Most Dominant NFL Player Ever

[hondo in seattle]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So by dominant you mean statistically prolific in one year?

 

Jerry Rice wouldn't be out of place on a list like that.  Rice's 1990 and 1993.

 

The guy who's often left out of these discussions is one of the ones who most belongs. Don Hutson. 

 

In 1936 he had 34 catches when the #2 was at 20. And 536 yards when the #2 was at 414, #3 at 358, the #4 at 325 and nobody else was above 268. Only four players got above HALF of is total that year, and that was Hutson's 2nd year in the league. Oh, and 8 TDs when the #2 was at 6 and the #3 only had 3 of them!!!!

 

Or look at his 1939 work. 846 yards when the #2 only managed 550 and the #3 only 437.

 

Or his 1941, [war years] when when he managed 738 yards while the 2nd best managed 362, less than half. 58 receptions when the next best managed 29, half. 10 TDs when the #2 managed 6 and the third-best only 4. Same kind of insane dominance for the next few years.

 

One of the all-time most dominant seasons and maybe players as well.

 

 

Good historical knowledge, Thurman#1!  I wouldn't personally choose Hudson as the most dominant ever but he certainly belongs in the conversation.  Twice named NFL MVP, he was by far the best WR of his era and among the very best players of any position.  The stats you cite are impressive.  

[st pete gogolak]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So by dominant you mean statistically prolific in one year?

 

Jerry Rice wouldn't be out of place on a list like that.  Rice's 1990 and 1993.

 

The guy who's often left out of these discussions is one of the ones who most belongs. Don Hutson. 

 

In 1936 he had 34 catches when the #2 was at 20. And 536 yards when the #2 was at 414, #3 at 358, the #4 at 325 and nobody else was above 268. Only four players got above HALF of is total that year, and that was Hutson's 2nd year in the league. Oh, and 8 TDs when the #2 was at 6 and the #3 only had 3 of them!!!!

 

Or look at his 1939 work. 846 yards when the #2 only managed 550 and the #3 only 437.

 

Or his 1941, [war years] when when he managed 738 yards while the 2nd best managed 362, less than half. 58 receptions when the next best managed 29, half. 10 TDs when the #2 managed 6 and the third-best only 4. Same kind of insane dominance for the next few years.

 

One of the all-time most dominant seasons and maybe players as well.

 

You stopped right before getting to the really good stuff.  In 1942, Hutson, in 11 games, had 74 receptions over 1200 yards and 17 TD's. Respectable numbers in 2021.  In 1942, they were ridiculous numbers, dwarfing everyone else in the league, DOUBLING every else's numbers.  

[B-Man]

 

 

Most Dominant NFL Player Ever

 

I assume that you mean besides Jim Brown.

 

 

.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Every other player in the league faced the same ham and eggers

 

 

exactly.  he was an outlier. 

[Awwufelloff]

Barry sanders 

[Royale with Cheese]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Pitchers have always scuffed the balls and doctored them with substances.  But I'm sure you knew that.

 

"Back then", baseball was completely white.   It wouldn't become brown until 1945--10 years after Ruth left the game.  Any suggestion that Ruth played against "the best athletes of his time" is plainly false.

 

 
You keep putting words in my mouth.  I did not say that.  I simply said give Ruth the advanced training of today’s athletes and who knows.  

 

Dude, the ball becomes brown once its used over and over again.  Let me ask you something.  Why do they use over 100 balls a game today?  Can you tell me why?

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 
You keep putting words in my mouth.  I did not say that.  I simply said give Ruth the advanced training of today’s athletes and who knows.  

 

Dude, the ball becomes brown once its used over and over again.  Let me ask you something.  Why do they use over 100 balls a game today?  Can you tell me why?

 

 

 

Dude;  the "Dead Ball Era" (dirty brown scuffed balls falling apart after being used for an entire game, which made it throw erratically, hard to see and hit) ended ion 1920 (prior to this, Ruth hit a max of 29 HR in a season), after a guy got killed by a pitch.

 

Thus began the Live Ball Era:

 

"Rather than change the construction of the balls, which remained consistent between the transition from the "dead-" to "live-ball eras",[1] rule changes were instituted around how the balls were treated. Starting in 1920, balls were replaced at the first sign of wear, resulting in a ball that was much brighter and easier for a hitter to see. Additionally, pitchers were no longer allowed to deface, scuff, or apply foreign substances to the ball.

 

The impact of the rule changes was felt almost immediately. In 1920, the game changed from typically low-scoring to high-scoring games, with a newfound reliance on the home run. That year, Babe Ruth set a record for slugging percentage and hit 54 home runs (smashing his old record of 29). Aiding in Ruth's success was the fact that he held the bat lower and swung with an uppercut, essentially trying to hit home runs. "

 

 

Soooo...... the very year the new ball rules (fresh and white!!), Babe Ruth gives from 29 to 54 HR!  

