POLL Top 10 poll: #14 player ever

[calsnowskier]

I don't think Thome needs an "exemption", but yeah none of them had the really gaudy WAR numbers, probably because a big part of their game was hitting homeruns in an era where a lot of people hit homeruns.

I don’t give Thome or Griffey or anyone from the era a pass. I assume everyone was “dirty”.

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't think Thome needs an "exemption", but yeah none of them had the really gaudy WAR numbers, probably because a big part of their game was hitting homeruns in an era where a lot of people hit homeruns.

Ignoring the stink, Sosa is a good comp to Koufax. He shined SUPER bright for a short time (5 years?), but just didn’t have the longevity to accumulate any serious career numbers.

And the bat puts him into a different class where I could be convinced he belongs with Rodriguez and Cano and those guys. He OFFICIALLY cheated. No getting around that.

 

[calsnowskier]

How do we judge Altuve, Beltran, Correa, Bregman etc? They all OFFICIALLY cheated as well.

Beltran is probably the only guy of that list who would seriously be discussed within the lifetime of this project (probably not, though), but how should we treat them?

 

[LHG]

I just don’t care about a great players twilight years. He plays because he is able to put asses in seats or because he loves the game. That shouldn’t effect who he was when he was there to actually help the team win.

To borrow from milkspiller, great players should get bonus points for being not as bad as others were in the twilight of their careers. A lesser fade breaks a tie, in my opinion.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

To borrow from milkspiller, great players should get bonus points for being not as bad as others were in the twilight of their careers. A lesser fade breaks a tie, in my opinion.

huh?? quoting me when I said the absolute opposite...

 

[Clayton]

Ignoring the stink, Sosa is a good comp to Koufax. He shined SUPER bright for a short time (5 years?), but just didn’t have the longevity to accumulate any serious career numbers.

1 all-time season and 8 good seasons for Sosa. Probably more comparable to Joe Medwick than McGwire was. Koufax has arguably 4 all-time seasons. I think he is above this.

 

[calsnowskier]

To borrow from milkspiller, great players should get bonus points for being not as bad as others were in the twilight of their careers. A lesser fade breaks a tie, in my opinion.

Meh

Extrapolate this out. A Barry Bonds level player is dominant for 15 year. He then plays for an additional 30 years (absurd range just to make a point…. Thus extrapolation) and played at a -2.0 WAR level for those 30 years. That would absolutely DESTROY his career rate stats (as well as his career WAR).

Does that take away, in any manner, the player he was in his prime?

 

[steveringo]

Someone sell me on Randy Johnson being the 2nd best pitcher of all time.

I'm guessing he's getting a lot of 2nd place votes...

 

[LHG]

huh?? quoting me when I said the absolute opposite...

Didn't quote, borrowed the concept of bonus points for something. It was a bit of a play on your concept of using the postseason to bolster someone's credentials.

The tail end of an elite player's career isn't their career. Its not the spokesman of their career but it should still be considered in factoring in whether one player was better than the other. If two players have a similar peak but player A's tail end was better than player B's, then player A should be considered the better of the two.

 

[calsnowskier]

Didn't quote, borrowed the concept of bonus points for something. It was a bit of a play on your concept of using the postseason to bolster someone's credentials.

The tail end of an elite player's career isn't their career. Its not the spokesman of their career but it should still be considered in factoring in whether one player was better than the other. If two players have a similar peak but player A's tail end was better than player B's, then player A should be considered the better of the two.

I would rather look at their WAR7 (or WAR10, or whatever) and keep the discussion at that. Looking at who sucked less should NEVER factor in to a GOAT discussion.

 

[LHG]

Meh

Extrapolate this out. A Barry Bonds level player is dominant for 15 year. He then plays for an additional 30 years (absurd range just to make a point…. Thus extrapolation) and played at a -2.0 WAR level for those 30 years. That would absolutely DESTROY his career rate stats (as well as his career WAR).

Does that take away, in any manner, the player he was in his prime?

It does if player B is also Barry Bonds level dominant for 15 years and then players an additional 30 years at -1.0 WAR level for those 30 years.

