The Greatest Running Back of All-Time

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

just doesn't get it. actually, you're a smart guy and I know you do, but you are sticking to your guns for some reason (to be a homer about Smith). let's make it real simple.

 

many baseball statistics measure individual performance (ERA, Ave., OBP, Slg.). some measure team performance (W-L, runs, RBI). the game is one of one on one confrontation, pitcher against batter. we can use the ones that measure individual performance to compare across eras because the game changes little over time.

 

football statistics for the most part measure team performance. it is a game of team on team confrontation. you can't score a touchdown or even gain a yard without 10 other guys. furthermore, we can not use stats to compare players over time in football because the game changes vastly from generation to generation.

 

by your logic, Marino is the greatest QB of all time, and Unitas and Stauback and Bradshaw are not even in the discussion.

 

you have two choices, acknowledge this is true and move on, or start to back people up when they try to argue that W-L is a meaningful measurement of pitcher performance and RBI/Runs is a meaningful measurement of batting performance. anything else is just pure disengenuousness and hypocrisy.

 

edit for this point: because football stats measure team performance and the game changes over time, it is absolutely necessary to play the 'what-if' game, as I already explained to you. because we are not measuring individual performance with stats, we need a way to measure the individual. it is subjective, and it is why there is no SAFR movement, like there is a SABR movement.

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

In baseball, we have a wealth of stats and therefore some are better than others at determining who is the best. That's why I gravitate toward those. If someone produced some in football and made a rational discourse as to why they are better than the common stats used by laypeople, I'd definitely consider them, and likely embrace them.

 

As it is, I'll still take the raw data stats over your subjectiveness.

 

Are you certain it isn't you who is being the homer in declaring Payton the best back? Other than your subjective opinion, can you offer any metric in which he is the best?

 

You may not like them, but I can offer three metrics in which Smith tops all running backs.

[imb]

For me, it's hard not to say that Barry Sanders was the best ever.

[TB_11]

I'll paraphrase Ditka: There may have been better running backs, but there has never ever been a better football player than Walter Payton.

 

http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/paytonlegend03pf-1.jpg

[CuseCubFan69]

Brown

 

 

Miles and miles

 

 

 

Sanders = Payton

OJ

 

Ricky Williams = Tony Dorsett

 

 

 

to me that's like saying

 

Mikan

 

miles and miles

 

Russell

Kareem

Shaq = Chamberlain

 

This isn't baskettball. When Miken played, baskettball barely resembles the game that is played today. In football it's not so much the case. No one is hailing Broco Nagursky or "Crazy legs" Hursh.

 

basketball doesn't resemble the game played today in large part because of Mikan. the up tempo game was invented (and many rules changed) to combat his presence in the lane. I understand your point, but my point is this, both of these athletes owed much of their success to their physical freakishness relative to the other players in the game at the time, as they did to pure talent. that's simply an incontrovertable fact. their accomplishments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. you simply must play the 'what if' game that Vance so vehemently opposes, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of how good these players were.

 

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

[CuseCubFan69]

For me, it's hard not to say that Barry Sanders was the best ever.

 

By far the most entertaining to watch. I would have loved to have seen him on the Cowboys and Smith on the Lions and seen how that would have played out.

[Derwood]

Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[jjgman21]

Brown

 

 

Miles and miles

 

 

 

Sanders = Payton

OJ

 

Ricky Williams = Tony Dorsett

 

 

 

to me that's like saying

 

Mikan

 

miles and miles

 

Russell

Kareem

Shaq = Chamberlain

 

This isn't baskettball. When Miken played, baskettball barely resembles the game that is played today. In football it's not so much the case. No one is hailing Broco Nagursky or "Crazy legs" Hursh.

 

basketball doesn't resemble the game played today in large part because of Mikan. the up tempo game was invented (and many rules changed) to combat his presence in the lane. I understand your point, but my point is this, both of these athletes owed much of their success to their physical freakishness relative to the other players in the game at the time, as they did to pure talent. that's simply an incontrovertable fact. their accomplishments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. you simply must play the 'what if' game that Vance so vehemently opposes, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of how good these players were.

 

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

[jjgman21]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

[CuseCubFan69]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

[RynoRules]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

Agreed. Individual stats are far less accurate measure of worth in football. And I also recall that Lewis stated as much in Moneyball.

[jjgman21]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer.

 

Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say?

[Derwood]

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/hateme_jersey.jpg

[bukie]

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

We don't know this though. He didn't make the most of the opportunity he had, he just had the most opportunity.

 

I really wish I could find a location with more archived stats than 2000, but given sabermetric stats I do have access to, Smith certainly hasn't been close to the best running back in the years since 2000.

 

Here's a decent article looking at raw, unadjusted stats (basically the equivalent to a year-by-year analysis of hits, runs, HRs and RBI for hitters...not great, but not bad): http://www.thehuddle.com/classics/04_best_rb_ever.php

 

Smith lasted the longest, so he set the career records. At the peak of his career, he was overshadowed by Barry Sanders. There wasn't a single year where you could say without a doubt Smith was the best RB in the league. That isn't the case for the other 3 all-time greats.

[jjgman21]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer.

 

Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say?

 

Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman.

 

And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships.

[snoodmonger]

So Vance, I'm curious about one question you never answered. If given the opportunity to replace Emmitt on the cowboys w/ Payton, Brown, Sanders, whoever, would you stick with Emmitt Smith?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

We don't know this though. He didn't make the most of the opportunity he had, he just had the most opportunity.

 

I really wish I could find a location with more archived stats than 2000, but given sabermetric stats I do have access to, Smith certainly hasn't been close to the best running back in the years since 2000.