 

[Mikie2times]

On 6/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, H2o said:

I almost think you have to go one for offense and one for defense.

 

Offense is Barry Sanders, hands down, in my book. His lowest yardage total for his career was 1,115 yards and he did that in 11 games that season, 1993. He was the entire Detroit Lions offense, people knew he was going to get the ball 20+ times a game, and they still couldn't stop him. He singlehandedly carried them to the Playoffs 5 times pretty much. He probably could have played at a high level another 4 years at least and would still be the all time leading rusher more than likely if he had done so. 

 

Defense, though this may hurt some feelings, to me is Reggie White. As a DE he eclipsed 100 tackles 4 times, with the highest total being 133 (those are LB #'s), and was 2 tackles away one season from a 5th. He could destroy your QB, blow up your running game, and would maul any OL'man you put in front of him. He was a true game wrecker, especially in his prime. 

 

 

At some point longevity of dominance has to play a role in this, and while I love Barry, Sayers, even Calvin Johnson for that matter. They can't be in this conversation. they just didn't play long enough. I don't see how anybody outside of a Bills board can say anything but Tom Brady. He owns or will own every relevant statistics in NFL history at it's most important position. It's not just him, it's him in a landslide. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by KzooMike

[BuffBillsForLife]

Brady on O and Lawrence Taylor on D

[Ethan in Cleveland]

The gap between Jerry Rice and every other WR in the history of the NFL is greater than every other position.

 

Yes I do think Brady is best QB of all time but he doesn't even have all the all-time records. You can make legit arguments for Marino, Elway, Rodgers, Brees, and Manning in the best QB category.  Lastly Brady is not in my top 2 NFL players of all time - that would be Rice and LT.

I think the gap between Lawrence Taylor and all other linebackers is the second widest margin. 

 

Jim Brown is probably even a better argument than Brady. Though his records have been surpassed he was more physically dominant than any RB in NFL history.

 

 

As for overall athlete, it is Gretzky and there is no further discussion. Male or female there is no other athlete that was more superior in their respective sport across all eras. 

[JerseyBills]

Bruce Smith is up there 

[Buffalo Junction]

13 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So by dominant you mean statistically prolific in one year?

 

Jerry Rice wouldn't be out of place on a list like that.  Rice's 1990 and 1993.

 

The guy who's often left out of these discussions is one of the ones who most belongs. Don Hutson. 

 

In 1936 he had 34 catches when the #2 was at 20. And 536 yards when the #2 was at 414, #3 at 358, the #4 at 325 and nobody else was above 268. Only four players got above HALF of is total that year, and that was Hutson's 2nd year in the league. Oh, and 8 TDs when the #2 was at 6 and the #3 only had 3 of them!!!!

 

Or look at his 1939 work. 846 yards when the #2 only managed 550 and the #3 only 437.

 

Or his 1941, [war years] when when he managed 738 yards while the 2nd best managed 362, less than half. 58 receptions when the next best managed 29, half. 10 TDs when the #2 managed 6 and the third-best only 4. Same kind of insane dominance for the next few years.

 

One of the all-time most dominant seasons and maybe players as well.

 

The problem with using one year for Jerry Rice (particularly in the early 90’s) is Sterling Sharpe. Rice wins handily if longevity is factored in though. 

Agree with Hutson 100% though. He’s sort of a forgotten relic at this point in time.
 

One could also throw Kelley Winslow into the discussion at TE as he changed offensive and defensive schemes forever, but he also had a relatively short career. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Buffalo Junction

[Alphadawg7]

On 6/20/2022 at 9:56 PM, hondo in seattle said:

 

Yeah, I love watching Barry's ankle-breaking moves.  He was an absolute freak of nature.

But, IMHO, he was not in the same category as Jim Brown and OJ.  In Barry's very best season, he finished with 22% more yards than the next-best back.  That's really good - but not as dominant as OJ's or Brown's peak seasons.   It's true that defenses knew he'd get the ball 20+ times a game and they still couldn't stop them - but that was true of OJ and Brown, too.  And Barry played in the 1990s when NFL defenses had evolved to stop the run more than the pass.  

 

Still, I think Barry would be a supernatural force in today's NFL.  

Had Barry Sanders played when OJ and Brown players he would have led the league in rushing by a mile every year.  
 

Barry did all that he did behind an atrocious OL with weak QBs and a bad defense.  He was the Detroit Lions.  Emit Smith wouldn’t have been very good had he played on Lions instead of the Cowboys.  Barry on the Cowboys might have averaged 2000 yards a season for most his career.  
 

So while I get the OJ and Brown love, and they are top 5 all time too, Barry was just better, and really the GOAT.  

