GOAT Open Era data for Perspective

leeroy85

Rookie
Diff Factor GS Finals GS Wins
Bjorn Born 12 16 11
Boris Becker 23 10 6
Andre Agassi 33 15 8
Pete Sampras 29 18 14
Ivan Lendl 35 19 8
Mats Wilander 19 11 7
Stefan Edberg 31 11 6
Rafael Nadal 8 8 6
Jimmy Connors 22 15 8
Jim Courier 13 7 4
John McEnroe 20 11 7
Roger Federer 8 21 15

Diff Factor represent the number of great players in the field when in a GS final.
 

Steve132

Professional
Diff Factor GS Finals GS Wins
Bjorn Born 12 16 11
Boris Becker 23 10 6
Andre Agassi 33 15 8
Pete Sampras 29 18 14
Ivan Lendl 35 19 8
Mats Wilander 19 11 7
Stefan Edberg 31 11 6
Rafael Nadal 8 8 6
Jimmy Connors 22 15 8
Jim Courier 13 7 4
John McEnroe 20 11 7
Roger Federer 8 21 15

Diff Factor represent the number of great players in the field when in a GS final.

How do you define "great players"?
 

leeroy85

Rookie
My post did not have the column settings that I wanted. I wanted to see the difficulty that these Players had. I wanted to include players that won a minimun of 3 Grand Slams grand slams since 74. I mistakenly forgot Gustavo Kurton. For example, Ivan Lendl won 8 GSs and was in 19 GS finals. The years he was in GS finals was from 81 to 91. During that period of 81 and 91, he intersects with other players who won 3 GS finals such as B Borg, J Connors, and John Mc. Middle of career, he intersects with Wilander, Edberg, Becker. Later part he intersects with, Courior, Agassi, and Sampras.
The Difficulty factor was calculated like this. Becker had a GS final run between 85 and 96. So between 85 to 91, Becker was in the field with Lendl a total of 7. I did this for the other players in field and Lendl had a difficulty factor of 35. Sampras had a GS final run between 1990 to 2002. He had lots of competition early in carreer but only competition between later part of carreer was Agassi. I left out 2 GS final winner like Hewitt, Rafter, Safin. Federer intesects with an old Agassiand Nadal only. Nadal only interescts with Federer. I do not mean to disbarge anyone here. Just wanted to see level of competetion that players faced that were Champion level ( 3 GS final wins. I had in excel with a nice graph but could not post it.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
I don't think your diff factor thing works very well mate!

If you're trying to say Sampras was up against more great players than McEnroe and Connors, then it doesn't anyway!
 

leeroy85

Rookie
Noticed that I also left out Vilas and Newcombe which would increase Connors difficulty factor by 8 points to total 30. Connors GS runs from 74 to 84. Connors intersects with Vilas, Newcombe, Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl, Wilander. Sampras GS run from 1990 - 2002 to intersects with Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Couirier, Agassi, Kuerten. Kuerten run from 1997 - 2001. Adds 5 more to Sampras diff factor to 36. Sampras main difficulty was from Agassi.
I see your point Jimmy.
 

leeroy85

Rookie
Mcenroe run was short from 79 - 85. He faced difficult competition but his run was short. Wish I could post my Excel graph. Gives a visual when player faced someone in theri prime. From Example Lendl's run from 81 to 91, he faced prime Mcenroe, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. He had it rough. Becker surprising had GS wins spanning 12 years, 85 to 96 Aus Open. Becker a bit underrated. I think he could have won more slams if he cooled it with the ladies.
 

leeroy85

Rookie
sorry for mistakes. Becker had diff factor of 38: Lendl from 85-91, McEnroe 85, Wilander 85-88, Sampras 90-96, agassi 90-96, Courier 91 -93, Edberg 85-92.
 

leeroy85

Rookie
The point I am trying to make is that it is not clear cut that Federer is the GOAT. Federer only faced Agassi and Nadal who are 3 time GS winners. Federer run from 2003 - to present. If you had a dream tournament of Fed , Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras even Agassi, Becker, Edberg all in their primes, the outcome is uncertain.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
The logic here is so flawed it's not funny.

Of course this ridiculously devalues any player's career who was very very dominant in their time - like Federer.

Rename your factor the "even spread" factor, because that's all it really measures - how evenly were titles spread at the time. Maybe even a 'dilution' factor.

It's pretty much agreed that fed and nadal are in the best 20 players of all time, right? What if Rod Laver Junior had played the last 10 years and won *every slam*. Suddenly, a player that wins 40 GS has a low or zero diff factor, despite his dominance over two players we know are great, all because he was greater....

