Listening to Mike and Mike this morning on my way to work. They were discussing a study that had been done regarding top athletes and genetics that included NBA, NFL and MLB players. It found that 48% of NBA players were related to someone who had played professional sports, college sports, or on a countries national team. Compared to 17% of NFL players and 14% of MLB players. It was their contention that NBA players were the best athletes in the world citing the role of genetics. True?
Mike and Mike - The best athletes/ genetics
- Thread starter TwolfHerdfan
- Start date
1 - That is stupid, even by ESPN standards.
2 - ESPN hypeing the NBA. Shocked.
3 - The NBA is by far the most simplistic sport I can think of.
2 - ESPN hypeing the NBA. Shocked.
3 - The NBA is by far the most simplistic sport I can think of.
That stat is just common sense because height is such an important commodity in basketball. 17% of all 7-foot American men between the ages of 20-40 play in the NBA. It's idiotic to use that stat to make an argument for which sport has the "best" athletes.
Frankly, I could care less about the NBA. Haven't watched a full game in years. Just thought the angle was interesting topic.
Yes. And it's not even close.
Theres a reason why NFL teams are plucking 6'8+ athletes from college basketball and trying to turn them into football players.
Baseball isn't exactly rocket science. 90+% of the game is sitting or standing in one spot
I would say NBA players, top to bottom, are the best athletes. Skill position football players are also right there.
Didn't Jimmy the Greek have something to say on athletes and genetics?
The way OL/DL are able to be 6'8" 350lbs and move like swans should not be overlooked in the atheletic department.
This is the right answer.
LOL to guy saying basketball is "simplistic." Certainly much more complicated than baseball and soccer.
Saying soccer is "less complicated" than basketball is just as dumb as saying basketball is simplistic.
Soccer is basketball with 11 players on a 75x120 yard field and goaltending is legal.
Soccer is basketball with 11 players on a 75x120 yard field and goaltending is legal.
Using this logic, it stands to reason that (arguably) the greatest basketball player of all time would have a tremendous and longstanding career in ... say perhaps ... baseball?
I don't think that the number of relatives who have played professionally correlates to which sport (there are many missing from that list) houses the greatest athletes. Besides . . . we all know who was the greatest athlete of all time . . .
Crack jokes at Jordan all you want but not many people could go from basketball to professional baseball without playing it in about 15-20 years and still hit .200Using this logic, it stands to reason that (arguably) the greatest basketball player of all time would have a tremendous and longstanding career in ... say perhaps ... baseball?
I don't think that the number of relatives who have played professionally correlates to which sport (there are many missing from that list) houses the greatest athletes. Besides . . . we all know who was the greatest athlete of all time . . .
Guys everyone knows GOLFERS are the best athletes !
There are fewer NBA players than NFL players just because of the difference in the size of the teams. It's just logical that where there are fewer positions available (the NBA), the overall sample is going to be more athletic on average.
There are approximately 450 NBA players out there and about 1700 NFL players. It just stands to reason that the top 450 guys in any sport are going to be, on average, more elite than the top 1700 guys in another sport. If there was another sport where only 20 guys were good enough to make the pros, then those 20 guys would all be even more elite on average.
If you use the numbers provided (48% of the guys in the NBA - i.e. 48% of 450; 17% of 1700 NFL players), then it all comes out about the same.
There are approximately 200 guys in both leagues who have a genetic connection to other elite athletes. So really they have no point, but it's true that the overall sample in the NFL is less elite. In fact, there is a higher raw number of these guys related to other athletes in the NFL. I would guess almost all of them are skill position players. You could use the exact same numbers to argue that the NFL is the most athletic league. Just depends on your interpretation.
There are many guys in the NFL (more, in fact) who are just as athletic as anyone in the NBA . . . but overall, the NFL sample is going to be diluted by the (slightly) less elite athletes making up the rest of all the 53 man rosters.
There are approximately 450 NBA players out there and about 1700 NFL players. It just stands to reason that the top 450 guys in any sport are going to be, on average, more elite than the top 1700 guys in another sport. If there was another sport where only 20 guys were good enough to make the pros, then those 20 guys would all be even more elite on average.
If you use the numbers provided (48% of the guys in the NBA - i.e. 48% of 450; 17% of 1700 NFL players), then it all comes out about the same.
There are approximately 200 guys in both leagues who have a genetic connection to other elite athletes. So really they have no point, but it's true that the overall sample in the NFL is less elite. In fact, there is a higher raw number of these guys related to other athletes in the NFL. I would guess almost all of them are skill position players. You could use the exact same numbers to argue that the NFL is the most athletic league. Just depends on your interpretation.
There are many guys in the NFL (more, in fact) who are just as athletic as anyone in the NBA . . . but overall, the NFL sample is going to be diluted by the (slightly) less elite athletes making up the rest of all the 53 man rosters.
Last edited:
Don't forget, JAMES KELLY was signed out of Marshall hoops by the Phil. Eagles (NFL). Some schools of thought..."Kelley was the BEST Athlete to EVER play for Marshall."
HerdZilla22 in Charlotte
HerdZilla22 in Charlotte
Not sure I would say that the NBA has the greatest athletes but when you have an athlete like Lebron James that is 6'8" and 250lbs and can move the way he does it does pose the argument.
However Randy Moss was an absolute freak of nature.
I'd say it's a wash between the NFL and the NBA.
I would however say that the MLB probably has the worst athletes as there are fat dudes out there playing.
However Randy Moss was an absolute freak of nature.
I'd say it's a wash between the NFL and the NBA.
I would however say that the MLB probably has the worst athletes as there are fat dudes out there playing.
I've seen basketball players play football, I've seen track guys play football, I've seen basketball players play baseball. I don't think I've ever seen a football player transition to another sport unless it was track and field at the Olympics.
Baseball doesn't require elite athleticism, but does require elite skill-sets (hand-eye coordination, arm strength, etc). Not just anyone can throw a baseball 90 mph. Not just anyone can hit a 90 mph fastball, let alone professional quality breaking pitches.
Basically, every sport has its own set of physical requirements to play. The NBA has some guys who don't appear athletic either (John Cheney called them "goons"), but get them around average people and they are way more athletic. NFL has the most athletic freaks because several positions on the field are almost 100% physical (block, tackle, etc), but the fast twitch and pure speed of abnormally large people? Freakish.
