Sports Theory of Relativity: Greatness Defined (G=td2). The E=mc2 of Sports

Albert Einstein is arguably the most influential scientist in the history of the world; but "it's all relative!" What does that even mean? Einstein's theory of relativity has something to do with time and space. My Sports Theory of Relativity; G=td2 piggy backs on that idea, or at the very least was inspired by the most famous scientific equation E=mc2.

What is the Sports Theory of Relativity? G=td2. Greatness = time x dominance x dominance (hence the squared). The Sports Theory of Relativity tries to establish criteria for determining “Greatness”. Time represents understanding the relevance of era and longevity. Dominance represents the greatness the athlete establishes in that stated “time.” The reason Dominance is squared is really that is the key to this theory. It’s not about pure statistics as statistics are a product of rules, era, and other external factors. It focuses on Dominance and adjusts for Time.

There are 2 schools of thought regarding sports greatness and they can be summed up on your opinion of Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, Elgin Baylor, etc.

1. If championship counts and career statistics matter to you, than these guys are probably not GOATs in your mind. If you think today’s athletes would dominate the best of the past, you reject this Sports Theory of Relativity.

Vs.

2. If leading the league in HR’s 11x is more important than career 714 HR’s (surpassed by Aaron and Bonds), if being an NFL All Pro 8 of 9 years is more important than 12,312 career yards (6000 yards behind Emmitt Smith), if being All NBA 1st Team 10x is more important than having 0 championships, you subscribe to the Sports Theory of Relativity.

Example 1: Adrian Peterson would dominate Jim Brown. The counter to this would be, what if Jim Brown was born in 1990 and was able to take advantage of all the sports medicine and training improvements, better equipment, didn't have to deal with racism at every turn, and could "afford" to just focus on sports while being able to support a family.

"Greatness" to me is defined in the Sports Theory of Relativity as an athlete’s ability to consistently dominate his peers in his/her era in ways that others cannot in their eras. It's not about championships (but that is part of the equation), it’s not about statistics (but if stated in context is part of the equation). This is Jim Brown. This is Wayne Gretzky. This is Peyton Manning. This is Michael Jordan. This is Lebron James. This is Clayton Kershaw. This is Lionel Messi. This is Roger Federer. This is Michael Phelps. This is Usain Bolt. This is Jerry Rice. Though statistics put these all-time greats in a class of their own anyway, it really isn’t part of the equation (it is more a byproduct of their “greatness” factor)

SPORTS THEORY OF RELATIVITY: G=td2 - Greatness is relative to time.

So how does the "Sports Theory of Relativity" assign greatness?

1. There are things that need to be adjusted for: Changes in rules, Changes in time and era = i.e. Statistics. Statistics are often used to compare all-time greats. But not all statistics are created (or achieved) equally. Was a Home Run the same in 1920 as it is in 2015? When Babe Ruth hit 54 HRs in 1920, the next best was 19 (that's +2.8x better than 2nd place). In 2015 1st place hit 47 and 2nd place hit 44 (that's +1.07x better than 2nd place). The actual number in both years is at the very least very similar, but the meaning and impact of it is worlds apart. Babe Ruth revolutionized the game and just looking at the actual HR # reduces the value of what he did; when he did it. The same analysis can be done with Dan Marino's iconic 48 TD 5,084 YDS 1984 season. 2nd place that year was 32 TDs (1.5x better than 2nd place) and 4,614 YDS (1.1x better than 2nd place) by 2 different QB's. In 2015 the leader was Tom Brady with 36 TD's and Drew Brees with 4,870 yards. 2nd place in each category was 35 TD's and 4,792 yards (that's +1 tds and + 78 yards). From 1957 - 1965, in 118 games Jim Brown ran for 12,312 yards and 106 touchdowns. From 2007 - 2015, in 120 games Adrian Peterson ran for 11,675 yards and 97 touchdowns. Very close statistics. But Jim Brown led the league in yards in 8 of 9 years and touchdowns 5 of 9 years. AP led the league in yards only 3x, and touchdowns 2x. There are many other examples of this in sports. Did you know that Peyton Manning has more touchdown passes (539) than Joe Montana (273) and Steve Young (232) combined? In fact Brett Favre has more touchdown Passes than those 2 legends combined. You cannot just look at the pure numbers. Career totals are often misleading and are a direct correlation to era and longevity rather than greatness.

2. There are things that are relative to the era, time, rules, etc. and do not require any adjustments = i.e. Awards or League Leaders in important statistical categories or Leaders’ Margin. MVP's are MVP's no matter in 1920 or 2015. It essentially means that you were more valuable than any of your peers (disclaimer: not all awards were given every year; for example Baseball's current MVP award started in 1931, the NBA Finals MVP was started in 1969, so if someone tells you Babe Ruth only has 1 MVP or Bill Russell never won a finals MVP that is deceiving; also MVP voting is sometimes flawed by story lines or voter fatigue). All NBA, All Pro, MLB's Silver Slugger and Gold Glove awards, etc. are also good gauges of greatness.

