Top 10 poll: #11 player ever

[MilkSpiller22]

BA? Again?

Yes. Ba. It’s the clearest deflation there is. And a clear lack of accuracy in the adjustments.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Look at the steroid era. Where ba came back up. And look at ops+.

 

[calsnowskier]

Look at the steroid era. Where ba came back up. And look at ops+.

OPS+ is a comparative stat. If you take a sample of 1000 players using PEDs and 1000 players NOT using PEDs, the splatter graph should look almost identical.

 

[chappee11]

Maddux ‘93 and ‘94 is just filthy. He lead the league in IP both season while posting ERA+s of 260 and 271.

This run, alone, probably has more to do with hitters going to PEDs than anything else…

Though Clemens ‘97 he had significantly more IPs while putting up a 222 ERA+. He also had a total of 3 ERA+ 200 seasons vs Maddux’s 2. While Clemens only lead the league in IPs 2 times (Maddux 5 times), he consistently had higher seasonal totals (the two are within 100IPs for their careers, so that is essentially a wash)

Unplug Clemens and plug in Pedro and I’m sold. 1997-2003 Pedro was otherworldly, but particularly so in 1999 & 2000. I don’t think Clemens ever approached those heights, though he certainly did it much longer. Maddux? Yes. I am onboard.

 

[LHG]

Updating to include #9:
1) Babe Ruth (1914-1935)
2) Willie Mays (1948-1973)
3) Ted Williams (1939-1960)
4) Barry Bonds (1986-2007)
5) Hank Aaron (1954-1976)
6) Ty Cobb (1905-1928)
7) Lou Gehrig (1923-1939)
8) Mickey Mantle (1951-1968)
9) Walter Johnson (1907-1927)

1876-1904 - 0
1905-1906 - 1
1907-1913 - 2
1914-1922 - 3
1923-1927 - 4
1928 - 3
1929-1935 - 2
1936-1938 - 1
1939 - 2
1940-1947 - 1
1948-1950 - 2
1951-1953 - 3
1954-1960 - 4
1961-1968 - 3
1969-1973 - 2
1974-1976 - 1
1977-1985 - 0
1986-2007 - 1
2007-2024 - 0

Updated to reflect #10:
1) Babe Ruth (1914-1935)
2) Willie Mays (1948-1973)
3) Ted Williams (1939-1960)
4) Barry Bonds (1986-2007)
5) Hank Aaron (1954-1976)
6) Ty Cobb (1905-1928)
7) Lou Gehrig (1923-1939)
8) Mickey Mantle (1951-1968)
9) Walter Johnson (1907-1927)
10) Stan Musial (1941-1963)

1876-1904 - 0
1905-1906 - 1
1907-1913 - 2
1914-1922 - 3
1923-1927 - 4
1928 - 3
1929-1935 - 2
1936-1938 - 1
1939 - 2
1940 - 1
1941-1947 - 2
1948-1950 - 3
1951-1953 - 4
1954-1960 - 5
1961-1963 - 4
1964-1968 - 3
1969-1973 - 2
1974-1976 - 1
1977-1985 - 0
1986-2007 - 1
2007-2024 - 0

 

[LHG]

Once Hornsby or Young gets ranked, I am definitely voting Clemens in my top 3. Kid Nichols needs to enter the conversation sometime soon but I understand that pitchers from the early 20th century aren't most people's thing here.

 

[msgkings322]

Updated to reflect #10:
1) Babe Ruth (1914-1935)
2) Willie Mays (1948-1973)
3) Ted Williams (1939-1960)
4) Barry Bonds (1986-2007)
5) Hank Aaron (1954-1976)
6) Ty Cobb (1905-1928)
7) Lou Gehrig (1923-1939)
8) Mickey Mantle (1951-1968)
9) Walter Johnson (1907-1927)
10) Stan Musial (1941-1963)

1876-1904 - 0
1905-1906 - 1
1907-1913 - 2
1914-1922 - 3
1923-1927 - 4
1928 - 3
1929-1935 - 2
1936-1938 - 1
1939 - 2
1940 - 1
1941-1947 - 2
1948-1950 - 3
1951-1953 - 4
1954-1960 - 5
1961-1963 - 4
1964-1968 - 3
1969-1973 - 2
1974-1976 - 1
1977-1985 - 0
1986-2007 - 1
2007-2024 - 0

The 20s and 50s/early 60s are the main eras represented. Only one player who played after 1976 so far.

 

[msgkings322]

I plugged Hornsby into my Musial nomination slot. Once he's in I'm going to focus on more modern players, we got the old era well represented

 

[calsnowskier]

The 20s and 50s/early 60s are the main eras represented. Only one player who played after 1976 so far.

Post war, Americans needs heroes. They needed to relax from the hell of the 20s, 30s and 40s. It is understandable that sports filled that roll of providing heroes and that has been imprinted into the collective memory of American culture.

 

[msgkings322]

Post war, Americans needs heroes. They needed to relax from the hell of the 20s, 30s and 40s. It is understandable that sports filled that roll of providing heroes and that has been imprinted into the collective memory of American culture.

The 70s sucked too, no heroes needed after that?

 

[calsnowskier]

I plugged Hornsby into my Musial nomination slot. Once he's in I'm going to focus on more modern players, we got the old era well represented

It looks like Hornsby’s time has finally come. I will probably begin stumping Wagner moving forward, but I will need to re-assess my top 3. I assume I will keep Wagner. I think I will continue to support Clemens. But will I move towards Maddux? Will I jump on the Rickey train? Frank Robinson? Mike Schmidt? Johnny Bench? Will I find some internal equilibrium for ARod?

