Top 10 poll #12: #12 player in history - Runoff 2

[Clayton]

Speaker, imho, is in another tier down. He is clearly below his contemporaries of Wagner, Hornsby, Ruth, etc. and we have already picked that era dry.

I definitely don't agree with him being in a different tier than Wagner. Ruth? Sure. There are also 3 pitchers from that era who should probably go top 50 so I wouldn't say we've picked it dry at all.

I'm not fully sure the HOF guys at the time knew what they were doing but Speaker made the 2nd class and Hornsby didnt get in until the 5th class.

I do think I need to start considering Frank Robinson.

 

[calsnowskier]

I definitely don't agree with him being in a different tier than Wagner. Ruth? Sure. There are also 3 pitchers from that era who should probably go top 50 so I wouldn't say we've picked it dry at all.

I'm not fully sure the HOF guys at the time knew what they were doing but Speaker made the 2nd class and Hornsby didnt get in until the 5th class.

I do think I need to start considering Frank Robinson.

I wasn’t referring to the pitchers of the era. Imho, Clemens is the top pitcher available. So no point naming anyone else until he is in.

i like Speaker, but he is pretty much off my board for a while. We have already gone deep with the hitters from his time, and I believe everyone we have added thus far are superior to him.

 

[Clayton]

We have already gone deep with the hitters from his time

This sentence means absolutely nothing to me.

It's like the Broncos not drafting Bo Nix because too many QBs had gone.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

This sentence means absolutely nothing to me.

It's like the Broncos not drafting Bo Nix because too many QBs had gone.

no, it would be more like calling Matt Stafford a top 10 QB of all time... because he is top 10 in passing yards all time... ignoring WHY he is top 10 all time

 

[calsnowskier]

This sentence means absolutely nothing to me.

It's like the Broncos not drafting Bo Nix because too many QBs had gone.

I have a hard time looking at the 6th best players (or whatever ranking) from an era and considering him a top 15 player of all time. But it isn’t that he is the 6th best player. It is that there is a significant gap between him and the next better player of his era while a lot of other players from other eras are clearly higher than the next guy or the next tier in theirs.

I don’t get too married to the “we need somewhat this era or that era” concept, but there at her era have super-studs that we haven’t looked at yet. And I think Speaker is further from the elite of his era than these other players (many of whom ARE the elites of their eras).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have a hard time looking at the 6th best players (or whatever ranking) from an era and considering him a top 15 player of all time. But it isn’t that he is the 6th best player. It is that there is a significant gap between him and the next better player of his era while a lot of other players from other eras are clearly higher than the next guy or the next tier in theirs.

I don’t get too married to the “we need somewhat this era or that era” concept, but there at her era have super-studs that we haven’t looked at yet. And I think Speaker is further from the elite of his era than these other players (many of whom ARE the elites of their eras).

I actually think speaker has better numbers than Honus... but I am also very anti Honus... so there...

 

[Clayton]

no, it would be more like calling Matt Stafford a top 10 QB of all time... because he is top 10 in passing yards all time... ignoring WHY he is top 10 all time

I think the one guy that fits is Cy Young but I'm sure people will fight for him

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have a hard time looking at the 6th best players (or whatever ranking) from an era and considering him a top 15 player of all time. But it isn’t that he is the 6th best player. It is that there is a significant gap between him and the next better player of his era while a lot of other players from other eras are clearly higher than the next guy or the next tier in theirs.

I don’t get too married to the “we need somewhat this era or that era” concept, but there at her era have super-studs that we haven’t looked at yet. And I think Speaker is further from the elite of his era than these other players (many of whom ARE the elites of their eras).

this entire experiment has made me really question what longevity is... players who play in an easier period, where the exaggerated numbers are clear(this includes Bonds, and Clemens and other steroid era elite, and pre 1950), should they get the huge bonus?? especially since most of them have declined, just were able to keep some numbers because they were already exaggerated..

while some players get penalized because their later seasons were a clearer decline.. and others just have shorter careers..

 

[calsnowskier]

I actually think speaker has better numbers than Honus... but I am also very anti Honus... so there...

I have analyzed their numbers multiple times, and I just don’t see it. I just see people SAY Speaker is better without actually showing any numbers to back it up (or explain the behind-the-numbers argument).

And is before I factor in SS vs OFer.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think the one guy that fits is Cy Young but I'm sure people will fight for him

I would vote Cy before Speaker.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have analyzed their numbers multiple times, and I just don’t see it. I just see people SAY Speaker is better without actually showing any numbers to back it up (or explain the behind-the-numbers argument).