Look at the 3 list below which shows QB, RB, and WR on the All Time Yards or Yards/Game Rankings (yellow years are current players). This shows why All Time Career stats can be misleading. QB in the current generation throw more so have more yards. Is Eli Manning really the 11th best QB? Look at players 6-15 on the QB Passing Yards ranking. Most of them have 0 MVPs, 0 All Pro Selections, and 0x leading the league in Comp % and Passer Rating. They are a product of Era (see my John Elway is overrated post here). . I would argue that Steve Young (Ranked 30th all-time on passing yards) who has 2 MVPs, was a 3x All Pro, led the league in Comp % 5x and Passer Rating 5x deserves MUCH better than a #30 ranking on a career stat accumulation list (possibly even a Mount Rushmore vote). You can look at the Running Back list as well. Gale Sayers was an All Pro 4 of his 6 years in the league which means much more than being ranked 135th on the all-time rushing yards record (the inverse is true too, that Emmitt’s 18,000 yards mean MUCH less than his 1 MVP and 4x All Pro selections). WR Yards/Game. You will see a lot of current WR on the list in part because of the passing era they are in, but also because they are still in their prime and do not have twilight years pulling down on their average, but is there any doubt that Jerry Rice’s 10 All Pros and 6x Leading the league in touchdowns outweigh his statistical 10th place ranking. What about Don Hutson? Never heard of him? You should. He dominated the NFL for a decade with 8 all pros and 9x leading the league in TD passes…yet he is ranked 29th on the Yards/Game career list. SPORTS THEORY OF RELATIVITY.


Another way to analyze greatness is Margin of Superiority. See the below chart showing Gretzky's 13 year run at being NHL assist leader vs the statistics from the current 13 year span (many different players leading the league). It’s not the total # of assists that is impressive, it’s the distance between him and 2nd best that makes him the "Great One." This is a relativity analysis. (see this post for other expanded examples Ruth, Marino, Steph Curry, Wilt Chamberlain, and Gretzky dominance of their era’s = game changers).

DISCLAIMER: This theory doesn’t contradict or oppose statistics. The Sports Theory of Relativity LOVES STATISTICS; it uses statistics in a relative matter to get to “Greatness.”

Let me show you an example where the All Time Great lists can be determined on “Dominance” without any use of “Statistics” but generally get to the same conclusion. I created an All Time NFL Offense 1st Team and Defensive 1st team (and 2nd teams) strictly on number of MVPs/ALL PROs/DPOY/and OPOY each player at each position received. I did a similar analysis for NBA All Time 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th team. I used the number of All NBA 1st Team (x factor of 1.0), # of MVPs (x factor of 2.0), All ABA 1st Team (x factor of 0.25), and ABA MVP (x factor of 0.5), and multiplied these results by the factors mentioned above. The reason for the Factor is MVP is more valuable than an All NBA selection, and an All NBA 1st team selection is more valuable than an All ABA 1st team selection. Nowhere in here is championships accounted for, yet for the most part the winners are at the top anyway (championships is a general byproduct of “greatness”).  Winning is generally a byproduct of being great, so by definition can not be a what makes greatness.  Winning is also a byproduct of many other things, time and era (see Bill Russell vs Michael Jordan), teammates and organization (see Derek Jeter vs Alex Rodriguez), and sometimes even luck (see Eli Manning vs Tom Brady).  There are too many other factors that determine championships.   Somehow in the context of greatness in sports it has been determined that championship matters (even though from a legacy perspective it only matters for Quarterbacks and NBA Superstars; see post here).  In general Greatness in sports makes championships (see the lists below) however as you can see in these lists Greatness isn't defined by championships.  Lebron isn't now greater because he won a championship in Cleveland (because Kyrie now won one for Cleveland too) but Lebron is greater because he lead both teams in Points, Rebounds, and Assists (for the 2nd straight NBA Finals) and this year threw in Steals and Blocks as well.  Championships help the narrative.  If you have Player A and Player B who have essentially the same credentials but one has more championships, the pendulum swings, even though its not necessarily fair. 


You can argue some more than others, but this methodology of applying the “Sports Theory of Relativity” self-adjusts for time/era/rule changes/etc., and does not need statistics or championships to determine “greatness”

I can already see some of the comments. Cousy 2nd best PG of all time? Look at the below charts. To show for his time how dominant Cousy was. Magic led the league in assists 4x in his entire career with an average 15% better than 2nd place. Cousy lead the league for 8 consecutive years with an average 30% more than 2nd place.

PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY:  Not so much a problem, in the sense it is flawed, but the problem is that it takes time and thought to compile such an analysis, which is more than most people want. Stats are the easiest go-to which drives the narrative on "Greatness."  Another limitation is accounting for current greatness in a career long retrospect.  JJ Watt will probably be higher on these lists, Steph Curry, Mike Trout, etc. the same.  Rob Gronkowski, Clayton Kershaw, Sid Crosby, today's greatness is knocking on the door.  This is not about nostalgia or a bias of older players, its simply in incomplete career penalty that will surely go away as they establish their resumes.  Longevity only means something if that longevity was great.  10 great years followed by 10 mediocre ones is essentially the same as 10 great year followed by retirement.  We are talking about "greatness" here.