Greatest sports records

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Greatest sports records

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:32 pm

I don't know how anyone can rank Gretzky further than 2nd best all-time.

same thing with Jordan in the NBA.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Greatest sports records

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:51 pm

No player in NHL history had their impact on the game more inflated by their teammates than Gretzky. He spent the first ten years of his career basically playing for the Campbell Conference all-star team, and that has to have a reckoning on how his records and legacy are evaluated. All the more so when you consider the relative lack of achievement he had after leaving Edmonton. Was never a minus player in Edmonton (had one year where he was plus +98, which is just obnoxious), but after leaving he had more minus years than plus. (In a vacuum, +/- is a dubious stat; but career numbers and trends paint a picture.)

Everyone always said "Wayne makes other players better". To which I would almost argue the opposite was the case. Put a ham sandwich between Kurri and Anderson and I'm reasonably sure it might pot a goal or two.

I'm not arguing Gretzky was a no-talent hack. I'm arguing his stats benefited enormously and disproportionately from playing with other stratospheric players. Put Bob Errey on his wing and I don't think he's potting 85 goals and 114 assists.

Craig
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:09 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby Craig » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:56 pm

April fools!!!!

mikey
Posts: 42244
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Greatest sports records

Postby mikey » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:10 pm

Sawchuck's win record stood for 30 years, and nearly a quarter of those wins were shutouts. Those are incredible numbers.

THN, for what it's worth, also has Sawchuck ranked as the best goalie in NHL history, which I found interesting.
THN had a lot of really funny stuff in that list.

Sawchuk's career started as soon as the league went to 70 games (previously 48-60 games), so he had a natural and circumstantial advantage in accumulating wins. Not that he didn't do so in fine fashion. I have him as about #5 on my goalie list. And immediately following his career, platoon goaltending began. Including the requirement of a backup goalie in 1965. So his career hit that perfect place where he could play a ton of games more than anyone else in history behind him or for the foreseeable future in front of him.

Also, while a record is a record (which is apparently what's weighing heavily in this rating), Sawchuk didn't own the record really, like Gretzky owns his. Sawchuk had all of ten more wins than Jacques Plante (Plante finished in the WHA and won 15 more games in his last season) and it took Sawchuk almost 150 more games to accomplish it...

I'm honestly not sure what the case could be for Sawchuk over Plante, heck, I'm not sure that Glenn Hall isn't better than Sawchuk. But they're all fairly close. Close enough that none of them ought to puncture that iron four that belong far and away ahead of the rest of the pack...

Having previously worked on a well-researched list before I came away with 1. Hasek 2. Roy 3. Brodeur 4. Hall 5. Plante 6. Sawchuk 7. Dryden

And then there's a pretty decent drop-off...

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:19 pm

it's kind of a shame that brodeur played so far past his peak. i don't remember him being great, but i do remember thinking he was great... if that makes sense

mikey
Posts: 42244
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Greatest sports records

Postby mikey » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:07 pm

Indeed, legacy is tough. Especially when you're living through the end of a career and a player looks mortal...Brodeur's last couple seasons, Roy's 2002 WCF and 2003 WCQF, Hasek's 2008 WCQF, etc. Heck, even Gretzky's last season, as good as it was, it wasn't Gretzky...

That's why I always maintain that when discussing these type of things, it's always best to try to take yourself out of the moment and examine the context...otherwise, you hitch your wagon to Andrew Hammond or Cam Talbot being the best goalie of all-time and look like a donkey...

Being in the moment, living the day by day of a player's career can create a lot of bias when evaluating his place in history...in no small coincidence, I believe all professional sports leagues require some time of waiting period after a career is over before discussing induction...

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:38 pm

yeah...that.

it's baseball. the best player ever could go 0-5 with 5 strikeouts in game 7 of the world series, and it wouldn't mean anything about his ability. you need to be timely, and you can't control it.
Yes, there are luck aspects, but 0-5 with 5 k's isn't bad luck. You were either bad or faced great pitching. Going 0-5 and hitting it hard right at someone 5 times is bad luck. But if you consistently hit the ball hard, the luck evens out.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:43 pm

Obviously you need an extraordinary amount of talent to be able to get a hit in 56 straight games, but to say talent is the only thing you need to do it is very wrong. There was certainly a large amount of luck involved in the 56 game streak.
How much luck? How many lucky hits did he get? How many of those hits were hard hit balls? It's possible someone has researched this. There is a luck aspect, but I doubt we can quantify it because of lack of tape.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:50 pm

Yeah, for crying out loud Joe is one of the best of all time. But there HAS to be some amount of luck involved to manage that streak.
This pretty much nails it for me. The fact that he isn't the best of all time, but holds this record tells me there is definitely some luck involved. That doesn't diminish the greatness of the record.
He may not be the best, but he's top 10. And most ahead of him are only ahead of him because they got for more power, a different skill set.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:52 pm

yeah...that.

it's baseball. the best player ever could go 0-5 with 5 strikeouts in game 7 of the world series, and it wouldn't mean anything about his ability. you need to be timely, and you can't control it.
Yes, there are luck aspects, but 0-5 with 5 k's isn't bad luck. You were either bad or faced great pitching. Going 0-5 and hitting it hard right at someone 5 times is bad luck. But if you consistently hit the ball hard, the luck evens out.
i'm not sure this has much to do with the discussion at hand. can you link this to the dimaggio thing a little more clearly?

