PDA

View Full Version : SI.com's Greatest Players to Ever Wear #0-99


CoMoChief
07-05-2007, 12:25 PM
Here's the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/gallery.numbers.part1/content.1.html

Some to take notice

1 - Warren Moon
13 - KU's Wilt Chamberlain
40 - KU's Gale Sayers
58 - Derrick Thomas (he was a runner-up to Jack Lambert)
63 - Willie Lanier
69 - Tim Krumrie
80 - MU's Kellen Winslow
86 - Buck Buchanon
90 - Neil Smith (though the pic is rather disturbing, I suggest you skip to 91)

allen_kcCard
07-05-2007, 01:30 PM
WTF kind of pic is that for Smith

ChiTown
07-05-2007, 01:33 PM
WTF kind of pic is that for Smith

Probably in a Donkey Costume.....err, uniform

Fish
07-05-2007, 01:48 PM
Ted Williams over Gordie Howe??

Hmmm.... that's close...

33 and 34 are tough numbers too...

Ari Chi3fs
07-05-2007, 01:55 PM
Im surprised that Ryan Sims wasn't the best #90 ever.

CoMoChief
07-05-2007, 01:57 PM
Im surprised that Ryan Sims wasn't the best #90 ever.

yeah or Eric Hicks at #98.

Thig Lyfe
07-05-2007, 02:13 PM
yeah or Eric Hicks at #98.

OR #7 FOR CASEY PRINTERS!!!

Frazod
07-05-2007, 02:14 PM
There's a large coffee table-type book on this theme available. I got it for my FIL for Christmas last year.

Kind of a silly concept, IMO - I don't remember the specific numbers, but there are a couple that have basically never been worn by anybody who played at the "greatest" level.

Dartgod
07-05-2007, 02:24 PM
#7 to John Elway? Have they never heard of MICKEY-FREAKIN'-MANTLE??

He played his entire 18-year major-league professional career for the New York Yankees, winning 3 American League MVP titles and playing for 16 All-Star teams. Mantle played on 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. He still holds the records for most World Series home runs (18), RBIs (40), runs (42), walks (43), extra-base hits (26), and total bases (123).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mantle

KC Dan
07-05-2007, 02:28 PM
#7 to John Elway? Have they never heard of MICKEY-FREAKIN'-MANTLE??
SI<->Peter King => No surprise....

sedated
07-05-2007, 02:46 PM
4321

BULLSHIT!!!

<img src="http://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/gallery.numbers.part3/images/90.smith.2.jpg">

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 02:53 PM
#7 to John Elway? Have they never heard of MICKEY-FREAKIN'-MANTLE??
No screaming shit!!

Amnorix
07-05-2007, 03:20 PM
Yeah, ok, some tough ones.

I'll agree with Elway over Mantle in a VERY close one.

I vomit on Kareem over Larry Bird however. VOMIT.

Teddy Ballgame over Howe is reaaaaallly tough.

Kareem over Bird. Damn.... Damn......

Ty Cobb isn't on there. I don't know what number he wore, but....

24 -- Clemente over Clemens. Yeah.....NO. I'm no Clemens fan, but that is a BAD pick.

Can't complain. 9 of them have strong Boston ties -- Orr, Russ, Teddy, Brady, Havilcheck, Schilling, Pedro, Fisk and Hannah.

Kareeeem...... :shake:

Baby Lee
07-05-2007, 03:28 PM
#7 to John Elway? Have they never heard of MICKEY-FREAKIN'-MANTLE??
You've gotta be shittin' me.
I seem to recall people around Manhattan fighting over dibs to name their first born 'Seven' in his honor. :p

cdcox
07-05-2007, 03:29 PM
Yeah, ok, some tough ones.

I'll agree with Elway over Mantle in a VERY close one.

I vomit on Kareem over Larry Bird however. VOMIT.

Teddy Ballgame over Howe is reaaaaallly tough.

Kareem over Bird. Damn.... Damn......

Ty Cobb isn't on there. I don't know what number he wore, but....

24 -- Clemente over Clemens. Yeah.....NO. I'm no Clemens fan, but that is a BAD pick.

Can't complain. 9 of them have strong Boston ties -- Orr, Russ, Teddy, Brady, Havilcheck, Schilling, Pedro, Fisk and Hannah.

Kareeeem...... :shake:

Ty Cobb played before Baseball players wore numbers on their uniform.

I agree with Kareem over Bird.

