POLL Top 10 poll #13: #13 player in history - Runoff

[Cedrique]

didnt matter for what i was doing... comparing players in their actual purpose...

I'd argue a little with that. Schmidt was a 3 hitter. Scoring runs is part of his purpose as well. The great power hitters are more than just RBI guys. He was "the guy" in the lineup so he got a lot of walks and scored a lot of runs as well.

That being said, they were both great hitters but I have Schmidt because of his defense

 

[Cedrique]

I don’t mind them as “looking back summaries” of players. Looking at what someone “could do” or what they are “capable of doing” are predictive metrics. But RBI, Runs, Wins, Saves etc are accomplishment metrics. At the end of the day, runs scored, outs recorded, games won, etc are the only things that matter. Those are resume builders.

Accolades are VERY flawed. Much like the results of these polls, there are inconsistencies. But the accolades offer a glimpse at how the player was viewed by the people who watched them play, in comparison to their immediate contemporaries.

That's a great point. A lot of good discussions today. Too bad I wasted my day going to work.

 

[Cedrique]

Per Wiki, here is a list of notable players who all failed a test, and thus, is exempt from this list imho…

Rafael Palmeiro
Manny Ramirez (x2)
Bartolo Colon
Ryan Braun
Nelson Cruz
Alex Rodriguez (x2)
Miguel Tejada
Chris Davis
Dee Gordon
Starling Marte
Robinson Cano (x2)
Fernando Tatis Jr

Ok, I never thought I be doing this, but let me stump for Rafael Palmeiro, being in consideration eventually even though there are a lot of players in front of him.
Palmeiro's career ran from 1986 to 2005. 2004 or 2005 I believe was the first season that mlb suspended players for a positive test. Palmeiro failed a test in 2005. By the standards you have repeated throughout this process you are absolving Everyone of any kind of PED use before mlb started suspending players. Therefore by definition anything Palmeiro did up until 2003/(4?). has to be completely legal. So you can cut the last year or two off of his career, but you can't say that he was anything less as a ballplayer for any season up through 2003/(4?). All of his best seasons happened before that when everything he did was completely legal.

Now for someone like Robinson Cano, who STARTED his career in 2005 you can exempt him by saying "he was using PEDs at least enough to get caught and probably a bunch more that we don't know about". But for Palmeiro the best you can do (by your definition) is say " he was using PEDs in 2005 and maybe 2004 but I know for absolute certainty that he did not cheat before that because no one did.

So in conclusion, Free Raffy! And you also have to give Arod his first 8 or 9 years which might put him in some kind of weird Sandy Koufax situation.

 

[calsnowskier]

Ok, I never thought I be doing this, but let me stump for Rafael Palmeiro, being in consideration eventually even though there are a lot of players in front of him.
Palmeiro's career ran from 1986 to 2005. 2004 or 2005 I believe was the first season that mlb suspended players for a positive test. Palmeiro failed a test in 2005. By the standards you have repeated throughout this process you are absolving Everyone of any kind of PED use before mlb started suspending players. Therefore by definition anything Palmeiro did up until 2003/(4?). has to be completely legal. So you can cut the last year or two off of his career, but you can't say that he was anything less as a ballplayer for any season up through 2003/(4?). All of his best seasons happened before that when everything he did was completely legal.

Now for someone like Robinson Cano, who STARTED his career in 2005 you can exempt him by saying "he was using PEDs at least enough to get caught and probably a bunch more that we don't know about". But for Palmeiro the best you can do (by your definition) is say " he was using PEDs in 2005 and maybe 2004 but I know for absolute certainty that he did not cheat before that because no one did.

So in conclusion, Free Raffy! And you also have to give Arod his first 8 or 9 years which might put him in some kind of weird Sandy Koufax situation.

Fair argument. A similar argument could be made for Tatis. He failed one test, but has been clean since. Is one stumble enough for permanent condemnation?

I look at the guys who tested positive in the ‘00s a bit different than the guys who tested positive in the ‘20s, though. Testing positive in the ‘00s is a sign that the player just didn’t give a shit about what was allowed vs what was explicitly disallowed. Getting caught at that point, with the very clear focus by the entire sports world on PED usage is just taking the “fuck you” attitude to a level that can’t be comprehended.

Call it a stupid tax?

 

[Cedrique]

Fair argument. A similar argument could be made for Tatis. He failed one test, but has been clean since. Is one stumble enough for permanent condemnation?

I look at the guys who tested positive in the ‘00s a bit different than the guys who tested positive in the ‘20s, though. Testing positive in the ‘00s is a sign that the player just didn’t give a shit about what was allowed vs what was explicitly disallowed. Getting caught at that point, with the very clear focus by the entire sports world on PED usage is just taking the “fuck you” attitude to a level that can’t be comprehended.

Call it a stupid tax?

If he goes on to have a great career and never tested positive again you could probably spin it favorably. I'd still want to throw out the first 3 seasons before he was suspended when considering him among the all time greats(even though I think he was actually suspended in the middle of recovering from an injury) .

 

[calsnowskier]

If he goes on to have a great career and never tested positive again you could probably spin it favorably. I'd still want to throw out the first 3 seasons before he was suspended when considering him among the all time greats(even though I think he was actually suspended in the middle of recovering from an injury) .

I think in the future, there is room for PED usage with a doctor’s RX and oversight. Maybe something like…

“Players can use, but they have to notify the league that they will use and provide a usage schedule. They are then prohibited from play in any league events for X-time period. This prohibition will not be viewed as a suspension and will have no negative connotation.”

 

[Cedrique]

I think in the future, there is room for PED usage with a doctor’s RX and oversight. Maybe something like…

“Players can use, but they have to notify the league that they will use and provide a usage schedule. They are then prohibited from play in any league events for X-rime period. This prohibition will not be viewed as a suspension and will have no negative connotation.”

Yeah I think that could be a good thing. Maybe test those people a little more after the use just to be safe as well.

And this is totally unrelated, but while I absolutely think amphetamines and cocaine can be a short term performance enhancer I would guess that they are not nearly as effective long term as the adderall and other legal prescription amphetamines that 20 or 30% (or whatever it is) of the players take now.