OT: Tom Brady GOAT

[Tenspro2002]

Until this Sunday, the Patriots had more penalties called against them at home this year than penalties called against the visiting team. After Sunday, visitors have had 2 more penalties called against them on the season.

I'd be very curious to know what the net Win Probability Added is for those penalties.

I suspect the Patriots come out well ahead at home or on the road.

 

[upstater]

I'd be very curious to know what the net Win Probability Added is for those penalties.

I suspect the Patriots come out well ahead at home or on the road.

The most penalized teams in the league have more wins than the least penalized.

Some of the least penalized teams will be drafting 1-10.

 

[upstater]

A Brady and Manning comparison as of end of 2014 season.

• Brady in a dome: 67.4%, 8.64 YPA, 6.9 TD%, 2.62% INT, 106.42 rating
• Manning in a dome: 66.16%, 7.8 YPA, 6.1% TD, 2.4% INT, 99.72 rating

Brady versus Manning overall:

• Brady: 63.5% completions, 7.4 YPA, 5.5% TDs, 2.0% INTs, 96.1 rating
• Manning: 65.5% completions, 7.7 YPA, 5.9% TDs, 2.6% INTs, 97.7 rating

Brady versus Manning % of games outdoors:

• Brady: 92% of his games outdoors (185 of 202)
• Manning: 49% of his games outdoors (122 of 248)

 

[Travelman6]

Nah. Michael Jordan and Gretzky come to mind as better examples of GOAT. Just to name two.

 

[polycom]

Nah. Michael Jordan and Gretzky come to mind as better examples of GOAT. Just to name two.

How are they better examples?

 

[upstater]

How are they better examples?

Jordan maybe. I still take Jordan over Lebron. But as much as I loved the Oilers, I'd take Lemieux over Gretzky (never saw Orr play).

 

[jibsey]

Who was more dominant in their sport Brady or Babe Ruth? Not even close, the Babe.

 

[Adios]

Who was more dominant in their sport Brady or Babe Ruth? Not even close, the Babe.

If Brady wins one (or two) more, he'll be the Babe Ruth of football.

 

[Travelman6]

If Brady wins one (or two) more, he'll be the Babe Ruth of football.

Minus the gut and rampant partying. But the babe WAS a good player.

 

[upstater]

Minus the gut and rampant partying. But the babe WAS a good player.

The two had something in common too. Not only did they start their careers in Boston, but... they played with dead balls!

 

[Scoe]

Minus the gut and rampant partying. But the babe WAS a good player.

Exactly that right there is why no one can ever top the Babe, he was fat, drunk and still kicked ass

 

[Towney007]

Statistically, no one's come as close to match dominance relative to the field than Ruth did in his era. He was literally - in his time, worth almost twice as much WAR as Rogers Hornsby, who himself was a great deal better than the pack. I don't think - personally - we'll ever see someone as dominant in a professional sport as he was.

From 1919-1930 - ostensibly Ruth's greatest years, here's your top-5 in WAR

Ruth - 127.9
Hornsby - 103.7
Heilmann - 62.4
Frisch - 62.2
Speaker - 54.9
Gehrig - 49.7

I know I said 5 but listed 6. Gehrig was 6th just for the fun of it and to give perspective. That's.... that's terrifying. Imagine Lebron being a full 3 seasons of peak performance better than peak Kobe in his hayday and why even try... and i mean - that's 11 seasons.

The only thing close in the modern era have been Gretzky and Barry Bonds. And Ruth was harder to pitch to than Bonds in his prime - and what's scary is that it was totally worthless to even try to get Bonds out most of the time. Imagine that except worse. And Gretzky's stretch of almost lap the field dominance was far, far more brief. Once he was traded to Los Angeles, he was ostensibly a top 3 player for a while longer, but never came close to those 200+ points per season absurdity of the mid 80s.

Brady vs. Manning is the new Montana vs. Marino. Except i'd argue Brady was ostensiblly better than Montana and Peyton probably wasn't quite as good as Marino, but that's me more guessing. I'd wager Brady obviously benefitted from having a better front office, coaching and a cast that might not have necessarily been better, but was certainly better constructed and better constructed for him. Still, I find that 'Brady had better weapons or was a system guy' argument to be kind of silly. You're on the team you're on. Ruth also had Gehrig in his lineup and half an all star team. He certainly had more help than Bonds and nearly every other great hitter in baseball by a lot, but no one makes that argument that he wasn't great. He just was. And so is Brady. And Brady's weapons have been so changed out, flipped and turned over throughout the years, it's just hard to make that argument that he just had good support. He certainly has - but he's also changed a lot as a QB over the years.

 

[Towney007]

Also - for the argument that the Patriots are favored by the officials, I mean... there's almost nothing to really support that statistically. And when one team is more disciplined than the other, my advise to other teams would be to just stop making so many dumb penalties.

 

[traitor71]

Nah. Michael Jordan and Gretzky come to mind as better examples of GOAT. Just to name two.

I think Kareem is a guy who gets left out of the discussion when talking about the all time greats. I'm not sure how, but he seems to be overlooked. He certainly checks off all the boxes required for that title.

 

[upstater]

The only thing close in the modern era have been Gretzky and Barry Bonds.

Lemieux started playing in 1984, so he was almost concurrent with Gretzky. The thing I point to with Gretzky is that he had an amazing amount of talent with him, guys that had success in the league on other teams, especially Coffey and Messier. Sure Kurri and Anderson were probably Gretzky creations, but there were other guys who were great on their own. Even Tikkanen did well without him. The whole show was backstopped with Fuhr and Andy Moog. Lemieux did not have as good a supporting cast until Jagr showed up in the 1990s. He had like John Cullen, and we saw how that turned out for the Whalers.