Baby Lee
07-05-2007, 03:29 PM
In the spirit of this thread;

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FExqG6LdWHU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FExqG6LdWHU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Sure-Oz
07-05-2007, 03:29 PM
How the hell can they show neil in a donkey uni, bs

rad
07-05-2007, 03:34 PM
#69- Tim Krumrie

Runner-up: Mark Schlereth

Ha! That's gotta hurt!

OnTheWarpath58
07-05-2007, 03:58 PM
SI<->Peter King => No surprise....


Did they pick Warren Sapp over Wayne Gretzky?

Sanka
07-05-2007, 05:12 PM
SI has lost all credibility with me for this list, John elGAY over Mantle, HAHAHA.

big nasty kcnut
07-05-2007, 05:17 PM
No. 20 | Barry Sanders no doubt the greatest to wear that number.

Discuss Thrower
07-05-2007, 05:17 PM
Best #88 "Hall of Fame defensive tackle was a mainstay of the Vikings' feared Purple People Eaters defense. Page played in four Super Bowls and was the NFL MVP in 1971 as well the Defensive Player of Year in `71 and `73.

Runner-up: Marvin Harrison.

Worthy of consideration: Lynn Swann, Eric Lindros, Michael Irvin, Dale Jarrett."

Uhhm, where's Tony Gonzalez?

CoMoChief
07-05-2007, 05:23 PM
Best #88 "Hall of Fame defensive tackle was a mainstay of the Vikings' feared Purple People Eaters defense. Page played in four Super Bowls and was the NFL MVP in 1971 as well the Defensive Player of Year in `71 and `73.

Runner-up: Marvin Harrison.

Worthy of consideration: Lynn Swann, Eric Lindros, Michael Irvin, Dale Jarrett."

Uhhm, where's Tony Gonzalez?

I was thinking that too. They do have WinSLOW in the worthy consideration column.

Sorry but NASCAR drivers do not deserve to be on this list except for a select few like #3 Dale Sr., Petty, Gordon, thats about all I can think of (I can't believe Jr is on there with all of the great #8's that are out there).

Sanka
07-05-2007, 05:26 PM
How the hell can they have 2 car drivers, driving IS NOT a sport.

rad
07-05-2007, 05:44 PM
How the hell can they have 2 car drivers, driving IS NOT a sport.

Oh, here we go with the annual off-season "Is driving a sport" debate...

Yes it is, you lose, thanks for playing.....

Let's now turn our attention to Grbac vs. Gannon....

Gravedigger
07-05-2007, 07:37 PM
Driving isn't a sport... but driving really fast around a huge track for 1000 laps is a sport supposedly.

milkman
07-05-2007, 07:43 PM
Oh, here we go with the annual off-season "Is driving a sport" debate...

Yes it is, you lose, thanks for playing.....

Let's now turn our attention to Grbac vs. Gannon....

Oh Look!!!!


Another Left Tuuuurn!!!!!!!!!

rad
07-05-2007, 07:44 PM
Driving isn't a sport... but driving really fast around a huge track for 1000 laps is a sport supposedly.

....so I've heard.... :banghead:

CoMoChief
07-05-2007, 07:46 PM
It takes no athletic or physical ability to drive a racecar for 500 miles. It takes energy, that's about it.

Now the pit crew is a different story. Alot of the pit crew are former athletes because they are faster bigger and stronger and can carry tires faster, jump over cars (if need be, pit road can be dangerous) and concrete barriers etc.

But to be a driver it takes no athletic ability.

NASCAR is not a sport. It's an event.

rad
07-05-2007, 07:47 PM
Oh Look!!!!


Another Left Tuuuurn!!!!!!!!!


I bet a lot of those drivers' left forearms have Popeye-itis!

CoMoChief
07-05-2007, 07:56 PM
I bet a lot of those drivers' left forearms have Popeye-itis!

I bet your right forearm has Popeye-itis.

rad
07-05-2007, 07:57 PM
It takes no athletic or physical ability to drive a racecar for 500 miles. It takes energy, that's about it.

Now the pit crew is a different story. Alot of the pit crew are former athletes because they are faster bigger and stronger and can carry tires faster, jump over cars (if need be, pit road can be dangerous) and concrete barriers etc.

But to be a driver it takes no athletic ability.

NASCAR is not a sport. It's an event.

That's only you're opinion.

Driving a racecar takes more than just energy. That's about the 3rd most retarded thing I've seen posted here.

