Top 10 poll: #12 player ever

[calsnowskier]

1) Babe Ruth (defeated Willie Mays 23-9)
2) Willie Mays (defeated Barry Bonds 26-11)
3) Ted Williams (defeated Barry Bonds 18-17)
4) Barry Bonds (defeated Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb 20-11-8)
5) Hank Aaron (defeated Ty Cobb 17-16)
6) Ty Cobb (defeated Lou Gehrig 24-9)
7) Lou Gehrig (defeated Walter Johnson 19-10)
8) Mickey Mantle (defeated Walter Johnson 17-12)
9) Walter Johnson (defeated Stan Musial and Rogers Hornsby 18-7-3)
10) Stan Musial (defeated Rogers Hornsby 15-10)
11) Rogers Hornsby (defeated H. Wagner, R. Henderson, M. Schmidt and R. Clemens 15-4-3-2-1)

Who is the #11 player ever? Vote for your top 3. This poll will close Tuesday AM.

@blstoker @navamind @LHG @steveringo @broncosmitty @packerzrule @Shanemansj13 @jarntt @redseat @trojanfan12 @black francis @molsaniceman @Fountain City Blues @Used 2 B Hu @MilkSpiller22 @mr.hockey4242 @chappee11 @CitySushi @Clayton @UK Cowboy @Beengay fudgepackers @Hbomb @Diamondeye @Maximus Rex @Pure Steel @jon2tanman @Boglodyte @nynasty @Hank Kingsley @Wamu @Janus @Robotech @kcden @jwolt92 @Sportsguy9695 @DHoey @chillerdab @DorianRo @socaljim242 @VikingFan2k2 @PolarVortex @msgkings322 @Cedrique @BigFin @catman @omarsrevenge @rmilia1 @Stakesarehigh @obxyankeefan @femurov @Nosferatu @Maverick426h @TheGoodMan19 @Bodega

 

[LHG]

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

Updated for #11:
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)
11) Rogers Hornsby (1915-1937)

1876-1904 - 0
1905-1906 - 1
1907-1913 - 2
1914 - 3
1915-1922 - 4
1923-1927 - 5
1928 - 4
1929-1935 - 3
1936-1937 - 2
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

 

[MilkSpiller22]

this is really where doing positions first would have helped... i think we are having a hard time deciding on pitcher, and some dont want to nominate 2 or 3 pitchers...

kind of wish we could have a consensus next pitcher just to gain traction over others...

i do feel like sometimes, when we vote, we will look at who is winning so far, and then we are more likely to vote for them...

 

[calsnowskier]

this is really where doing positions first would have helped... i think we are having a hard time deciding on pitcher, and some dont want to nominate 2 or 3 pitchers...

kind of wish we could have a consensus next pitcher just to gain traction over others...

i do feel like sometimes, when we vote, we will look at who is winning so far, and then we are more likely to vote for them...

Not the active comentors (you, me, Clayton, LHG, a few others). But the silent voters are probably not paying close attention. There are still many who only nominate 1. I suspect those are probably homers who aren’t giving this a lot of thought.

I do agree that once someone gets active discussion, they keep getting that discussion which naturally encourages them getting more votes. But that could also be explained away due to those players getting more votes because they deserve them.

If anyone wants to do positions, they can search for the tourney that Omar ran 10 years ago, or do a simple Google search to get some quick lists for brainstorming purposes.

 

[femurov]

i do feel like sometimes, when we vote, we will look at who is winning so far, and then we are more likely to vote for them...

You can vote before you look at who is winning. It should be what everyone does in these to keep it fair.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Not the active comentors (you, me, Clayton, LHG, a few others). But the silent voters are probably not paying close attention. There are still many who only nominate 1. I suspect those are probably homers who aren’t giving this a lot of thought.

I do agree that once someone gets active discussion, they keep getting that discussion which naturally encourages them getting more votes. But that could also be explained away due to those players getting more votes because they deserve them.

