Don't measure GOATs by counting stats

Wimbledon was a disappointment for those hoping for clarification that Roger Federer and Serena Williams are, in fact, the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT) when it comes to singles tennis.  Federer lost two match points on his serve and eventually succumbed to Novak Djokovic, who didn’t win a single set but won three tie-breakers.  Serena “cruised” through her draw (more about that later) but lost in the Final to Simona Halep, thus losing another opportunity to tie Margaret Court at 24 majors.

There are many, many ways to determine who is the GOAT, but using a counting stat like most majors won is not a good one.  Players play in different eras, against different opponents, using different equipment and strategies, and a simple one-to-one comparison of most majors won is pointless.

So, is Margaret Court better than Serena because she leads in majors won 24-23?  Hardly.  Court played at a time when tennis players outside of Australia rarely made the trek Down Under to play in the Aussie Open.  11 of her 24 major wins were in the Aussie Open, defeating other Aussie players like Jan Lehane, Kerry Melville Reid, and Yvonne Goolagong in the finals.  Serena is playing in a much more competitive environment, so saying Court is better by 24-23 is not really relevant.

Of course, Serena is considered better than Steffi Graf because she has 23 majors to Graf’s 22, but that’s not really relevant either.  Graf won her 22 majors by age 30, while Serena took until she was 35.  That means Serena had 20 more bites at the apple before she caught up with Steffi.  And you can’t blame injuries; Serena missed 9 majors between the year she first won one and when she won her 22nd, but Steffi missed 10.  Throw in the fact that Steffi completed a “Golden Slam” in 1988, winning the Grand Slam plus an Olympic Gold Medal (Serena has to be content with a “Serena Slam” by winning 4 majors in a row in 2014-15) and I could make a case for Steffi being the GOAT despite being a mere one major behind Serena.  I also think Graf beat better players when she won; Serena got to the final at Wimbledon despite not meeting a player ranked above 15 in the prelims.  Steffi usually faced more serious opposition in her quarters and semis.

On the men’s side, Federer is in first place 20-18 over Nadal and 20-16 over Djokovic.  But Nadal could pass him simply by winning the next three French Opens, and Djokovic, at 32, could have as many as 20 more opportunities to get an additional 5 major wins (and he’s won 4 of the past 5 majors, missing only the French Open which Nadal owns).  Federer could win more majors, but at 38 years old his window is closing, despite just missing a victory at Wimbledon against Djokovic.

Frankly, I will continue to consider Federer as the men’s GOAT, even if his total number of majors gets surpassed.  Maybe if Djokovic passed him by 4 or 5 I’d have to reconsider, but if Joker ends with 22 and Federer 20, I’m still voting for Fed.  He’s nearly 6 years older than Djokovic yet had two match points against Joker at Wimbledon; let’s see how Djokovic’s game is when he is 38.  Federer had to battle a younger Nadal for much of his career as well as a much younger Djokovic, while few of the players younger than Joker are much of a threat.

My favorite cautionary tale of counting stats is Rafael Palmiero, who had 3,000 hits and 500 home runs and was considered a lock for the Hall of Fame until he failed a drug test after wagging his finger at Congress.  He is now off the ballot and will only make the Hall if voted in by the Veteran’s Committee (probably likely given how nutty they have been in the past), but my point is even if you take away the failed drug test, what did he ever DO to get into the Hall?  He ran up some impressive counting stats, but that only proves he had a long, injury-free career during a period of high offense and played in parks that also favored offense.  He never led the league in any major statistical category (I think he led in doubles once), he never led his team deep into the playoffs, he never did well when he got to the playoffs, and in a 19 year career he started one All-Star game as a DH.  He belongs in the Hall of Pretty Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

So, put not your faith in counting stats when choosing a GOAT.  Jim Brown may not own the record for most yards gained, but he is still the best running back of all time.  Tiger Woods probably won’t catch Jack Nicklaus’ record for majors, but he was more dominant when he was at his peak.  

Counting stats can measure linear feats, but greatness is rarely measured linearly.