 

[calsnowskier]

The 70s sucked too, no heroes needed after that?

The media wasn’t in the hero-making business anymore. The 60s and 70 rebelled against hero culture and instead began embracing everything anti.

 

[msgkings322]

It looks like Hornsby’s time has finally come. I will probably begin stumping Wagner moving forward, but I will need to re-assess my top 3. I assume I will keep Wagner. I think I will continue to support Clemens. But will I move towards Maddux? Will I jump on the Rickey train? Frank Robinson? Mike Schmidt? Johnny Bench? Will I find some internal equilibrium for ARod?

After Hornsby wins I'm probably going with Mike Schmidt in that slot

 

[calsnowskier]

After Hornsby wins I'm probably going with Mike Schmidt in that slot

He is certainly on my short list for top 3, but I just can’t see an argument for Schmidt over Wagner.

 

[msgkings322]

He is certainly on my short list for top 3, but I just can’t see an argument for Schmidt over Wagner.

I'm never voting Wagner, unless we get into the 20s or 30s with the list. Way too far back for me. His competition was a bunch of bricklayers and cab drivers in the offseason and pitchers throwing 86 mph fastballs. Not even getting into the lack of black and Latin and Asian players.

 

[LHG]

I'm never voting Wagner, unless we get into the 20s or 30s with the list. Way too far back for me. His competition was a bunch of bricklayers and cab drivers in the offseason and pitchers throwing 86 mph fastballs. Not even getting into the lack of black and Latin and Asian players.

I do find this narrative a bit tiresome. All players in the 20s and 30s (before that as well) had 2nd jobs because the owners paid them so little and they have zero leverage to get better pay. That is why different major leagues popped up in the late 1800s/early 1900s because they offered the lure of better pay than the established league(s). Pay did start to get better in the 50s and 60s but it wasn't until the Curt Flood era of the 70s when MLB pay began to substantially change.

As for lack of black, Latin and Asian players, that is a fine argument in a vacuum but then came expansion not too long after integration. Any gains in the competitive quality of the average MLBer had to be negated with the fact that there were more MLBers. I doubt there is any way to prove one way or the other but my theory is that the quality of the average MLBer has probably stayed steady over the course of baseball's history.

I have no problems with ranking so many players from the early days of baseball. If anything, they usually get short shrift in rankings (see the ridiculous ESPN rankings that were shared last round). Most fans and talking heads don't even want to bother with anyone more than maybe 2 or 3 players pre TV and just discard them out of hand from any kind of consideration. I would say, if anything, our poll is probably bringing a bit of course correction, on a very small scale, to that recency bias that tends to cloud modern fans.

 

[msgkings322]

I do find this narrative a bit tiresome. All players in the 20s and 30s (before that as well) had 2nd jobs because the owners paid them so little and they have zero leverage to get better pay. That is why different major leagues popped up in the late 1800s/early 1900s because they offered the lure of better pay than the established league(s). Pay did start to get better in the 50s and 60s but it wasn't until the Curt Flood era of the 70s when MLB pay began to substantially change.

As for lack of black, Latin and Asian players, that is a fine argument in a vacuum but then came expansion not too long after integration. Any gains in the competitive quality of the average MLBer had to be negated with the fact that there were more MLBers. I doubt there is any way to prove one way or the other but my theory is that the quality of the average MLBer has probably stayed steady over the course of baseball's history.

I have no problems with ranking so many players from the early days of baseball. If anything, they usually get short shrift in rankings (see the ridiculous ESPN rankings that were shared last round). Most fans and talking heads don't even want to bother with anyone more than maybe 2 or 3 players pre TV and just discard them out of hand from any kind of consideration. I would say, if anything, our poll is probably bringing a bit of course correction, on a very small scale, to that recency bias that tends to cloud modern fans.

To each their own

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm never voting Wagner, unless we get into the 20s or 30s with the list. Way too far back for me. His competition was a bunch of bricklayers and cab drivers in the offseason and pitchers throwing 86 mph fastballs. Not even getting into the lack of black and Latin and Asian players.

Hornsby, Speaker and Wagner (as well as Ruth, Cobb, Johnson and Gehrig) all played in similar eras.

Using those concerns within the calculus is totally OK. We all have our own era-modifiers that we apply. But to just expel the arguable greatest SS in the history of the game because he played a few years before Hornsby is short sighted, imho.

 

[msgkings322]

Hornsby, Speaker and Wagner (as well as Ruth, Cobb, Johnson and Gehrig) all played in similar eras.

Using those concerns within the calculus is totally OK. We all have our own era-modifiers that we apply. But to just expel the arguable greatest SS in the history of the game because he played a few years before Hornsby is short sighted, imho.

Too many great players, not enough slots. Gotta go with what we prefer.

Mike Schmidt playing back then would have even better numbers IMO. And Wagner's today would be worse. No way to prove that, just my opinion.

 

[Clayton]

Will I find some internal equilibrium for ARod?

I guess the thing with ARod is how much we penalize him. Imo, this is about where I might consider him if totally clean.

I'd be fine with "12. Alex Rodriguez*" just to acknowledge how good he was. It might be easier than justifying him at 30 or something like that