extreme outier. He was near 6 sigma above the mean for his era for home runs hit.

While that is a helpful exercise, and probably the best we have to go with when comparing across eras, it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Babe Ruth was 6 sigma better than the average HR hitter in his era thus he is 6 sigma better than today's average HR hitter is true only if we assume today's average player is comparable to an average player from Ruth's era. For many reasons, I don't think that assumption holds up to any sort of reasonable scrutiny.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

apparently it actually was rocket science

 

[Hooper31]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

 

[Hooper31]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

 

[sn0mm1s]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

Just look at team photos - it is pretty obvious the distributions aren't similar.

 

[thatguy]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

Nope. And honestly I'm fairly certain your knowledge of prob and stat trumps mine. It just seems intuitive that the two data sets would have different (perhaps significantly so) distributions. But I do agree with you this is probably close to the best we can do--I don't have a better method. Just wanted to point out that even the best method we have is flawed. Wasn't trolling by any means just in case you took it that way.

 

[Hooper31]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

Nope. And honestly I'm fairly certain your knowledge of prob and stat trumps mine. It just seems intuitive that the two data sets would have different (perhaps significantly so) distributions. But I do agree with you this is probably close to the best we can do--I don't have a better method. Just wanted to point out that even the best method we have is flawed. Wasn't trolling by any means just in case you took it that way.

Not at all. Just a subject that interests me. Was hoping that you had. Perhaps a project for a student of mine that's into sports.

 

[thatguy]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

Just look at team photos - it is pretty obvious the distributions aren't similar.

Yeah I mean the obvious difference is the inclusion of black and international players, which greatly impacts the mean talent level. I would argue several other factors do so as well. The diluted talent pool that Ruth played with greatly inflates his perceived greatness relative to today's players, IMO. Again this isn't something I can quantify, but it seems like a logical assumption.

 

[thatguy]

it is still flawed as it is based on the premise that the two groups have similar distributions.

Have you looked at the distributions?

Nope. And honestly I'm fairly certain your knowledge of prob and stat trumps mine. It just seems intuitive that the two data sets would have different (perhaps significantly so) distributions. But I do agree with you this is probably close to the best we can do--I don't have a better method. Just wanted to point out that even the best method we have is flawed. Wasn't trolling by any means just in case you took it that way.

Not at all. Just a subject that interests me. Was hoping that you had. Perhaps a project for a student of mine that's into sports.

yeah last night when I was thinking about this I was really kind of fascinated by it. It's a very tricky problem but would love to see if you do any work on it or have any students do some work on it

 

[MattFancy]

There's nothing he can do to be the best QB of all time as long as Montana has a "0" in his Super Bowl loss column.

So where do you put 2-0 Eli?

 

[thatguy]

at first I thought perhaps we could look at negative versus positive skew but that doesn't really help. it's not nearly that simple

 

[thatguy]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

I think that's close to what we'd expect for Ruth's era's distribution.

 

[sn0mm1s]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBh2ZbEo0I

 

[Hooper31]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBh2ZbEo0I

How would you propose we compare players across eras if not by how they performed relative to their contemporaries?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBh2ZbEo0I

How would you propose we compare players across eras if not by how they performed relative to their contemporaries?

did you ever think maybe you can't?

or, at the very least, you need to define what it is you're comparing?

you can sit around the old guy bar all afternoon arguing about who was a swell guy, but it will never produce any result.

 

[thatguy]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

When all else fails, I prefer the eyeball test.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

When all else fails, I prefer the eyeball test.

fair enough -- how did babe ruth look on the field?

 

[sn0mm1s]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBh2ZbEo0I

How would you propose we compare players across eras if not by how they performed relative to their contemporaries?

I generally don't. As I mentioned (I think in this thread) I generally don't consider the past greats for GOAT unless the game they were playing was modern. And by modern I mean:

1) Popular (attracting the top athletes - a large pool to draw from)

2) Is professional (meaning there is no need to work at your restaurant or car dealership after practice or during the offseason)

3) Fully integrated.

4) Knowledge of training/treatment (even PEDs) is widespread.

In regards to the NFL, this transition was in the 1970s. I won't rank any "great" player who played the majority of their career before 1975 (somewhat arbitrary but you have to pick some point) over a modern day "great" player unless their stats and performance is so off the charts he looks like a god amongst men.

 

[thatguy]

When all else fails, I prefer the eyeball test.

fair enough -- how did babe ruth look on the field?

