Top 10 poll: #11 player ever

[calsnowskier]

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

I am not a fan of taking wild guesses about “what would have been”. That is just fiction. But ignoring player X due to a technicality is equally fictitious. But ARod wasn’t okaying the same game as Schmidt. It would be akin to try to rate Tom Brady on a list of greatest baseball players ever. He played a totally different game, so it just doesn’t make sense to rate him.

Like I said. I get a calculation error in my head when I try to consider ARod. I have no idea how to account for him.

 

[chappee11]

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 think the 80’s & 90’s were probably the best era for full representation. That’s when I started watching and my favorite players growing up were Bonds, Griffey & Thomas(all black). Hell, they might have been the best 3 players at that time; but there were a LOT of great black ballplayers in that era (Rickey, Dawson, Raines, Belle, McGriff, Gooden, Strawberry etc…) as well as the full arsenal of Dominican talent and Asian talent incoming. Now there is still a massive flow from the Dominican, Venezuela & Asia, but almost none of the elite black athletes play baseball anymore. There is no way to prove this, but I think the 80’s and 90’s were the best era for overall talent.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

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.

Both statements are pretty safe to say.

Although wagner was pretty big for a ss at 200’pounds. So nobody knows whether he could have been a HR hitter or not. But his average would certainly go down. And he did not take walks. So his obp would be significantly worse. So him being good would all depend on him being able to hit the home run. I would like to assume he would have been able to. Because again he wasn’t a small man.

If Schmidt played before the home run, you would have to assume his ba would have improved. And as a player who always took walks. His obp would have had to be elite level. Also as a HR hitter we know he has power. So he would have likely still hit the ball hard. But just for doubles.

 

[calsnowskier]

Both statements are pretty safe to say.

Although wagner was pretty big for a ss at 200’pounds. So nobody knows whether he could have been a HR hitter or not. But his average would certainly go down. And he did not take walks. So his obp would be significantly worse. So him being good would all depend on him being able to hit the home run. I would like to assume he would have been able to. Because again he wasn’t a small man.

If Schmidt played before the home run, you would have to assume his ba would have improved. And as a player who always took walks. His obp would have had to be elite level. Also as a HR hitter we know he has power. So he would have likely still hit the ball hard. But just for doubles.

They didn’t even know what OBP was back in those days. Did Schmidt have enough power to be Ruth before Ruth was Ruth? We can assume his BA would go up because he would have changed his swing to accommodate, but we have no idea if his skillset really would have translated.

Regardless, at the end of the day, this is a pointless argument anyway. It is pure conjecture. We can only look at Schmidt vs his contemporaries compared to Wagner and his contemporaries.

 

[msgkings322]

They didn’t even know what OBP was back in those days. Did Schmidt have enough power to be Ruth before Ruth was Ruth? We can assume his BA would go up because he would have changed his swing to accommodate, but we have no idea if his skillset really would have translated.

Regardless, at the end of the day, this is a pointless argument anyway. It is pure conjecture. We can only look at Schmidt vs his contemporaries compared to Wagner and his contemporaries.

I truly feel Schmidt stood out from his contemporaries as much or more than Hornsby did from his. Not just numbers but aura. Plus I am ready to go modern. That said I am voting Hornsby now then staying modern

 

[msgkings322]

@calsnowskier unless I'm mistaken I don't see you voting in this poll. You may have explained this, I know you don't vote in the runoff unless it's to break a tie but why don't you put in your 3 nominees?

 

[calsnowskier]

@calsnowskier unless I'm mistaken I don't see you voting in this poll. You may have explained this, I know you don't vote in the runoff unless it's to break a tie but why don't you put in your 3 nominees?

I listen to arguments.

 

[msgkings322]

I listen to arguments.

Me too. Why don’t you pick nominees like the rest of us?