[Greg S]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Had Barry Sanders played when OJ and Brown players he would have led the league in rushing by a mile every year.  
 

Barry did all that he did behind an atrocious OL with weak QBs and a bad defense.  He was the Detroit Lions.  Emit Smith wouldn’t have been very good had he played on Lions instead of the Cowboys.  Barry on the Cowboys might have averaged 2000 yards a season for most his career.  
 

So while I get the OJ and Brown love, and they are top 5 all time too, Barry was just better, and really the GOAT.  

 

Same could be said for Walter Payton although he did eventually win a Super Bowl in 85. 

[H2o]

14 hours ago, KzooMike said:

At some point longevity of dominance has to play a role in this, and while I love Barry, Sayers, even Calvin Johnson for that matter. They can't be in this conversation. they just didn't play long enough. I don't see how anybody outside of a Bills board can say anything but Tom Brady. He owns or will own every relevant statistics in NFL history at it's most important position. It's not just him, it's him in a landslide. 

Barry Sanders, though his career only spanned 10 years, won an MVP, made 1st or 2nd Team All-Pro every single season, made the Pro Bowl every season, won OROY his first season, won OPOY twice, and is #3 all time in rushing yards. He averaged 1,527 yards per season on the ground. That's an average of 170 yds more per season than Jim Brown and the level of athletes in the game had completely changed if you compare the two eras. Barry also did pretty much on his own. Those Lions teams were awful outside of him. Tom, though he is likely the GOAT QB, is not the most dominant NFL player. I stick by my choice in Barry Sanders. 

[CA OC Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Had Barry Sanders played when OJ and Brown players he would have led the league in rushing by a mile every year.  
 

Barry did all that he did behind an atrocious OL with weak QBs and a bad defense.  He was the Detroit Lions.  Emit Smith wouldn’t have been very good had he played on Lions instead of the Cowboys.  Barry on the Cowboys might have averaged 2000 yards a season for most his career.  
 

So while I get the OJ and Brown love, and they are top 5 all time too, Barry was just better, and really the GOAT.  

Interesting topic for the offseason.

 

I in no way see Barry Sanders being anywhere near the top for the NFL. For most fun to watch, very possibly, but not as most dominant player of all time. He wasn't even the consensus most dominant RB of his era as discussions always included Emmitt Smith and Thurman Thomas. Thurman was always mentioned as the "best all around back" because of his receiving skills and blocking skills but was rarely called the best rusher. Barry had incredible moves but always led to either huge gains or being stopped for a loss (I still remember him getting the ball at the goal line against the Bills and being tackled for a safety). His moves where great but didn't have the power of Jim Brown (he was before my time but saw many clips of his) and OJ. OJ was incredible to watch. Once he made it past the first tackle he very frequently was gone. 

 

From the OP, the discussion is most dominant player. While impossible to compare eras, as he brought up, you can certainly compare to their peers of the same time. As others have said, football being such a team sport it's really hard to pick but I'd have to say it would be Jim Brown or OJ. For both of them there was no comparison to others at the time and while everyone knew what the play was (I'm assuming this to be true of Brown, it was absolutely true for OJ), they still were incredible.

 

For those saying the baseball was different when Babe was setting records, again when comparing to his contemporaries, he blew everyone else away. Comparing eras is next to impossible as are "what ifs". Here's a good article from Bleacher Report mentioning him as a dominant slugger, pure hitter, runner, fielder, and pitcher. It also mentions in passing that he was far more dominant in baseball than Wilt, Pele, or Gretzky were in their sports https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1508392-major-league-baseball-the-case-for-babe-ruth-as-the-best-ever 

[hondo in seattle]

I kind of feel about Brady like way I feel about Emmit Smith.  Smith is the all-time rushing leader but there's no way in Hades I'd call him the greatest back ever.  He just hung around a long time.

 

Brady owns all the records but he hung around a long time to get them.   He isn't even inarguably the best QB of his generation.  I've heard people make good arguments for Manning, Brees, and Rogers.   When I watched Brady play, I never thought I was watching a guy who was head and shoulders above his peers.

 

When I watched OJ play, however, it was clear he was playing at higher level than any back in the league.  And everything I've read about Jim Brown says it was the same when he was around.   Domination.  

[4merper4mer]

20 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Dude;  the "Dead Ball Era" (dirty brown scuffed balls falling apart after being used for an entire game, which made it throw erratically, hard to see and hit) ended ion 1920 (prior to this, Ruth hit a max of 29 HR in a season), after a guy got killed by a pitch.

 

Thus began the Live Ball Era:

 

"Rather than change the construction of the balls, which remained consistent between the transition from the "dead-" to "live-ball eras",[1] rule changes were instituted around how the balls were treated. Starting in 1920, balls were replaced at the first sign of wear, resulting in a ball that was much brighter and easier for a hitter to see. Additionally, pitchers were no longer allowed to deface, scuff, or apply foreign substances to the ball.

