GOAT (baseball/football) (2 Viewers)

Outbackjack

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
7,052
Reaction score
19,620
Age
53
Offline
If a MLB player owns first place in career.....

1. Home runs
2. RBI
3. Batting average.
4. Most ever 40 HR seasons, most ever 50 HR seasons
5. Won a World Series.

And he is still playing.....

Would he be considered the greatest of all time?


1. HR (TD)
2. RBI (Yards)
3. BA (Comp %)
4. 4000 yard seasons, 5000 yard seasons
5. WS/Super Bowl

I know it’s a different sport, but still.....
 
Last edited:
Babe Ruth had 7 AL pennants and 4 world series wins, he was bigger than life, was a dominant pitcher, and was ahead of his time as a batter. Across the board...the guy was a stud. If it was JUST the stats and one championship, he wouldn't be considered the greatest MLB player ever.
 
Interesting take indeed and I like to speculate on this. It definitely is apples to oranges and one of the main things is baseball doesn't have a clear MVP position like football does. Starting pitchers or the "ace" would be the closest and in the early days, your best pitcher could also be your best hitter a la Babe Ruth.

If you look at the player that has been the closest to this mark you've outlined, Barry Bonds, he was more valuable to the team than any of the pitchers, and the Giants had some good ones. If, say Bonds was as clean and right headed as Brees is, and the steroid era wasn't a thing, I think, without a doubt, most would call him the greatest. Not only was Bonds the greatest home run hitter, but before (and during) his bulk stage, he was a perennial gold glove outfielder and is still the only member of the 500/500 club (500hr, 500 stolen bases).

Like Brees, he has a lot of records, but the speculative steroid use and his personality while playing have him dismissed by most as a legit record holder. Brees on the other-hand, gives no reason to doubt his successes and the records he's broken. On top of that, Brees has won a championship and Bonds never did. So I am right there with you and have been these past 10 years wondering why Brees is left off the conversation almost entirely.

Also, when looking at articles about greatest (insert sport other than football) player, they make a note to look at individual performance over team performance. Exhibit A HERE.
 
6. Has squeaky clean image
7. Tremendous team leader community rep.
 
Bo Jackson for both pre injury
I.m quoting myself because I wrongfully assumed the question asked what player was the best who played both sports at the highest
level. Baseball has to be broken down into pitchers and regular position players. My vote would be Babe Ruth. He would have been a HOF pitcher if he never swung a bat. He was so valuable at the plate,he was eventually moved to a full time outfielder.

My vote for football would be Walter Payton. He threw , caught,and ran for many TD's. He could have played OG if asked. He was
that good of a blocker
 
I.m quoting myself because I wrongfully assumed the question asked what player was the best who played both sports at the highest
level. Baseball has to be broken down into pitchers and regular position players. My vote would be Babe Ruth. He would have been a HOF pitcher if he never swung a bat. He was so valuable at the plate,he was eventually moved to a full time outfielder.

My vote for football would be Walter Payton. He threw , caught,and ran for many TD's. He could have played OG if asked. He was
that good of a blocker

Missed it again.

The post was just basically showing if Brees stats were “translated” to baseball, he would be a runaway landslide best player ever.

Somehow in football he’s not even a top 10 QB according to some polls.

(and I agree on Babe)
 
Just watch the career of Mike Trout. If he continues as he has, he'll be one of the all time greats but nobody cares.
 
Interesting take indeed and I like to speculate on this. It definitely is apples to oranges and one of the main things is baseball doesn't have a clear MVP position like football does. Starting pitchers or the "ace" would be the closest and in the early days, your best pitcher could also be your best hitter a la Babe Ruth.

If you look at the player that has been the closest to this mark you've outlined, Barry Bonds, he was more valuable to the team than any of the pitchers, and the Giants had some good ones. If, say Bonds was as clean and right headed as Brees is, and the steroid era wasn't a thing, I think, without a doubt, most would call him the greatest. Not only was Bonds the greatest home run hitter, but before (and during) his bulk stage, he was a perennial gold glove outfielder and is still the only member of the 500/500 club (500hr, 500 stolen bases).

Like Brees, he has a lot of records, but the speculative steroid use and his personality while playing have him dismissed by most as a legit record holder. Brees on the other-hand, gives no reason to doubt his successes and the records he's broken. On top of that, Brees has won a championship and Bonds never did. So I am right there with you and have been these past 10 years wondering why Brees is left off the conversation almost entirely.

Also, when looking at articles about greatest (insert sport other than football) player, they make a note to look at individual performance over team performance. Exhibit A HERE.
If Ken Griffey Jr could have stayed healthy, he would have been right there with Bonds.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom