Productivity – Kansas City Chiefs Receivers over the Years

“Does not consider number of times thrown to, or whether 14 or 16 game schedule, nor ratio of team running vs passing statistics in any particular season”

– notable omissions, ones that would provide a truer barometer of greatness and/or at least level the mano y mano playing field, a more equitable comparison. Rules too in effect one era/year as compared another tend to skew in ways that cannot be corrected (the 5 yard bump rule in 1978, and offensive lineman ability to use their hands more freely result a rule change 1973 are a couple that come to mind; both as well others impact the passing game, obviously.)

Even the numbers listed do not provide minute detail otherwise: for example, Otis Taylor played just three ‘plays’ of the first game/opening offensive series the 1975 season vs DEN before injuring his knee and missing the rest of the season(in fact, it in essence ended his career). Am certain there are other considerations as well I am unaware of re: other players. Other factors like steroid/PED use, be it an Alvin Roy 1950’s to the Chargers 1960’s to the Steelers 1970’s to today’s unmitigated medicinal disaster, my opine.

~

Best vs greatest vs most

Years ago I took to doing a comparison of ‘opportunities’ re: the home run hitters MLB, Ruth, Aaron and (Barry) Bonds. While many factors can be looked at, and the different eras each played in provided their own advantages and disadvantages, those are in the final analysis a ‘wash’, my opine. What is not is the actual number of opportunities each received, as in at bats. Games played are non sequitur on their face because the reality is players can pinch run, be a defensive replacement etc., the tote board would infer a they played a full ‘game’ as it were, first cursory glance.

Limited time/internet paper prevents greater narrative, but suffice to say that at a point in time when Ruth, Aaron and Bonds had a similar # of chances as in an equal # opportunities, said being 8,398 at bats, the hr totals for each were as follows: Ruth 714, Aaron 493 & Bonds 619; in fact, it took Bonds an extra 836 at bats to merely ‘tie’ Ruth at 714, and on his 837th extra at bat he finally managed to pass him, # 715.

Upshot – ‘best’, ‘greatest’ & ‘most prolific’ are different animals, be it baseball or football. Having watched football since the late 1950’s, no one will ever convince me that because player X has ‘more’ stat & gaudier ones too than player Z, that alone is an indicator of a ‘better’ player. Hence, why I am convinced that Ruth remains the ‘best’ home run hitter in MLB history, as indicated. To me, Bonds (and Aaron too that matter) merely continued running past the finish line of a race that Ruth had already won years before.

Likewise the silly numbers that continue to be put up yearly that have relegated to farce the record books, sports. Bend it like Beckham to make a point, when I ponder what has happened to ‘stat relevance’ today compared yesteryear, I am reminded of something Charles Manson once said – “you know, a long time ago being crazy meant something; nowadays everybody’s crazy.”

Ditto for ‘crazy stats’ and what passes for the ‘greatest’ today… I may be cynical but I am also realistic. For me, it was a much better brand of sports and game, pro football no less than any, yesteryear.