No effing clue. Lol

 

[thatguy]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

You could also add "not at war" to the list. I'm thinking baseball here specifically. But yeah those are the primary "other" factors I was referring to in my last reply to you.

 

[thatguy]

You could still get closer to the "truth" using z-scores if you came up with a way to quantify how many standard deviations today's average player has on the average player of yesteryear. It would be far from perfect for the obvious reason that such a thing is impossible to quantify. Also the distribution problem would not be solved but merely accounted for using a cheap fix and thus it wouldn't be as accurate in comparing players in the middle of the pack but might do a fair job with the outliers, which are really the ones were interested in any way. Alas, it would be better than comparing the eras blindly.

 

[Bri]

apparently it actually was rocket science

You brought up Babe Ruth and came up with a reason to discount his stats. Yes, he didn't face modern pitchers, but neither did any other batters from his era. Facing the same pitching he put up incredible stats. If you want to compare players from across eras using standardized scores (z, or t for that matter) is the most appropriate way to do this. I don't know what the distribution looks like. I would expect heavily skewed right. Perhaps something odd like a Poisson. I don't know. The more I think about it, the proper comparison would be HRs/@bat, not HRs.

z-scores really aren't that great in this situation because the talent pool is so different. Someone like Ruth, in the modern game, would be a HOFer no doubt because it was pretty obvious that he was head and shoulders better than anyone else. Would he be a better hitter than Bonds? Or Pujols? That isn't nearly as certain - but any sort of z-scores say it isn't really up for debate.

Stephen Jay Gould gives a good explanation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBh2ZbEo0I

Ridiculous

He was a famous drunk and still dominated a sport so much so that we are here discussing his play from more than 100 years ago

 

[Bri]

Just curious - to all the Montana fans... What exactly would Brady have to do from here on out to surpass Montana? 5 Championships? 6? 7? For every Super Bowl loss does he need to have 2 wins? Genuinely curious how this works.

Just speaking for me, but I don't think Brady can surpass Montana in my eyes. I am, however, willing to concede that Brady has surpassed Elway as number two on my list regardless of the outcome of the SB.*ETA* The NYG SB loss is a HUGE black mark on his resume to me. Probably the biggest reason I cannot rank him number one.

In both NYG Superbowls he led his team down the field to a go ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter. Seems a little harsh, no?

And in both games their offense scored fewer than 20pts vs a Giants defense that was 13th and 19th respectively in DVOA.

Which makes 3 of 5 Super Bowls his offense scored < 20.

Yet all you ever hear about is "lucky helmet catch!" "2 plays away from 5-0!" - as if 5-0 with those point totals would be "normal luck".

It's the opposite of harsh.

So DVOA is imperfect.

If you can't appreciate a line of Osi, Strahan, Tuck, and JPP with Kiwi able to sub....

I can't think of an NFL OL in today's game that could stop them.

It was very unique that a team could have so many talented DEs and that they could play inside.

I'm sure by imperfect you don't mean useless.

How do you rank these 2014 Ds? Seattle, Indy, Buffalo, Tampa, Detroit.

I'll let you guess which were the two lower ranking and which three were the three best.

I don't know if 11th > 13th or 16th > 19th (this could be said of every stat/ranking ever)...

It's probably a very safe bet that 13th or 19th in a given year wasn't historically great though, no matter how many players you've heard of.

The way I remember it the Giants didn't play a 4 DE set for much of that season and it was a wrinkle they used more often as the season progressed. I don't recall when it started.

Theoretically a team with a tough interior line and a smash mouth RB could have their way against such a light group.

I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick. A shift? A different style? It worked beautifully and like I said most teams in NFL history could not pull that off-that's a unique set of DEs.

The first year I noticed the zone blitz the Steelers D was awesome in the playoffs. I don't recall yardage and points against, but fooling QBs and giving them fits. It could be similar to that I suppose. DE covering the TE is obvious if you plan for it, but by surprise that proved to be a tricky adjustment for a QB.

If I'm not mistaken, this developing a new wrinkle on D was started by Landry with the Gmen a million years ago.

If you are almost certain you're going to get INTs and hit the QB so often he is dizzy-the yardage stats don't even really matter.

We've all seen Reggie White change games despite not the best D or team defensive stats. Geesh there were games this year that Watt played awesome but not the Texans D and they won and my head went to "credit JJ for that W."

DVOA and any researched stat formula is a useful tool but doesn't mean you shouldn't take in actually watching the games or memories of such. If your rankings could be done from the time the Giants started using the 4 DE set often, I imagine they'd be different