 

The impact of the rule changes was felt almost immediately. In 1920, the game changed from typically low-scoring to high-scoring games, with a newfound reliance on the home run. That year, Babe Ruth set a record for slugging percentage and hit 54 home runs (smashing his old record of 29). Aiding in Ruth's success was the fact that he held the bat lower and swung with an uppercut, essentially trying to hit home runs. "

 

 

Soooo...... the very year the new ball rules (fresh and white!!), Babe Ruth gives from 29 to 54 HR!  
 

 

 

This is the case you’re making that Ruth was not really all that dominant?  Because 54 home runs needs context due to baseball brightness and uppercut swings?

 

George Sisler finished 2nd in the HR standings in 1920.  He hit 19.  Adding Sisler’s total to the totals of the 3rd and 4th place finishers results in a sum of 51.  I believe that even back in 1920, 54 was a higher number than 51.  Sisler is still seen on all time top 100 lists 102 years later.

 

In 1919 Ruth in fact hit 29.  2nd place was 12.  Almost 2.5 times his nearest competitor one year and just over 2.5 the next.  This = not dominant?

 

The live ball era started in 1920 it is true.  Before anyone else hit 50, Hack Wilson in 1930, Ruth had done it four times.

 

To this day only three players have done this 4 times.  The other two are McGwire and Sosa.  I can’t remember anything notable about those two and their HR prowess…..oh wait, yes I can.

 

Your contention that Ruth only faced substandard opponents and seeming need for him to invent a time machine to prove himself because he was fat is a crutch you can use to convince yourself that you have an argument, but it just doesn’t hold up.

[Mr. WEO]

34 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

This is the case you’re making that Ruth was not really all that dominant?  Because 54 home runs needs context due to baseball brightness and uppercut swings?

 

George Sisler finished 2nd in the HR standings in 1920.  He hit 19.  Adding Sisler’s total to the totals of the 3rd and 4th place finishers results in a sum of 51.  I believe that even back in 1920, 54 was a higher number than 51.  Sisler is still seen on all time top 100 lists 102 years later.

 

In 1919 Ruth in fact hit 29.  2nd place was 12.  Almost 2.5 times his nearest competitor one year and just over 2.5 the next.  This = not dominant?

 

The live ball era started in 1920 it is true.  Before anyone else hit 50, Hack Wilson in 1930, Ruth had done it four times.

 

To this day only three players have done this 4 times.  The other two are McGwire and Sosa.  I can’t remember anything notable about those two and their HR prowess…..oh wait, yes I can.

 

Your contention that Ruth only faced substandard opponents and seeming need for him to invent a time machine to prove himself because he was fat is a crutch you can use to convince yourself that you have an argument, but it just doesn’t hold up.

One more time….He dominated the players he faced.  
 

They weren’t the only n or necessarily the best pro baseball players of the era.  Pretty simple.

 

A time machine would likely allow us to see a presteroid Bonds hitting 100 HR a season against 1920s MLB pitchers and Ruth struggling to get 30 vs 1990s-2000s pitchers (for instance). 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I kind of feel about Brady like way I feel about Emmit Smith.  Smith is the all-time rushing leader but there's no way in Hades I'd call him the greatest back ever.  He just hung around a long time.

 

Brady owns all the records but he hung around a long time to get them.   He isn't even inarguably the best QB of his generation.  I've heard people make good arguments for Manning, Brees, and Rogers.   When I watched Brady play, I never thought I was watching a guy who was head and shoulders above his peers.

 

When I watched OJ play, however, it was clear he was playing at higher level than any back in the league.  And everything I've read about Jim Brown says it was the same when he was around.   Domination.  

Brady threw for 5300+ and 43 TD at 45 last season. Rodgers has thrown for over 4500 once in his career.  Plus he is a bit of a choker.  1 SB a million years ago.  Manning too has a rough playoff record with 7 one and dones.  Brady wins games, particularly in the playoffs. 

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Interesting topic for the offseason.

 

I in no way see Barry Sanders being anywhere near the top for the NFL. For most fun to watch, very possibly, but not as most dominant player of all time. He wasn't even the consensus most dominant RB of his era as discussions always included Emmitt Smith and Thurman Thomas. Thurman was always mentioned as the "best all around back" because of his receiving skills and blocking skills but was rarely called the best rusher. Barry had incredible moves but always led to either huge gains or being stopped for a loss (I still remember him getting the ball at the goal line against the Bills and being tackled for a safety). His moves where great but didn't have the power of Jim Brown (he was before my time but saw many clips of his) and OJ. OJ was incredible to watch. Once he made it past the first tackle he very frequently was gone. 