(PS. I'm a huge lendl fan, i just hope this logic wasn't used to pump up lendl statistically. His numbers and results speak for themselves....)
 

leeroy85

Rookie
I'm not saying this Difficulty Factor determines GOAT but i use it to give perspective of a players career along with longevity and number of GS wins.
Becker had a high DF but not enough GS wins. Aggassi GS appearances spanned from 1990 - 2005. Impressive 16 yrs but too many loses to Sampras. Fed appearances span from 2003 to present. So far 8 years of GS final appearances, 21 GS finals, and 15 GS. Only con would be that his only main rival in his time who won 3 GS is Nadal and he has 5 loses to him GS finals. Nadal GS appearances start from 2005 to 2009, so far 5 years of GS finals, 8 GS finals, 6 GS wins. It helps that 5 of his 6 wins is against Fed. But so far 5 years of GS finals and only interscts with Agassi and Fed as 3 times GS winners. AGassi only the old Agassi. Thats not a knock against him but just gives perspective. I don't think Nadals GS appearances are going to be too mnay from here on out though.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Diff Factor GS Finals GS Wins
Bjorn Born 12 16 11
Boris Becker 23 10 6
Andre Agassi 33 15 8
Pete Sampras 29 18 14
Ivan Lendl 35 19 8
Mats Wilander 19 11 7
Stefan Edberg 31 11 6
Rafael Nadal 8 8 6
Jimmy Connors 22 15 8
Jim Courier 13 7 4
John McEnroe 20 11 7
Roger Federer 8 21 15

Diff Factor represent the number of great players in the field when in a GS final.

Sorry I am dense. Could you please explain what these numbers mean more fully? (Let's pick one as an example and clarify the numbers, say Fed: 15 is the slams he has won; 21 is the number of slam finals he has been in to date, and what is the 8?)
 
Last edited:

leeroy85

Rookie
Fed run of GS started 2003 - present. Only 3 GS winners does he interest with is Agassi from 2003 - 2005 (3) and Nadal from 2005 - 2009 (5) ; brings his Diff Factor to 8. This is not to disparage or minimize his dominance. Have to factor in he has won 15 GS and was in 21 GS finals. Fed just faced less players who has championship swagger, but not Fed's fault but interesting to point out for GOAt perspective.
 

mtr1

Professional
So what are you saying? Federer should have let other people win Grand Slams so he would have "great players" to play against which would make him the GOAT? He is the reason that there are so few grand slam winners out there, eg Hewitt, Roddick, because he has won all the titles.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
So what are you saying? Federer should have let other people win Grand Slams so he would have "great players" to play against which would make him the GOAT? He is the reason that there are so few grand slam winners out there, eg Hewitt, Roddick, because he has won all the titles.

Corrreeect!

The most common flaw in the "Federer isn't great because he doesn't play against other greats / multiple winners" is exactly as you point out. The logic indeed implies that if Federer lost more he would be seen as great(er). Bizarre.
 

leeroy85

Rookie
Fact that FED won 15 GS and was in 21 GS finals, imo, immediatly puts him in GOAT conversation. But suggesting that Lendl, Sampras, Agassi could have held their own against FED in their primes. Even Edberg and BEcker would have given FED fits. Sure they won less GS, but played against more players with Championship swagger.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
Fact that FED won 15 GS and was in 21 GS finals, imo, immediatly puts him in GOAT conversation. But suggesting that Lendl, Sampras, Agassi could have held their own against FED in their primes. Even Edberg and BEcker would have given FED fits. Sure they won less GS, but played against more players with Championship swagger.

I see no proof of that, especially not by the logic you've used in this thread.

If fed won less you'd rate him higher... ridiculous.
 

Steve132

Professional
Fact that FED won 15 GS and was in 21 GS finals, imo, immediatly puts him in GOAT conversation. But suggesting that Lendl, Sampras, Agassi could have held their own against FED in their primes. Even Edberg and BEcker would have given FED fits. Sure they won less GS, but played against more players with Championship swagger.

You have failed completely to address the logical error in your argument identified by mtr1 and OrangeOne. You can't determine the quality of a player's competition by the number of majors won by his contemporaries, because that statistic is not independent of - and, in fact, is inversely related to - the player's own performance. In other words, the greater a player is, the fewer majors his contemporaries will win. By your criteria, if Federer had lost more often and allowed Hewitt and Roddick to win three or more majors each he would have faced "tougher competition" and hence be considered a greater player. That is absurd.

Nor do you have any basis for arguing that "Lendl, Sampras, Agassi could have held their own against FED in their primes. Even Edberg and BEcker would have given FED fits." I'm not a great fan of hypothetical matchups in general, since they often tell us little except the writer's own prejudices. It's clear, however, that for the reasons mentioned above you can't use the number of majors won by contemporaries as a guide to who would win any hypothetical match between two players.

Incidentally, as Sampras fans are notoriously fond of telling us, Federer played against another three time major winner, Gustavo Kuerten. Even your basic statistics leave much to be desired.
 
Top