Who is better, Hoffman or Thomas?
Lane Thomas leads with a GOAT score of 54.2 against 54.1 for Jeff Hoffman — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Lane Thomas above Jeff Hoffman: 54.2 vs 54.1. Lane Thomas leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak. Jeff Hoffman leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Thomas wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Hoffman wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/ros-jeff-hoffman-disc-toronto-blue-jays-vs-ros-lane-thomas
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Thomas leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏳️ Hoffman | 0 | 0 | 22 | 104 | 177 | 479 |
| 🏳️ Thomas | 0 | 0 | 12 | 16 | 410 | 800 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HoffmanActive · Toronto Blue Jays | ThomasActive · Atlanta Braves |
|---|---|---|
| MLB games | 402 | 719 |
| MLB wins | 44 | — |
| MLB strikeouts | 767 | — |
| MLB award: NL All-Star | 1 | — |
| Number | 23 | 20 |
| MLB hits | — | 800 |
| MLB home runs | — | 120 |
| MLB award: TEX Mid-Season All-Star | — | 1 |
| MLB award: TEX Post-Season All-Star | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 48.5 | 52 |
| Peak w20% | 71 | 72.1 |
| Longevity w20% | 60.2 | 50.6 |
| Honours w20% | 26 | 32 |
| Statistics w15% | 69.9 | 68.3 |
Lane Thomas leads with a GOAT score of 54.2 against 54.1 for Jeff Hoffman — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Hoffman scores higher on statistics, longevity. Thomas leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hoffman: 54.1, Thomas: 54.2.
Make your case for Hoffman vs Thomas. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.