 

From the OP, the discussion is most dominant player. While impossible to compare eras, as he brought up, you can certainly compare to their peers of the same time. As others have said, football being such a team sport it's really hard to pick but I'd have to say it would be Jim Brown or OJ. For both of them there was no comparison to others at the time and while everyone knew what the play was (I'm assuming this to be true of Brown, it was absolutely true for OJ), they still were incredible.

 

For those saying the baseball was different when Babe was setting records, again when comparing to his contemporaries, he blew everyone else away. Comparing eras is next to impossible as are "what ifs". Here's a good article from Bleacher Report mentioning him as a dominant slugger, pure hitter, runner, fielder, and pitcher. It also mentions in passing that he was far more dominant in baseball than Wilt, Pele, or Gretzky were in their sports https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1508392-major-league-baseball-the-case-for-babe-ruth-as-the-best-ever 

Respectfully disagree.  Barry was the consensus best RB in his era and all time.  Emmit was a product of the best OL in football, put him on Det and he rushes for half the yards he did in Dallas.  Put Barry in Dallas, and he probably 6+ 2000 yard seasons in Dallas and sets all time rushing record in under 10 seasons.  
 

And I love Thurman, but Thurman was Barry’s backup in college and while he was one of the greatest RBs in NFL history, certainly too 10, he was not better than Barry whose the GOAT and did all that on bad teams with bad offensive lines.  Barry never sniffed the quality of rosters Emmitt and Thurman were blessed to play on.  
 

And no disrespect to the OP, but his definition of dominance is skewed IMHO.  It’s not about stat separation.  I mean Wilt Chamberlain was most dominant player in NBA history statistically and yet he’s in no one’s top 5 all time and not even in many peoples top 10 all time.  And he was dominated in the wins and championship column by Bill Russell despite having insanely more gaudy stats.  
 

 

[4merper4mer]

43 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

One more time….He dominated the players he faced.  
 

They weren’t the only n or necessarily the best pro baseball players of the era.  Pretty simple.

 

A time machine would likely allow us to see a presteroid Bonds hitting 100 HR a season against 1920s MLB pitchers and Ruth struggling to get 30 vs 1990s-2000s pitchers (for instance). 

 

He faced pitchers and dominated them but all his contemporaries faced the same pitchers……every guy from the 2nd best player at the time to the worst player at the time pale in comparison.  Even so, many of his contemporaries are still considered all time greats to this day.  This is also true of players that came before Ruth or overlapped him.  Are you going to contend that Ty Cobb was a crappy hitter because 1915 was a long time ago or that Luis Arraez, today’s leading hitter would be superior to Cobb?

 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

He faced pitchers and dominated them but all his contemporaries faced the same pitchers……every guy from the 2nd best player at the time to the worst player at the time pale in comparison.  Even so, many of his contemporaries are still considered all time greats to this day.  This is also true of players that came before Ruth or overlapped him.  Are you going to contend that Ty Cobb was a crappy hitter because 1915 was a long time ago or that Luis Arraez, today’s leading hitter would be superior to Cobb?

 

 

In his day, Cobb was an excellent hitter.  But he never had to play against a Luis Arraez....or a Satchel Paige, for that matter.

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

In his day, Cobb was an excellent hitter.  But he never had to play against a Luis Arraez....or a Satchel Paige, for that matter.

Which proves nothing.

[Irv]

No question.  Da'Rick

[hondo in seattle]

On 6/22/2022 at 4:31 PM, Alphadawg7 said:

Respectfully disagree.  Barry was the consensus best RB in his era and all time.  Emmit was a product of the best OL in football, put him on Det and he rushes for half the yards he did in Dallas.  Put Barry in Dallas, and he probably 6+ 2000 yard seasons in Dallas and sets all time rushing record in under 10 seasons.  
 

And I love Thurman, but Thurman was Barry’s backup in college and while he was one of the greatest RBs in NFL history, certainly too 10, he was not better than Barry whose the GOAT and did all that on bad teams with bad offensive lines.  Barry never sniffed the quality of rosters Emmitt and Thurman were blessed to play on.  
 

And no disrespect to the OP, but his definition of dominance is skewed IMHO.  It’s not about stat separation.  I mean Wilt Chamberlain was most dominant player in NBA history statistically and yet he’s in no one’s top 5 all time and not even in many peoples top 10 all time.  And he was dominated in the wins and championship column by Bill Russell despite having insanely more gaudy stats.  
 

 

 

 

My definition of dominance is a bit skewed.  Football is a team sport and a player's stats are effected by his coaches and teammates. 

 

Like many others, I use stats to take something subjective ('most dominant player') and transform it into something partially objective.   If a player is truly dominant, his superior performance should show up on a stat line.

 

Btw, the Sporting News has Wilt as #4 all-time.   Not too long ago, ESPN had him at #5.  SI had him #3.