If anyone wants to do positions, they can search for the tourney that Omar ran 10 years ago, or do a simple Google search to get some quick lists for brainstorming purposes.

its really just for pitching... as the top 8 just feel so condensed...

Seaver, Clemens, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Gibson, Walter Johnson, Cy young, sandy koufax, etc...

sure we all have our own rankings for these... but i just think this varies so much more than hitters...

and if people are voting and pitchers are splitting votes, it just gives the position players a huge boost...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

You can vote before you look at who is winning. It should be what everyone does in these to keep it fair.

true, but then we come down to how someone commented on how @calsnowskier has listed the names... he has listed the top players from past rounds first... so, people are still heavily going to pick players on the top of the list... if it was more random, then maybe people would search more... idk... i really dont... just spitballing here... and no, i am not claiming that this is not a fair way to vote...

 

[calsnowskier]

its really just for pitching... as the top 8 just feel so condensed...

Seaver, Clemens, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Gibson, Walter Johnson, Cy young, sandy koufax, etc...

sure we all have our own rankings for these... but i just think this varies so much more than hitters...

and if people are voting and pitchers are splitting votes, it just gives the position players a huge boost...

Splitting votes doesn’t hurt anyone using a 50+1 system. If two voters are split between Young and Clemens, when one is eliminated, the other should get that vote.

 

[calsnowskier]

I see I missed a few updates in my copy/past of the main post. This will close Friday AM.

 

[LHG]

My 3 votes:

Roger Clemens (1984-2007) - As promised, I am going to start putting him on my 3 votes now that Hornsby is in. I think we all know about him but to recap: 24 seasons, 7 Cy Young awards, another 3 top 5 Cy Young seasons, 1 MVP, 7 seasons he led the league in WAR, 354 career wins (9th all time), 4,672 strikeouts (3rd all time), 139.2 career WAR (8th all time), 65.9 WAR7 (17th all time, no adjustments), 143 ERA+ (7th all time)

Cy Young (1890-1911) - Talk about legend. The guy with all time career wins (511, when wins meant more for starters who regularly pitched whole games), the annual award for best pitcher in MLB is named after him. Led the league in WAR for 6 seasons, 163.6 career WAR (3rd all time), 78 WAR7 (3rd all time, no adjustments), 138 ERA+ (11th all time).

Tris Speaker (1907-1928) - I've been stumping for him for a few rounds. Consider this: In 22 seasons, Speaker hit .345/.428/.500. His OPS+ of 158 ranks 14th all time among players with at least 12 seasons of playing time. He has a career WAR of 134.9 (9th all time, only Clemens and Young have higher among the non ranked). His WAR7 is 62.7 (14th all time among position players, 5th among those not ranked). He is the career doubles leader (46 more than Pete Rose, who had 3,870 more PAs to get that 2nd place). He led the league in WAR 3 seasons, hits twice and doubles 8 times.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

My 3 votes:

Roger Clemens (1984-2007) - As promised, I am going to start putting him on my 3 votes now that Hornsby is in. I think we all know about him but to recap: 24 seasons, 7 Cy Young awards, another 3 top 5 Cy Young seasons, 1 MVP, 7 seasons he led the league in WAR, 354 career wins (9th all time), 4,672 strikeouts (3rd all time), 139.2 career WAR (8th all time), 65.9 WAR7 (17th all time, no adjustments), 143 ERA+ (7th all time)

Cy Young (1890-1911) - Talk about legend. The guy with all time career wins (511, when wins meant more for starters who regularly pitched whole games), the annual award for best pitcher in MLB is named after him. Led the league in WAR for 6 seasons, 163.6 career WAR (3rd all time), 78 WAR7 (3rd all time, no adjustments), 138 ERA+ (11th all time).