And is before I factor in SS vs OFer.

I Do have to relook after my epiphany about the over-rated term of longevity.. so I may change my opinion... but it is also irrelevant since we will not be comparing the 2 in this experiment..

 

[calsnowskier]

this entire experiment has made me really question what longevity is... players who play in an easier period, where the exaggerated numbers are clear(this includes Bonds, and Clemens and other steroid era elite, and pre 1950), should they get the huge bonus?? especially since most of them have declined, just were able to keep some numbers because they were already exaggerated..

while some players get penalized because their later seasons were a clearer decline.. and others just have shorter careers..

I know pre-Jackie is a thing for you. And that is fine. I get it. But expansion came not long after Jackie, and that pretty much nullified the watered-down argument, imho.

 

[calsnowskier]

I Do have to relook after my epiphany about the over-rated term of longevity.. so I may change my opinion... but it is also irrelevant since we will not be comparing the 2 in this experiment..

I think you need to compare players to others in their own era, though. Since there is no way to know for fact that one era was stronger or weaker than another era, we can rank players in their own era for comparison purposes. This is why I am a fan of + stats. You can’t compare Schmidt and Wagner directly against each other just by looking at raw numbers alone. But if you know each were SUPERSTARS of their eras, than you know their numbers are somewhat equivalent. Now you can use their lines as baselines for looking at OTHER players of their era to BEGIN the long comparison process.

Not perfect, by any stretch. And it is ripe for debate (thus the dozens of threads of 100s of comments this project has produced).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I know pre-Jackie is a thing for you. And that is fine. I get it. But expansion came not long after Jackie, and that pretty much nullified the watered-down argument, imho.

its much more than just Jackie... I know you ignore BA... but it is so clear that there was a BA deflation after 1950... and BA deflation is going to create an OBP deflation, and there fore an OPS and OPS+ deflation...

and I have never claimed that the elite were any less elite in that era(not that that was what you said I claimed)...

I actually can care less about Jackie if the stats seemed more consistent...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think you need to compare players to others in their own era, though. Since there is no way to know for fact that one era was stronger or weaker than another era, we can rank players in their own era for comparison purposes. This is why I am a fan of + stats. You can’t compare Schmidt and Wagner directly against each other just by looking at raw numbers alone. But if you know each were SUPERSTARS of their eras, than you know their numbers are somewhat equivalent. Now you can use their lines as baselines for looking at OTHER players of their era to BEGIN the long comparison process.

Not perfect, by any stretch. And it is ripe for debate (thus the dozens of threads of 100s of comments this project has produced).

ummm.. aren't we doing a best of the best?? the whole experiment is comparing players from different eras..

 

[calsnowskier]

its much more than just Jackie... I know you ignore BA... but it is so clear that there was a BA deflation after 1950... and BA deflation is going to create an OBP deflation, and there fore an OPS and OPS+ deflation...

and I have never claimed that the elite were any less elite in that era(not that that was what you said I claimed)...

I actually can care less about Jackie if the stats seemed more consistent...

If there is a league wide number adjustment, that means there was likely some kind of external force suppressing or amplifying that metric. And why + stats are so important.

 

[calsnowskier]

ummm.. aren't we doing a best of the best?? the whole experiment is comparing players from different eras..

Right. And this how you do it. Look at + stats, look at accolades (tough for pre-40s players), look at bolded numbers

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think you need to compare players to others in their own era, though. Since there is no way to know for fact that one era was stronger or weaker than another era, we can rank players in their own era for comparison purposes. This is why I am a fan of + stats. You can’t compare Schmidt and Wagner directly against each other just by looking at raw numbers alone. But if you know each were SUPERSTARS of their eras, than you know their numbers are somewhat equivalent. Now you can use their lines as baselines for looking at OTHER players of their era to BEGIN the long comparison process.

Not perfect, by any stretch. And it is ripe for debate (thus the dozens of threads of 100s of comments this project has produced).

and I don't trust + stats because again, they don't measure this BA deflation well enough...

 

[calsnowskier]

and I don't trust + stats because again, they don't measure this BA deflation well enough...

Huh?

+ stats compare a player’s performance against other players of the same year. It PERFECTLY adjusts for any global rise or fall of a single metric.

And ftr, I NEVER look at career + stats. + stats are for seasonal consumption only.

 

[LHG]

I get the impression that Henderson and Schmidt will both pass him up

But Henderson is surely clean of steroids. Never mind that he was on the team of Canseco and McGwire for years and lasted longer than just about anyone else in MLB during that time period.