 

www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-greatest-player-rankings-1-10/1krt9rauze7s21xes8fi657ifo

www.interbasket.net/news/the-full-list-of-espns-100-nbas-greatest-players-of-all-time-nbarank/19115/

www.si.com/nba/2016/02/08/50-greatest-nba-players-all-time#gid=ci02556958e0022580&pid=4--magic-johnson

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Didn’t read the whole thread but most dominant has to be Wilt Chamberlain. Averaged 50 ppg in 80 games one season.

[Royale with Cheese]

On 6/21/2022 at 7:10 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

Dude;  the "Dead Ball Era" (dirty brown scuffed balls falling apart after being used for an entire game, which made it throw erratically, hard to see and hit) ended ion 1920 (prior to this, Ruth hit a max of 29 HR in a season), after a guy got killed by a pitch.

 

Thus began the Live Ball Era:

 

"Rather than change the construction of the balls, which remained consistent between the transition from the "dead-" to "live-ball eras",[1] rule changes were instituted around how the balls were treated. Starting in 1920, balls were replaced at the first sign of wear, resulting in a ball that was much brighter and easier for a hitter to see. Additionally, pitchers were no longer allowed to deface, scuff, or apply foreign substances to the ball.

 

The impact of the rule changes was felt almost immediately. In 1920, the game changed from typically low-scoring to high-scoring games, with a newfound reliance on the home run. That year, Babe Ruth set a record for slugging percentage and hit 54 home runs (smashing his old record of 29). Aiding in Ruth's success was the fact that he held the bat lower and swung with an uppercut, essentially trying to hit home runs. "

 

 

Soooo...... the very year the new ball rules (fresh and white!!), Babe Ruth gives from 29 to 54 HR!  

 

 

So it appears that these new baseballs only helped Babe Ruth...how did the baseball makers do that?  George Sisler was 2nd in the league with 19 homeruns.  

I noticed that you didn't bold the part where Babe Ruth also changed his swing...really wanted to focus on that the white ball.

 

Yes, it was illegal to do anything with a baseball but you also said a few replies up that "pitchers have always doctored balls."  But I guess they didn't/don't now?

 

I don't have a link to it because I was watching this special on TV several years ago about the use of baseballs.  It was either Peter Gammons, Kurjian or Onley...can't remember.  Basically, we use a significant amount more baseballs today.  Baseballs get an average of 2 pitches a game now.   

 

I've had several friends and teammates drafted.  A few have taken BP in MLB stadiums and said the ball just jumps off the bat.  My roommate, who took BP at the Reds stadium said he didn't feel much difference taking BP in college with an aluminum bat.  He hit as many out.

 

So I agree that you take 1920's Babe Ruth and put him in today's game...he would struggle mightily.  My argument is that if you give him today's resources and training, he could be dominant again.  You seem to be very against that notion.

You take any player in any sport from any sport from 100 years ago and put them as is today, they all struggle.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

So it appears that these new baseballs only helped Babe Ruth...how did the baseball makers do that?  George Sisler was 2nd in the league with 19 homeruns.  

I noticed that you didn't bold the part where Babe Ruth also changed his swing...really wanted to focus on that the white ball.

 

Yes, it was illegal to do anything with a baseball but you also said a few replies up that "pitchers have always doctored balls."  But I guess they didn't/don't now?

 

I don't have a link to it because I was watching this special on TV several years ago about the use of baseballs.  It was either Peter Gammons, Kurjian or Onley...can't remember.  Basically, we use a significant amount more baseballs today.  Baseballs get an average of 2 pitches a game now.   

 

I've had several friends and teammates drafted.  A few have taken BP in MLB stadiums and said the ball just jumps off the bat.  My roommate, who took BP at the Reds stadium said he didn't feel much difference taking BP in college with an aluminum bat.  He hit as many out.

 

So I agree that you take 1920's Babe Ruth and put him in today's game...he would struggle mightily.  My argument is that if you give him today's resources and training, he could be dominant again.  You seem to be very against that notion.

You take any player in any sport from any sport from 100 years ago and put them as is today, they all struggle.

 

1. You claimed Ruth put up huge HR numbers when they were playing, essentially, with wadded up used teabags wrapped in rubber bands dipped in cow dung.  The truth is his number became what they were only after the modern ball came into the game.

 

2. that pitchers have always doctored the ball is indisputable.  still do, or try to.  So what?

 

3. changed his swing?  that's not unique.  he changed it to just hit homers, which the modern ball now allowed as not before.

 

4. the number of ball used today is huge per game---a very large % of them are simply rejected by a pitcher without even facing a batter. https://theathletic.com/3325753/2022/05/26/guardians-tigers-baseballs-used/

 

5. I don't see how modern training would make Ruth a different athlete.  He seemed to have no inclination for it--in fact, famously abused his body with booze. 

