Top 100 Athletes of the 20th Century

[ginscpy]

It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.

My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.

I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.

Alcindor's UCLA freshman team would have beaten the NCAA champ Texas Western Miners - probably easily.

The stuff about his defense in Airplane!!! good natured ribbing.

Had sharp elbows.

 

[Montrovant]

I've always been a fan of Otto Graham. Best QB of the 40s-50s. No question he had a Joe Montana like drive to win no matter where he was.

Football was a different game back then and QB was a different position. I think Paul Brown invented the pocket passing around Graham. Graham won four championships in the AAFC and three in the NFL. Is that better than Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana winning four in a much tougher playoff structure?

Of course it's all subjective, but I think that, when you take into account the fact that his 7 wins were in 10 seasons, and that he was in the championship game in the other 3 seasons, yes, it's better.

But as you said, and I agree with, it's damn hard to compare the different eras. Which, of course, makes a list covering 100 years pretty ridiculous. There's plenty of argument to be had about the best athletes of a particular decade, let alone an entire century!

 

[rightwinger]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I definitely believe he would. Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today. There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then. Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.). So eye-hand hasn't changed. Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder. And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs. And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.

I think he would be even better today.

It was a different game when Ruth played

Pitchers were mostly fastball/curveball, today you need three or four pitches. Relievers have more impact and you face a fresh pitcher every few innings. Pitchers are faster than they were thirty years ago, I think they are faster than in the 20s
Defensively, players are better. Faster, better range, better athletes. Also, gloves are much better. They get to balls that they couldn't in Ruths day

 

[Synthaholic]

We are 12 years into the new century.

Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?

If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Albert Puhols
ARod
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Michael Phelps

Jeter
Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
Rafael Nidal

Jeter and Jones? I don't think top 100

If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us

N.L Gold Gloves:

Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves. I think he deserves consideration.

 

[Synthaholic]

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I definitely believe he would. Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today. There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then. Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.). So eye-hand hasn't changed. Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder. And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs. And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.

I think he would be even better today.

It was a different game when Ruth played

Pitchers were mostly fastball/curveball, today you need three or four pitches. Relievers have more impact and you face a fresh pitcher every few innings. Pitchers are faster than they were thirty years ago, I think they are faster than in the 20s
Defensively, players are better. Faster, better range, better athletes. Also, gloves are much better. They get to balls that they couldn't in Ruths day

I think that if you can learn to hit a curve, you can learn to hit a slider or a sinker, too. Ruth had superior eye/hand coordination.

Nolan Ryan threw over 100 mph in the 1970s
Steve Dalkowski threw over 100 mph in the 1960s
Bob Feller threw over 100 mph in the 1940s (and claimed to be clocked at 107 mph)

Unless there was a huge evolutionary jump from the 1920s-1940s, I have to believe that pitchers like Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Vic Aldridge, Grover Alexander all threw pretty hard. The 1920s was also the first decade of the live ball, so there is no dead ball excuse.

As for fielders being better, I agree 100%. And Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby or Tris Speaker would most likely suffer today. But fielders don't stop home runs, or balls banging off the outfield wall.

I just push back against this incorrect stereotype of Ruth being an overweight, out of shape boob who was only successful because he was strong enough to swing a huge, fat-barreled bat.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I definitely believe he would. Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today. There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then. Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.). So eye-hand hasn't changed. Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder. And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs. And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.

I think he would be even better today.

It's quite likely that pre 1919; pitchers threw slower. But that is because the ball was much heavier and homeruns were way down.

However, after that; yea pitchers generally pitched pretty fast like today.

And in fact, many people believe that Bob Feller who played in the 40's and 50's threw faster than anyone ever.

Some people believe that in his prime he could throw as high as 110 to 120 mph. They measured his speed against a motorcycle and estimated it at 104 mph. And allegedly when radar guns came out, he hit 107.9 mph.

Ted Williams also stated, "the fastest and best pitcher I ever saw during my career...He had the best fastball and curve I've ever seen."

How fast did Bob Feller throw

 

[rightwinger]

Jeter
Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
Rafael Nidal

Jeter and Jones? I don't think top 100

If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us

N.L Gold Gloves:

Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves. I think he deserves consideration.

Andruw Jones is not even a Hall of Famer.

You think he was better than Griffey Jr?

 

[Papageorgio]

It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.

My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.

I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.

Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.

I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.

Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.

He had that great college game (think it was a Final Four game) in which he was 21-22. That may still be a record. I don't know how great a shooter he was. He wasn't a great shooter by his C's days; but the injuries may have had something to do with that. He was the best passing center I've ever seen by far though. I know that's why Bird loved playing with him.

 

[Synthaholic]

Jeter and Jones? I don't think top 100

If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us

N.L Gold Gloves:

Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves. I think he deserves consideration.

Andruw Jones is not even a Hall of Famer.

You think he was better than Griffey Jr?

Better player? Hell, no.

Better athlete? Maybe. Maybe Junior needs to be on the list also. Maybe Rickey, too. It's kind of a bullshit list, with golfers, jockeys, and a horse.

But I do believe that George Herman is #1.

 

[Papageorgio]

I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.

Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.

He had that great college game (think it was a Final Four game) in which he was 21-22. That may still be a record. I don't know how great a shooter he was. He wasn't a great shooter by his C's days; but the injuries may have had something to do with that. He was the best passing center I've ever seen by far though. I know that's why Bird loved playing with him.

Did you know the power forward job came down to Maurice Lucas and Moses Malone and Portland traded Malone to Buffalo for a 78 first round draft choice. Who Portland traded with Indiana for the top spot in the draft, that resulted in Mychal Thompson. Wonder how good Portland would have been if they kept Malone.