Tris Speaker (1907-1928) - I've been stumping for him for a few rounds. Consider this: In 22 seasons, Speaker hit .345/.428/.500. His OPS+ of 158 ranks 14th all time among players with at least 12 seasons of playing time. He has a career WAR of 134.9 (9th all time, only Clemens and Young have higher among the non ranked). His WAR7 is 62.7 (14th all time among position players, 5th among those not ranked). He is the career doubles leader (46 more than Pete Rose, who had 3,870 more PAs to get that 2nd place). He led the league in WAR 3 seasons, hits twice and doubles 8 times.

Young and speaker definitely bring the question of what is more important, being a great accumulator, or having a great peak.. sure both Young and speaker had great peaks, but there are players available with better...

Honestly, i am trying to figure out whether some things i think are myths or if they are facts...

1. stats were exaggerated due to weak players outside of the elite...
2. the difficulty of play allowed players to accumulate seasons- if the average fast ball was in the low 90s, high 80s, when players aged the decrease of the pitchers velocity did not change as much, and the reflexes of the batters didnt get as much affect...-
3. due to the lack of RP used it was easier for hitters as the game went... in general... now this would also mean pitchers would get the disadvantage as the game goes, but if the elite pitchers were able to minimize their batters faced, there should not be a big decline in energy as the game goes on...
4. there were only 8 teams in leagues, so players became very familiar with eachother... sure, they were not watching videos, or having great scouting reports, but players did have something... whether i know what that thing is or not...
5. also since there was only 8 teams, having bolded stats was not as difficult...



now, i have plenty of reasons to believe the above... and i am sure, there are more that i didnt list... but i am not sure how true any of it is...

but to summarize, my overal theories

1. As the baseball science has improved, and with the changes in rules, it is much harder to show consistency year to year, and aging players tend to be more aparaent in their decline

2. as the science improves and the rule changes(especially the usage of RP), it is harder to reach the exaggerated stats marks...

3. as more teams entered the league, bolded numbers became harder to achieve-this one might not be a myth, it is basically easy math...

 

[Clayton]

I have Henderson, Wagner, and Speaker.

Henderson, greatest leadoff man, maybe not a top 20 prime but a unique prime and a lengthy career. Also a good representative of his era.

Wagner, arguably greatest SS. SS is so important of a position that it probably needs to be on here somewhere.

Speaker. Dem stats.

I will say that this is the least certain I've been about any of my picks. I think Clemens would be up there if I thought he was clean with his revival. Clemens v ARod probably needs to be sorted out in my mind.

 

[calsnowskier]

Top 10 remaining WAR hitters (I am not aware of a WAR7 ranking anywhere - I always manually calc it when I mention it)…

Tris Speaker 134.9
Honus Wagner 131.0
Eddie Collins 124.3
Alex Rodriguez 117.6
Rickey Henderson 111.1
Mel Ott 110.9
Frank Robinson 107.2
Nap Lajoie 106.9
Mike Schmidt 106.9
Albert Pujols 101.4

 

[Clayton]

Top 10 remaining WAR hitters (I am not aware of a WAR7 ranking anywhere - I always manually calc it when I mention it)…

Tris Speaker 134.9
Honus Wagner 131.0
Eddie Collins 124.3
Alex Rodriguez 117.6
Rickey Henderson 111.1
Mel Ott 110.9
Frank Robinson 107.2
Nap Lajoie 106.9
Mike Schmidt 106.9
Albert Pujols 101.4

If the link I'm looking at is right then WAR7 is:

8 Honus Wagner 65.5
9 Mike Trout 65.1
12 Eddie Collins 64.2
13 Alex Rodriguez 64.2
14 Tris Speaker 62.7
15 Albert Pujols 61.7
17 Nap Lajoie 60.1
18 Joe Morgan 59.2
19 Mike Schmidt 58.8
20 Jimmie Foxx 57.9
21 Rickey Henderson 57.6
22 Wade Boggs 56.4
23 Cal Ripken 56.3

Wagner highest War7, 2nd in War, played SS

 

[calsnowskier]

I will say that this is the least certain I've been about any of my picks. I think Clemens would be up there if I thought he was clean with his revival. Clemens v ARod probably needs to be sorted out in my mind.

everyone has their own line, and that is fine (as long as you treat it consistently). For me, it comes down how the league offices treated rules.