[CoudyBills]

On 6/20/2022 at 5:24 PM, IronMaidenBills said:

I’m also too young to have seen them, but the talent around them was much weaker than todays game. The talent of today is just far superior. The training, the diets, the genetics. Some of these pro athletes are basically knowingly or unknowingly participating in selective genetics within their bloodlines. Back in the day, sports were much more casual but today it’s a fierce competition from birth to the end of your career. 

Agreed, same in every sport.  Hockey all you hear is Gretzky.

On 6/21/2022 at 12:10 PM, aristocrat said:

Mike Tyson. 

100%.  That dude was downright scary at 18.

[Nextmanup]

18 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Didn’t read the whole thread but most dominant has to be Wilt Chamberlain. Averaged 50 ppg in 80 games one season.

I think we are limiting it to NFL players, though I'm not sure why a thought experiment like that has to have rules.

 

Of course Wilt was a freak and utterly dominant, but then again, his entire team's play was structured around Wilt doing ALL the scoring.  So his numbers are skewed in a sense.  Still incredibly dominant.

 

It would be interesting to see what $$$ he would make if young and in his prime today.

 

Guys like that from bygone eras must kick themselves when they think of the cash they missed out on.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

1. You claimed Ruth put up huge HR numbers when they were playing, essentially, with wadded up used teabags wrapped in rubber bands dipped in cow dung.  The truth is his number became what they were only after the modern ball came into the game.

 

2. that pitchers have always doctored the ball is indisputable.  still do, or try to.  So what?

 

3. changed his swing?  that's not unique.  he changed it to just hit homers, which the modern ball now allowed as not before.

 

4. the number of ball used today is huge per game---a very large % of them are simply rejected by a pitcher without even facing a batter. https://theathletic.com/3325753/2022/05/26/guardians-tigers-baseballs-used/

 

5. I don't see how modern training would make Ruth a different athlete.  He seemed to have no inclination for it--in fact, famously abused his body with booze. 

 

Talk about an exaggeration with your first point...but you generally do that.  Oh and he didn't become a full time position player until a year or two before the "modern baseball" came into play.  Hmmmm...is it impossible to think maybe he got better with more experience.  Nah.

 

You bolded the point of not being able to scuff the ball so with the new rules.  Like you were hinting that players back then had the same perfect balls as they have today.

 

Yeah, the pitcher didn't like the feel of the ball.  He didn't just throw it out like they do today...they just used it.

 

You're right Weo, players today don't abuse alcohol.  Only Babe Ruth.  Mickey Mantle was actually drinking lemonade all the time. 

 

LOL at your last point.  You think if he was alive today he would just reject all modern training or something?  Modern training helps everyone...except Babe Ruth.

Have you ever played a sport in your life?  

 

Oh wait...he definitely had no inclination with training.  

 

http://baseballstrength.org/babe-ruth/

 

Montville says that, although many people think the Babe was an out of shape slob, exercise and fitness played in integral role in his success on the diamond. According to Montville – In the spring of 1925, the Babe had his infamous “Bellyache Heard ‘Round the World” which was a mysterious ailment that hospitalized him at the beginning of the season. Some believe it was a combination of influenza, indigestion, and venereal disease. When he finally was able to return to the field he never really got going and he wound up having the worst season of his career batting just .290 with 25 home runs and 66 RBI. He was 30 years old and at an age when his drinking, eating, and hard living could have ended his career in a few short years. The Babe, however, made a bold decision that likely saved his career. He hired a personal trainer to work with him during the off season. He signed on with Artie McGovern, a charismatic former boxer who owned his own gym and trained other stars of the day like John Philip Sousa. Artie employed all kinds of methods with Ruth from running, boxing, handball, sprints, medicine ball throws, and jumping rope, all with the focus on strengthening the Babe’s core regions. All of the hard work paid off. Ruth was in the best shape of his career prior to the 1927 season and because of it he was able to set his long-standing record of 60 home runs. While working with Artie, he went on an extended run from 1926 to 1932 (from the ages of 31 to 37) that propelled his career numbers to stratospheric heights. During these seasons he averaged an incredible .353 with 49 home runs and 152 RBI at ages when most players were declining. The Babe still enjoyed drinking and overeating, but he dialed it back just enough during this time to keep playing at a high level. The Babe’s second wife, Claire Hodgson, who was a bit of a ball-buster also helped to reign in the Babe’s ravenous appetites. She brow-beat him into eating better and going to sleep earlier when he was at home, which also contributed to his success.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Royale with Cheese

[BigdaddyinOrlando]

NFL. Jim Brown , Jerry Rice close second

MLB. Babe 

Hockey Gretzky

NBA   Wilt

[Billzgobowlin]

NFL Jim Brown

NHL Gretzky

NBA Michael Jordan 

[The Jokeman]

Gale Sayers from a running, receiving and returning was the most complete player that the NFL has seen. 