 

Here's a decent article looking at raw, unadjusted stats (basically the equivalent to a year-by-year analysis of hits, runs, HRs and RBI for hitters...not great, but not bad): http://www.thehuddle.com/classics/04_best_rb_ever.php

 

Smith lasted the longest, so he set the career records. At the peak of his career, he was overshadowed by Barry Sanders. There wasn't a single year where you could say without a doubt Smith was the best RB in the league. That isn't the case for the other 3 all-time greats.

 

 

It doesn't surprise me that he wasn't the best running back in any years since 2000. Those weren't his prime years.

 

Smith's best years were 91-99. And during those years, he was definitely a top three back. He may have trailed Sanders in some of those years, and other backs likely appeared and dissapeared, but he was definitely among the top three production wise.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So Vance, I'm curious about one question you never answered. If given the opportunity to replace Emmitt on the cowboys w/ Payton, Brown, Sanders, whoever, would you stick with Emmitt Smith?

 

I would stick with Smith. He was productive and that production helped produce three Super Bowl teams.

 

I'm not saying the Cowboys may or may not have been better with another back, but it's not like Smith didn't produce. He did.

[jjgman21]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer.

 

Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say?

 

Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman.

 

And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships.

 

more yards...by 104. better complete percentage by 2%. what about yards per attempt, yard per completion (12.37 to 11.37), touchdowns, TD/Int ration, rushing yards, rushing touchdowns?

 

when not using your carefully selected stats, who was the better quarterback, Anderson or Aikmen?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

I've asked you several questions like the one I am about to ask, yet I haven't received an answer.

 

Ken Anderson or Troy Aikmen. who's the better quarterback? what do the stats say?

 

Considering Aikman had more passing yards, completions and a higher completion percentage, I'd take Aikman.

 

And I do rank Marino as the best QB ever, despite the lack of championships.

 

more yards...by 104. better complete percentage by 2%. what about yards per attempt, yard per completion (12.37 to 11.37), touchdowns, TD/Int ration, rushing yards, rushing touchdowns?

 

when not using your carefully selected stats, who was the better quarterback, Anderson or Aikmen?

 

Why do I want my QB running?

[jjgman21]

 

Why do I want my QB running?

 

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make.

 

thanks for helping me make a point.

 

 

your position is untenable.

[brinoch]

 

 

 

Actually, my argument here is consistent with my baseball arguments. I prefer to look at the stats rather than subjectivitis, what-if's, or personal opinions of what someone thinks they saw.

 

 

which is exactly the problem with your argument because...let's say it one more time...football statistics do not measure individual performance. you absolutely have to use subjectivity and what ifs in football. there is no two ways around it.

 

if I am not mistaken, Moneyball includes a couple of paragraphs about why it is possible to use stats to compare players in baseball but it doesn't work out so well in other sports.

 

using stats to be objective is a real popular argument around here. hard to get a word in edgewise actually. the problem is you are using that argument in a different sport.

 

one more time...the reason you can do it with baseball is because the stats measure individual performance. the reason you can't do it in football is because the stats don't measure individual performance.

 

So, you can't say definitively that Smith isn't the best back.

 

When playing the "What-if" game, you just don't know.

 

What we do know, is that Smith was the most productive back in NFL history. Lacking any other metric, I'd take the most productive back as the best. He made the most of the opportunity he had.

 

No, he didn't.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Why do I want my QB running?

 

are you suggesting that an act that results in positive stats may not be the best play a player could make.

 

thanks for helping me make a point.

 

 

your position is untenable.

 

Your position is no better. You act as if you've taken the "objective" viewpoint, yet it comes in as choosing the player whom your a biased for.

 

While I may not always want my QB running, I definitely want my RB running and scoring TD's and Emmit did that better than any back in the history of the game.

[CuseCubFan69]

Brown was dominate at RB and many consider him the greatest while very few ever consider Mikan as the greatest player in NBA history. Mikan changed the game but Brown simply was the guy all teams keyed on to stop the Browns. Brown had records Rushing and TD's that were only erased because players played 2 to 4 games more a year. He could have been the MVP in every year he played. Mikan was great but not one of the elite of the NBA and I can't think of any records he had broken. Ask a NBA GM if he would take Mikan, Russell or Chamberlain and I'd be surprised if Mikan would get picked 5 out of 100 times. You put Brown against the top RB's of all time and he would get at least 25 votes by NFL GM's.

 

not the point

 

You're comparing a 6'8" that can move to guys that are shorter but what your missing is that Mikan didn't dominate the game like Brown did. Yes, Mikan was a cordinated big guy but Brown owned defenses like no other. Chamberlain made the NBA change the key rule not Mikan. Mikan was an inovator but don't confuse that with being the best ever and IMO that's what you are doing.

 

Mikan dominated every bit as much as Brown. they had to change all the rules because of Mikan, or he would've dominated even more. you're still missing the point. I never said Brown wasn't the great. I repeatedly said he was great and would have been in any era. the point is he played with that body in that era. had he played with that body in a later era, he would not have had the mind boggling stats he did.

 

That can be said about a lot of players. Campbell or Bo Jackson could have that said about them. I understand what you're saying and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm thinking well enough. Yes, both Mikan and Brown had superior bodies to their opponents. I don't understand why you would punish them for it though? If some RB could run a 3.6 40 in the NFL and rush for 2500 yards per year I wouldn't say that just because he can do that he should not be considered one of the best. I think that's what you are saying and IMO it's wrong for you to claim that against them. Just because he can do things others can't isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him.