I'm not removing from these comparisons yearly seasons or peak seasons, just calling out that the whole body of work should be considered.

 

[calsnowskier]

It does if player B is also Barry Bonds level dominant for 15 years and then players an additional 30 years at -1.0 WAR level for those 30 years.

I'm not removing from these comparisons yearly seasons or peak seasons, just calling out that the whole body of work should be considered.

Completely disagree. His 30 tack-on seasons have nothing to do with the player that is being discussed.

 

[LHG]

I would rather look at their WAR7 (or WAR10, or whatever) and keep the discussion at that. Looking at who sucked less should NEVER factor in to a GOAT discussion.

And its really how you look at it too. I don't see it as who sucked less (come on, we are talking about the greatest players of all time right now) but who did better at the end. If player A was Bonds level for 15 years and had a Henderson end of career for 5 years and is being compared to player B, who was a Henderson level bat for 15 years but leveled out his last 5 years with a more tapered end of a career, then it would still be player A who would be better (and I'd bet the career rate stats would still bear that out) but if both were Bonds level for 15 years and one was other at the last 5 than the other, who would you pick as better?

 

[LHG]

Completely disagree. His 30 tack-on seasons have nothing to do with the player that is being discussed.

Then I ask the same question as before. If two players have very similar peaks but their ends were different, how do you pick which was the better player?

 

[Clayton]

Beltran is probably the only guy of that list who would seriously be discussed within the lifetime of this project (probably not, though), but how should we treat them?

If we want to talk about someone boosted by playing well in the playoffs it would be him. In his first 51 playoff games, he had 123 Total Bases. He is probably a top 50 player if you ignore the *

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Didn't quote, borrowed the concept of bonus points for something. It was a bit of a play on your concept of using the postseason to bolster someone's credentials.

The tail end of an elite player's career isn't their career. Its not the spokesman of their career but it should still be considered in factoring in whether one player was better than the other. If two players have a similar peak but player A's tail end was better than player B's, then player A should be considered the better of the two.

I actually question the entire aspect of longevity... other than the steroid era, we very rarely saw players not decline in their 30s and 40s... sure they might have had an outlier season here or there... but for the most part they almost always declined...

the only thing for some is that they either declined at a slower rate, or because the league had exaggerated numbers their decline still was above league averages...

you love the early players, but its clear to me that their longevity success is based on the times...

Pujols probably has the most true longevity... and I don't punish him for it..

 

[calsnowskier]

And its really how you look at it too. I don't see it as who sucked less (come on, we are talking about the greatest players of all time right now) but who did better at the end. If player A was Bonds level for 15 years and had a Henderson end of career for 5 years and is being compared to player B, who was a Henderson level bat for 15 years but leveled out his last 5 years with a more tapered end of a career, then it would still be player A who would be better (and I'd bet the career rate stats would still bear that out) but if both were Bonds level for 15 years and one was other at the last 5 than the other, who would you pick as better?

But the fictitious Henderson-type you are talking about would have the OPS+ buckets to argue that he was still productive. And his WAR15 would be stellar.

You are arguing that some years that are good should be looked at. And I never disagreed with that notion. But a productive player in his age 47 season is not the same as he was in his age 26 season. And outing his OPS from both those seasons into a single bucket tells me NOTHING. Keep those two datasets separated. THAT tells me something.

 

[calsnowskier]

Then I ask the same question as before. If two players have very similar peaks but their ends were different, how do you pick which was the better player?

Buckets.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If we want to talk about someone boosted by playing well in the playoffs it would be him. In his first 51 playoff games, he had 123 Total Bases. He is probably a top 50 player if you ignore the *

Beltran doesn't really get any post season bonus for me... as he didn't get legend points... he won only one WS, and did nothing in it... he was a Post season stud, but not a WS stud... there is a HUGE difference...

 

[Cedrique]

I don’t give Thome or Griffey or anyone from the era a pass. I assume everyone was “dirty”.

Yeah I understand and respect your opinion but I see a gray area or middle ground between the stance of you and some others and the stance of the guys who say "I'll never vote for Clemens (or whoever). I don't have time to expound on it, but I will later (do you feel the suspense building?....)