[bobobonators]

LT changed the position. Dominated

 

Brady on offense. 

[Donuts and Doritos]

Since the thread question was who's the Babe Ruth of Football, consider:

 

Ruth played 22 seasons, Brady has played 20 & is about to play his 21st. In that time:

 

Ruth is 13th batting avg all time (Ty Cobb is 1st) https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/batting_avg_career.shtml

 

Ruth is 3rd in home runs. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_career.shtml

 

Ruth is tied for 7th w/ 5 other players for most Championships (w/ 7). https://sportsweeksportslist.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/major-league-baeball-top-20-players-with-the-most-world-series-rings/

 

Brady is #1 in TDs in a career (53 more than #2 Brees & counting). http://www.espn.com/nfl/history/leaders/_/stat/tdpasses

 

Brady is #1 in yards in a career. http://www.espn.com/nfl/history/leaders/_/stat/passyards

 

Brady is 20th in completion percentage. https://www.footballdb.com/leaders/career-passing-completionpct

 

And Brady is #1 in most championships won (w/ 7). https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/nfl-player-with-most-championships

 

As much as I hate it, kind of hard to argue it's not Brady.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Talk about an exaggeration with your first point...but you generally do that.  Oh and he didn't become a full time position player until a year or two before the "modern baseball" came into play.  Hmmmm...is it impossible to think maybe he got better with more experience.  Nah.

 

You bolded the point of not being able to scuff the ball so with the new rules.  Like you were hinting that players back then had the same perfect balls as they have today.

 

Yeah, the pitcher didn't like the feel of the ball.  He didn't just throw it out like they do today...they just used it.

 

You're right Weo, players today don't abuse alcohol.  Only Babe Ruth.  Mickey Mantle was actually drinking lemonade all the time. 

 

LOL at your last point.  You think if he was alive today he would just reject all modern training or something?  Modern training helps everyone...except Babe Ruth.

Have you ever played a sport in your life?  

 

Oh wait...he definitely had no inclination with training.  

 

http://baseballstrength.org/babe-ruth/

 

Montville says that, although many people think the Babe was an out of shape slob, exercise and fitness played in integral role in his success on the diamond. According to Montville – In the spring of 1925, the Babe had his infamous “Bellyache Heard ‘Round the World” which was a mysterious ailment that hospitalized him at the beginning of the season. Some believe it was a combination of influenza, indigestion, and venereal disease. When he finally was able to return to the field he never really got going and he wound up having the worst season of his career batting just .290 with 25 home runs and 66 RBI. He was 30 years old and at an age when his drinking, eating, and hard living could have ended his career in a few short years. The Babe, however, made a bold decision that likely saved his career. He hired a personal trainer to work with him during the off season. He signed on with Artie McGovern, a charismatic former boxer who owned his own gym and trained other stars of the day like John Philip Sousa. Artie employed all kinds of methods with Ruth from running, boxing, handball, sprints, medicine ball throws, and jumping rope, all with the focus on strengthening the Babe’s core regions. All of the hard work paid off. Ruth was in the best shape of his career prior to the 1927 season and because of it he was able to set his long-standing record of 60 home runs. While working with Artie, he went on an extended run from 1926 to 1932 (from the ages of 31 to 37) that propelled his career numbers to stratospheric heights. During these seasons he averaged an incredible .353 with 49 home runs and 152 RBI at ages when most players were declining. The Babe still enjoyed drinking and overeating, but he dialed it back just enough during this time to keep playing at a high level. The Babe’s second wife, Claire Hodgson, who was a bit of a ball-buster also helped to reign in the Babe’s ravenous appetites. She brow-beat him into eating better and going to sleep earlier when he was at home, which also contributed to his success.

 

More experience?  Nah---clearly it was the modern baseball.

 

So the Babe had the best training of his time, yet he was still overweight, ate poorly and drank heavily, and, as your citation helpfully points out: many people still saw him as an out of shape slob.

 

Oh, yeah, he also had VD.

 

 

 

 

[Dr.Sack]

Jerry Rice is far ahead of all other WRs total receiving yards wise, and he did it in the pre-modern era which favors passing attacks. From 1985 to 2004 Rice played and for the vast majority of that time ‘85-02 he was a top 30 WR. In a time when most WRs are done by age 33, Rice continued to churn out yards and 1,000 yard seasons until he was 40.

[Royale with Cheese]

12 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

More experience?  Nah---clearly it was the modern baseball.

 

So the Babe had the best training of his time, yet he was still overweight, ate poorly and drank heavily, and, as your citation helpfully points out: many people still saw him as an out of shape slob.

 

Oh, yeah, he also had VD.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, you’re not stubborn.