As our esteemed writer Hamsky noted yesterday, “ESPN Sucks Now,” and they have displayed that yet again.
After years of anti-Patriots bias and outright lies, I don’t know why I expected any better from the writers at ESPN this week when they decided to rank the most dominant athletes of the last 20 years. This was some of the worst content ever seen in the history of human (or extraterrestrial) events.
When I first clicked on the article, I expected––as you would imagine––to see the greatest quarterback of all time, Tom Brady, as No. 1 on the list. Appearing in eight Super Bowls and 11 AFC Championship Games is pretty damn dominant.
However, much to my chagrin, Brady wasn’t first. ESPN chose Tiger Woods as the most dominant player of the last 20 years. I could live with that––ESPN notes that Woods “won 13 of 35 majors from late 1999 to mid-2008, while no other golfer won more than three.” It seemed like a reasonable take, but surely the five-time Super Bowl champion would be next, right?
Wrong. Here are the ranks:
#1 Tiger Woods
#2 LeBron James
#3 Peyton Manning (my head exploded at this point)
#4 Jimmie Johnson (why is NASCAR included in this? If driving is a sport, so is Fortnite)
#5 Roger Federer
#6 Annika Sorenstam
#7 Michael Schumacher
#8 Floyd Mayweather
#9 Marta
#10 Usain Bolt
#11 Lionel Messi
#12 Serena Williams
#13 Lauren Jackson
#14 Cristiano Ronaldo
#15 Novak Djokovic
#16 Allyson Felix
#17 Barry Bonds
#18 Mike Trout
#19 Manny Pacquiao
And finally…
#20 Tom Brady
Before we get to the meat of the matter here, let me just say that it is incredibly ridiculous for ESPN to compile a ranking of dominant athletes from both individual and team sports. How can you possibly compare a NASCAR driver to an NFL quarterback? That just doesn’t make any sense at all––it’s difficult enough comparing team sports to each other. For instance, look at the NBA vs. NFL. Did ESPN take into account the fact that LeBron James (ranked second) obviously has more of an effect on the game than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning because of the very nature of his sport? Basketball has only five players on the court at a time. In football, not only are 11 players on the field at once, but those 11 are only playing half of the game. If LeBron scores 50 points in an NBA Finals game, the Cavs will probably win that game, but if Brady throws for 505 yards in the Super Bowl––which he did against the Eagles––it may not be enough because his defense has to perform too.
Now to the Brady vs. Manning argument. This is something that was settled years ago. Only the morons at ESPN still try to make the case that Manning was better, but just to definitively display why Tom Brady is greater and more “dominant” than Peyton Manning, here are some fun statistics:
Super Bowls: Brady (5) vs Manning (2)
Conference Titles: Brady (8) vs Manning (4)
Playoff Wins: Brady (27... and counting) vs Manning (14)
Playoff Win Percentage: Brady 73% vs Manning 52%
Now, if that’s not enough for the losers over at ESPN, let me add that Tom Brady has as many playoff wins as Peyton Manning has appearances. Tom Brady threw for nearly 1,000 yards in his past two Super Bowls combined (which are the top two Super Bowl passing-yard performances in history).
ESPN, knowing its ridiculous rankings would spark outrage among those with at least half a brain, tried to explain itself by saying that it only considered regular season stats, because “there's no good way to compare playoffs across sports.”
Well, ESPN, if you don’t feel comfortable comparing the most important part of the year across different sports, then why even make the list in the first place? You claim that this is a list of the most dominant sports players in the last 20 years, yet you don’t even consider the number of championships these players win? In what world does that make sense?
As PFF writer Michael David Smith notes:
"There’s no good way to compare playoffs across sports? Sure there is! You could compare how many championships each player has won. Baseball player Mike Trout is No. 18 on the list — ahead of Brady — even though Trout has never played in a World Series. Here’s a good way to compare playoffs across sports: You take Brady’s record of eight Super Bowl appearances and five Super Bowl wins, and you say that’s better than Trout’s record of zero World Series appearances and zero wins. Is that completely fair to either Brady or Trout? No, it isn’t. Football and baseball are team sports. But guess what? This is all just an exercise in silliness anyway."
I strongly advise ESPN to take its article and shred it. Then, set what’s left on fire, and finally––just to be safe––call a priest to give an exorcism to the ashes.
Comentários