Do you have energy?

So why aren't you out there raking in the dough if that's all it takes?

I don't even like racing, but at least I'm not dumb enough to not realize driving a racecar takes a lot more than "energy".

rad
07-05-2007, 08:01 PM
I bet your right forearm has Popeye-itis.

What are you, 12?

milkman
07-05-2007, 08:15 PM
I don't even like racing, but at least I'm not dumb enough to not realize driving a racecar takes a lot more than "energy".

There's no question that racing is physically demanding, as are a number of "sports" that don't fall into my definition of sport.

The reality is, however, that racing falls into the dictionary definition of "sport".

But then so does the game "Twister" and many other games that require some physical activity.

Because of that fact we all have our own definition of sport..

So what may be a sport to you, may not be a sport to me.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 08:22 PM
Driving isn't a sport... but driving really fast around a huge track for 1000 laps is a sport supposedly.
It might be if they went around the other way in the "second half". All right turns. Then we could see who could drive.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 08:23 PM
It takes no athletic or physical ability to drive a racecar for 500 miles. It takes energy, that's about it.

But to be a driver it takes no athletic ability.

NASCAR is not a sport. It's an event.

This may be the most ignorant post I have read on this board, well at least in the top 10. ROFL

CoMoChief
07-06-2007, 03:04 AM
This may be the most ignorant post I have read on this board, well at least in the top 10. ROFL

Yeah it really takes a lot of athletic ability to drive a car around a ****in race track you dumbass.

Silock
07-06-2007, 03:18 AM
That's only you're opinion.

Driving a racecar takes more than just energy. That's about the 3rd most retarded thing I've seen posted here.

Do you have energy?

So why aren't you out there raking in the dough if that's all it takes?

I don't even like racing, but at least I'm not dumb enough to not realize driving a racecar takes a lot more than "energy".

Driving a racecar around a track requires skill and energy. To me, that doesn't mean it's a sport. Driving is a skill, but it's not an athletic accomplishment.

I really don't see why it matters, though.

John_Wayne
07-06-2007, 07:26 AM
Looks like a majority are from the NFL. Interesting.

rad
07-06-2007, 07:30 AM
Driving a racecar around a track requires skill and energy. To me, that doesn't mean it's a sport. Driving is a skill, but it's not an athletic accomplishment.

I really don't see why it matters, though.


OOOOOOH! Now we got energy AND skill. Maybe in a few more posts, we'll have another attribute added

You guys kill me LMAO

Chief Chief
07-06-2007, 07:42 AM
Just wait til them hot-dog eating athletic wonders, such as Kobayashi, start wearing numbers...just you wait...

StcChief
07-06-2007, 10:07 AM
Best #88 "Hall of Fame defensive tackle was a mainstay of the Vikings' feared Purple People Eaters defense. Page played in four Super Bowls and was the NFL MVP in 1971 as well the Defensive Player of Year in `71 and `73.

Runner-up: Marvin Harrison.

Worthy of consideration: Lynn Swann, Eric Lindros, Michael Irvin, Dale Jarrett."

Uhhm, where's Tony Gonzalez? Current players not likely considered... No SB. once he passes THannon THarpe as #1 TE.

Baby Lee
07-06-2007, 10:10 AM
Current players not likely considered... No SB. once he passes THannon THarpe as #1 TE.
When did Harrison retire?

CoMoChief
07-06-2007, 10:15 AM
Please someone tell me how much athletic ability it takes to drive a frickin car.

RJ
07-06-2007, 11:30 AM
No. 45 Pedro Martinez over Bob Gibson? I don't think so, I don't see that as even close.

FAX
07-06-2007, 11:35 AM
Current players not likely considered... No SB. once he passes THannon THarpe as #1 TE.

I thought I saw Orlando Pace on there somewhere, Mr. StcChief. He's still active, isn't he?

FAX

Thig Lyfe
07-06-2007, 11:43 AM
I thought I saw Orlando Pace on there somewhere, Mr. StcChief. He's still active, isn't he?

FAX

So's Marvin Harrison, who was the runner-up for 88.

And Gilbert Arenas was the winner for #0.

BCD
07-06-2007, 11:46 AM
Elway over Mantle is a travesty. LMAO

Dartgod
07-06-2007, 11:48 AM
I thought I saw Orlando Pace on there somewhere, Mr. StcChief. He's still active, isn't he?

