Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="YellwJcket999, post: 2507214, member: 7976"] I disagree with the sentiment that you cant compare greats.The entire purpose of keeping stats and record books is to provide tools for comparative measure that are not subjective. You can only compete against the people/players in your era. Batting average, RBI, ERA, Efficiency, shooting percentage, turnovers etc. All give a basis for comparison. Players can only perform under the situations that are present when they play. We can all say what if this or that. But numbers are what they are. I don't think that T.Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time. His completion percentage, qb rating and superbowl rings say that he is. I don't think the Steph Curry Warriors are better than MJ Bulls, Show time Lakers or LB Celtics. =>B.R.'s 10 rings say otherwise. When KLS passes KML for the all time Uconn 3ptrs, is she Uconn's best shooter? Define best. Without a doubt she will have made the most 3's in Huskie history. I say for this debate we come up with an objective standard, a rubric, metric whatever and evaluate the All time greats. The data is out there. We have excel proficient members. What's the harm? I think no matter the criteria, the cream will rise to the top. [/QUOTE]