Clemens played the game that was in front of him. He never broke any rules. The “rest of the league” was playing the same game he played. Bonds, Ortiz, Piazza, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sheffield, etc fall into this group as well.

Rodriguez broke a very distinct rule that had every spotlight in existence focused on that aspect of the game. And he got caught MULTIPLE TIMES breaking that rule. He wasn’t just playing the game that was placed in front of him. It was clear what was allowed and what wasn’t. He played a different game from everyone else. Cano, Ramirez and Pettitte all fall under this banner.

Sosa is in a class of his own, imho. He has the B&C stink on him (which I personally excuse), but he also has the corked bat. Corked bats were illegal, but there wasn’t the kind of spotlight focus on it the way PEDs had. How different is a corked bat from what Neikro or Perry did?

 

[calsnowskier]

If the link I'm looking at is right then WAR7 is:

8 Honus Wagner 65.5
9 Mike Trout 65.1
12 Eddie Collins 64.2
13 Alex Rodriguez 64.2
14 Tris Speaker 62.7
15 Albert Pujols 61.7
17 Nap Lajoie 60.1
18 Joe Morgan 59.2
19 Mike Schmidt 58.8
20 Jimmie Foxx 57.9
21 Rickey Henderson 57.6
22 Wade Boggs 56.4
23 Cal Ripken 56.3

Wagner highest War7, 2nd in War, played SS

Is that the Hyper Text site?

If it is, they incorporate AdjWAR and it isn’t dynamic (it was compiled once and posted in column format)

 

[LHG]

Young and speaker definitely bring the question of what is more important, being a great accumulator, or having a great peak.. sure both Young and speaker had great peaks, but there are players available with better...

Honestly, i am trying to figure out whether some things i think are myths or if they are facts...

1. stats were exaggerated due to weak players outside of the elite...
2. the difficulty of play allowed players to accumulate seasons- if the average fast ball was in the low 90s, high 80s, when players aged the decrease of the pitchers velocity did not change as much, and the reflexes of the batters didnt get as much affect...-
3. due to the lack of RP used it was easier for hitters as the game went... in general... now this would also mean pitchers would get the disadvantage as the game goes, but if the elite pitchers were able to minimize their batters faced, there should not be a big decline in energy as the game goes on...
4. there were only 8 teams in leagues, so players became very familiar with eachother... sure, they were not watching videos, or having great scouting reports, but players did have something... whether i know what that thing is or not...
5. also since there was only 8 teams, having bolded stats was not as difficult...



now, i have plenty of reasons to believe the above... and i am sure, there are more that i didnt list... but i am not sure how true any of it is...

but to summarize, my overal theories

1. As the baseball science has improved, and with the changes in rules, it is much harder to show consistency year to year, and aging players tend to be more aparaent in their decline

2. as the science improves and the rule changes(especially the usage of RP), it is harder to reach the exaggerated stats marks...

3. as more teams entered the league, bolded numbers became harder to achieve-this one might not be a myth, it is basically easy math...

Not sure how you can state that there are plenty of reasons to believe your assumptions, when they are just that, assumptions.

There is no way to know if the players around the elite were generally weaker. Yes, segregation took out some talent from the leagues but then came expansion, before all the effects of the modern science based game.

We don't know how fast the pitches were back then because they didn't have the use of radar guns or any other method to determine that. Johnson's fastball was said to be one of the fastest in all of baseball but no one had any way of objectively determining that.

Number 3, I would say, helps bolster the starting pitchers who were good. If hitters had a bead on them by the 3rd time around, these guys would have a lot weaker numbers.