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:54 pm

Obviously you need an extraordinary amount of talent to be able to get a hit in 56 straight games, but to say talent is the only thing you need to do it is very wrong. There was certainly a large amount of luck involved in the 56 game streak.
How much luck? How many lucky hits did he get? How many of those hits were hard hit balls? It's possible someone has researched this. There is a luck aspect, but I doubt we can quantify it because of lack of tape.
his individual hits didn't have to be lucky for it to be a lucky streak. every one of them could have been 500 foot home runs. that's not the point.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:58 pm

Obviously you need an extraordinary amount of talent to be able to get a hit in 56 straight games, but to say talent is the only thing you need to do it is very wrong. There was certainly a large amount of luck involved in the 56 game streak.
How much luck? How many lucky hits did he get? How many of those hits were hard hit balls? It's possible someone has researched this. There is a luck aspect, but I doubt we can quantify it because of lack of tape.
his individual hits didn't have to be lucky for it to be a lucky streak. every one of them could have been 500 foot home runs. that's not the point.
If each hit was a hard hit ball, then luck plays very little part. Not not part, just a smaller part.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:59 pm

yeah...that.

it's baseball. the best player ever could go 0-5 with 5 strikeouts in game 7 of the world series, and it wouldn't mean anything about his ability. you need to be timely, and you can't control it.
Yes, there are luck aspects, but 0-5 with 5 k's isn't bad luck. You were either bad or faced great pitching. Going 0-5 and hitting it hard right at someone 5 times is bad luck. But if you consistently hit the ball hard, the luck evens out.
i'm not sure this has much to do with the discussion at hand. can you link this to the dimaggio thing a little more clearly?
Just responding to what you posted about luck and baseball in general.

Craig
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:09 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby Craig » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:03 pm

The streak showed he hit the ball consistently and didnt face bad luck.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:11 pm

The streak showed he hit the ball consistently and didnt face bad luck.
he had exceptional luck, in addition to not having bad luck

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29189
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Greatest sports records

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:13 pm

legitimate question: have you people saying he had incredible luck ever play baseball?

count2infinity
Posts: 35612
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Greatest sports records

Postby count2infinity » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:18 pm

yes... what difference does that make? I am not a fantastic (never really tried) bowler, but I know there's a little bit of luck involved with bowling a 300. Having the skills to do something is one thing, but being able to go on the run that he went on, which has never and likely will never be done again... there's a good bit of luck involved. I don't understand what's so hard to understand that he had a bit of luck to do what he did. For me that doesn't dismiss his record in any way. It seems like for shmenguin it does a bit, but so be it.

willeyeam
Posts: 39562
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Greatest sports records

Postby willeyeam » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:18 pm

I guess my point is this: please show me how much luck he had. Like, was his BABIP extraordinarily high or something? This is kind of a pointless argument without actually going into detail. Although some might argue this is pretty pointless anyway lol

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Greatest sports records

Postby MWB » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:18 pm

Any steak record involves luck. It's the nature of such a record. So I agree with that. But saying a baseball streak record had to involve more luck than another type of streak record is inaccurate, imo.

count2infinity
Posts: 35612
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Greatest sports records

Postby count2infinity » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:18 pm

I guess my point is this: please show me how much luck he had. Like, was his BABIP extraordinarily high or something? This is kind of a pointless argument without actually going into detail. Although some might argue this is pretty pointless anyway lol
Show me that he had no luck at all and it was all pure skill.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:20 pm

Obviously you need an extraordinary amount of talent to be able to get a hit in 56 straight games, but to say talent is the only thing you need to do it is very wrong. There was certainly a large amount of luck involved in the 56 game streak.
How much luck? How many lucky hits did he get? How many of those hits were hard hit balls? It's possible someone has researched this. There is a luck aspect, but I doubt we can quantify it because of lack of tape.
his individual hits didn't have to be lucky for it to be a lucky streak. every one of them could have been 500 foot home runs. that's not the point.
If each hit was a hard hit ball, then luck plays very little part. Not not part, just a smaller part.
you're describing a sport that doesn't exist.

dimaggio was a .357 hitter that year. and .352 the prior year. and .305 the following year. stringing together 56 games, given his batting average, was a statistical bolt of lightning (see what columbia posted a couple pages back). he could play a thousand careers and never do that again.

willeyeam
Posts: 39562
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Greatest sports records

Postby willeyeam » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:20 pm

I guess my point is this: please show me how much luck he had. Like, was his BABIP extraordinarily high or something? This is kind of a pointless argument without actually going into detail. Although some might argue this is pretty pointless anyway lol
Show me that he had no luck at all and it was all pure skill.
Lol I already said there is always some luck, in all of these feats. It just seems like he's discounting the whole thing saying it was mostly luck. Correct me if I'm wrong

willeyeam
Posts: 39562
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Greatest sports records

Postby willeyeam » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:21 pm

Any steak record involves luck. It's the nature of such a record. So I agree with that. But saying a baseball streak record had to involve more luck than another type of streak record is inaccurate, imo.
This is what I am trying to say. Thank you.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:23 pm

Any steak record involves luck. It's the nature of such a record. So I agree with that. But saying a baseball streak record had to involve more luck than another type of streak record is inaccurate, imo.
This is what I am trying to say. Thank you.
the idea that everything is equally lucky is the point here? does that really sound right to you?
Last edited by shmenguin on Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Greatest sports records

Postby shmenguin » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:24 pm

I guess my point is this: please show me how much luck he had. Like, was his BABIP extraordinarily high or something? This is kind of a pointless argument without actually going into detail. Although some might argue this is pretty pointless anyway lol
Show me that he had no luck at all and it was all pure skill.
Lol I already said there is always some luck, in all of these feats. It just seems like he's discounting the whole thing saying it was mostly luck. Correct me if I'm wrong
i don't know if it's mostly luck. i know that it's significantly more luck than the other achievements on the table. that's all i'm saying.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests