1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is the greatest? Which sport is the toughest to judge?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by outofplace, May 12, 2009.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Ha. I couldn't remember how long Mansfield was the starter. Profootballreference.com had it wrong, listing him as a backup for all those years and I didn't feel like guessing.

    I just glanced at the story you linked. Alan Robinson should be ashamed of himself for making it sound like Mahan (the starter in '07) didn't suck. He was terrible.

    Damn. This Steelersjack isn't even my fault! Let's get back on topic.

    Which is tougher for the average fan, spotting quality play by an NFL offensive lineman or by an NHL defenseman?
     
  2. cyclingwriter

    cyclingwriter Active Member

    I'd say offensive lineman. The difference between a great lineman and a good lineman is very tough to tell.
     
  3. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    Back to the topic at hand: The first challenge is to define "greatest."

    I have for years made an argument that Bill Russell is the best basketball player ever. The Celtics started winning when he arrived and didn't win for several years after he retired. The supporting cast changed through the years, but the common thread on the Celtics' championship run was Russell. (And before you write me off as one of those old-timers who thinks nothing great happened after 1970, I was born in '68.)

    For a lot of people, Russell doesn't even make the top 10.

    I'm a big fan of winning championships, which is why I scoff people talking about Barry Bonds being one of the greatest ever despite the fact that Bonds was woeful in the postseason, when it actually mattered.

    Football and hockey are, I think, the ultimate team sports, and so many individual accomplishments in both are highly dependent on the actions of teammates. A quarterback playing behind a weak offensive line is going to have a hard time putting up the numbers needed to be considered among the "greatest ever." Put Gretzky on the Tampa Bay Lightning's first line this year, and he's going to have a lot harder time scoring 200 points. Michael Jordan, for example, was not terribly dependent on his supporting cast.
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Maybe Gretzky wouldn't have ever scored 200 points on a bad team, but he would still have been a great player.

    Mario Lemieux was a great player on some lousy teams before the Penguins finally started to put some talent around him in the late '80s. He made the scrubs they put out there with him better. His production went up as the surrounding cast improved, but you could tell how great he was even with garbage around him.

    Jordan was fantastic with weak supporting casts, but he had help when the Bulls started winning championships. You did say winning is a huge factor in determining greatness, right? I don't see basketball players as being any less reliant on the talent around them than hockey players.
     
  5. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    Good points, especially in re: Lemieux.
     
  6. cyclingwriter

    cyclingwriter Active Member

    This is not a knock, but I've always struggled with the "winning team argument." I'm not saying that it isn't perfectly valid, but I do have some problems. To use an extreme, is Trent Dilfer a better qb than Dan Marino or Fran Tarkenton because he won a Super Bowl than they didn't? Was Ray Bourque any less of a player because his Bruins never won the Cup, but the Avs did when he played there?

    To make it tougher, back in the 1980s a lot of Yankees fans sceamed bloody murder that Pee Wee Reese got in the Hall before Phil Rizzuto. Their basis was that the Yankees beat the Dodgers almost every year.

    Does it count more that a guy plays great on a lousy team...going way back on this one, but Walter Johnson played on some absolutely terrible Senators teams and is put up fantastic numbers. Would he have been better with the consistently better teams?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page