Lack of scouting reports, videos and so on would actually make 8 teams in the league more equivalent to 14 to 16 team leagues today. It would take awhile to figure out players and teams without any advanced methods of study.

(Side note - 16 teams in MLB was really only a thing between 1901 (when the AL formed and other leagues collapsed) and 1962 (when expansion started). Prior to that, there not just the NL but also the Player's League, the American Association and the Union Association. Major league teams pre 1900 were as high as 20 among the multiple leagues.)

Even though 8 team leagues did exist, there was still only one league leader every year. Yes, the likelihood of a player being the league leader in something was statistically higher but nevertheless still difficult and still worth consideration. Arguing that if more teams existed that some player who did not play in the big leagues would have led the league in a significant statistic is a bit of a reach. We could just as well apply that argument in any era of baseball (had person X played in 1962, he could have led the league in home runs). To me, that should be a nonstarter in considerations for players we know played in major league baseball.

 

[LHG]

I have Henderson, Wagner, and Speaker.

Henderson, greatest leadoff man, maybe not a top 20 prime but a unique prime and a lengthy career. Also a good representative of his era.

Wagner, arguably greatest SS. SS is so important of a position that it probably needs to be on here somewhere.

Speaker. Dem stats.

I will say that this is the least certain I've been about any of my picks. I think Clemens would be up there if I thought he was clean with his revival. Clemens v ARod probably needs to be sorted out in my mind.

If the link I'm looking at is right then WAR7 is:

8 Honus Wagner 65.5
9 Mike Trout 65.1
12 Eddie Collins 64.2
13 Alex Rodriguez 64.2
14 Tris Speaker 62.7
15 Albert Pujols 61.7
17 Nap Lajoie 60.1
18 Joe Morgan 59.2
19 Mike Schmidt 58.8
20 Jimmie Foxx 57.9
21 Rickey Henderson 57.6
22 Wade Boggs 56.4
23 Cal Ripken 56.3

Wagner highest War7, 2nd in War, played SS

I have Wagner a notch below Speaker in my scoring so I could understand if Wagner comes in before Speaker or Clemens. I'm still putting Cy Young first among all remaining candidates. I read a lot of posters talking about how hard it is to rank pitchers in this poll but haven't seen a lot of ideas on how to do it. Seems that most, from my perspective, just want to ignore pitchers completely or keep putting them off.

 

[Clayton]

Is that the Hyper Text site?

If it is, they incorporate AdjWAR and it isn’t dynamic (it was compiled once and posted in column format)

I guess I'll probably just have to put in the work when making comparisons. I'm not entirely sold on WAR at this point other than to maybe boost Wagner. I guess its also really the case for Clemens as pitcher 2, imo.

Clemens checks a lot of boxes. Its just that the prime isnt quite up there with some others. I mentioned this is about where I'd consider ARod and I think Clemens is also right there. If we're getting into 'he was just playing the game at the time' conversation then Clemens probably a hair above ARod.

The 7 year metric...its a lot but Im not sure its everything. A lot of players put in 9-13 great years at this point. Would I rather have 12 great years than 7 slightly more great years? Basically Trout v Pujols.

 

[Clayton]

I have Wagner a notch below Speaker in my scoring so I could understand if Wagner comes in before Speaker or Clemens. I'm still putting Cy Young first among all remaining candidates. I read a lot of posters talking about how hard it is to rank pitchers in this poll but haven't seen a lot of ideas on how to do it. Seems that most, from my perspective, just want to ignore pitchers completely or keep putting them off.

The pitchers right now have a bit of a Venn Diagram problem to a certain extent. Cy Young clearly has the longevity and just bulk stats. Pedro maybe has the best prime, Maddux best prime mixed with defense. Clemens checks the most boxes. Randy Johnson maybe just eyeball test. Clemens seems like the one who will come off the board first but maybe 3-4 come off the board shortly.