FAX
So is Ray Lewis.

88TG88
07-06-2007, 11:50 AM
Elway over Mantle is a travesty. LMAO
I'm surprised they didn't try to squeeze Terrell Davis in there somewhere.

Amnorix
07-06-2007, 11:51 AM
No. 45 Pedro Martinez over Bob Gibson? I don't think so, I don't see that as even close.

You're wrong -- it is VERY close.

Check Pedro's numbers for that 3 year stretch -- either '98 to '00, or '97 to '99, or whatever it was. They're Koufax-esque.

AND here's the biggest thing you need o remember -- Pedor's numbers were when HITTING was absolutely dominant in baseball. Gibson's numbers were when pitching was dominant. In the AL in '67, Yaz won the batting title with a .301 batting average. :eek:

Adjust for the era, and Pedro is off teh charts. Don't even get me started on how he got screwed out of at least 1, if not 2, Cy Young awards.

Don't get me wrong -- Gibson was great, but Pedro had the best 3 years of any right hander who lived, and had about 6-7 that were unbelievalbe during a hitting-dominated era.

BCD
07-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Please someone tell me how much athletic ability it takes to drive a frickin car.YOU ARE ****ING RETARDED! You try driving 180 mph. Bumper to bumper. For 3 hours. Not to mention the heat inside the car. Plus, all the personal protection they have to wear. I would imagine it gets pretty ****ing HOT. I am not much of a fan, but I am not going to belittle what they do. It may not take the same type of athletic ability as most contact sports, but it takes more endurance than most.

BCD
07-06-2007, 12:22 PM
What?! No Trent for #10?

cdcox
07-06-2007, 12:28 PM
You're wrong -- it is VERY close.

Check Pedro's numbers for that 3 year stretch -- either '98 to '00, or '97 to '99, or whatever it was. They're Koufax-esque.

AND here's the biggest thing you need o remember -- Pedor's numbers were when HITTING was absolutely dominant in baseball. Gibson's numbers were when pitching was dominant. In the AL in '67, Yaz won the batting title with a .301 batting average. :eek:

Adjust for the era, and Pedro is off teh charts. Don't even get me started on how he got screwed out of at least 1, if not 2, Cy Young awards.

Don't get me wrong -- Gibson was great, but Pedro had the best 3 years of any right hander who lived, and had about 6-7 that were unbelievalbe during a hitting-dominated era.

This site seems to have an objective (meaning it is determined by formula, not subjective opinion) rating of all-time great baseball players.

http://baseballsgreatest.blogspot.com/

It ranks Pedro (58) slightly ahead of Gibson (63).

It saved me yesterday from launching into an ill-advised George Brett >> Johnny Bench rant.

RJ
07-06-2007, 12:41 PM
You're wrong -- it is VERY close.

Check Pedro's numbers for that 3 year stretch -- either '98 to '00, or '97 to '99, or whatever it was. They're Koufax-esque.

AND here's the biggest thing you need o remember -- Pedor's numbers were when HITTING was absolutely dominant in baseball. Gibson's numbers were when pitching was dominant. In the AL in '67, Yaz won the batting title with a .301 batting average. :eek:

Adjust for the era, and Pedro is off teh charts. Don't even get me started on how he got screwed out of at least 1, if not 2, Cy Young awards.

Don't get me wrong -- Gibson was great, but Pedro had the best 3 years of any right hander who lived, and had about 6-7 that were unbelievalbe during a hitting-dominated era.



A few points.

First, Gibson was among the reasons pitching was dominant and no pitcher ever had a better season than his year in 1968 with a 1.12 ERA over 304 (yes, 304) IP. Remember, this is the guy MLB had to change the rules over.

Which brings me to point two. Speaking of pitching in different eras, Gibson took the ball every fourth day, not every fifth like Pedro. Also, he finished what he started. Gibson logged 255 complete games, Martinez has 46.

But if you really think they are close, take a look at WS performance. Ok, I know you can't blame it on Pedro, but he's pitched on series game, which he did win. Now check out Gibson's WS stats. He played in three series, 64, 67 and 68. These numbers are crazy.

GS-9/ W-7/ L-2/ ERA 1.89/ IP-81/SO-92/BB-17/CG-8

Martinez is a fine pitcher and HOF worthy but he ain't no Bob Gibson. If it's Game 7 and I have to pick between the two there's no doubt whose number I'm calling......Oh wait, they wear the same number!