POLL Top 10 poll: #14 player ever

[MilkSpiller22]

Buckets.

buckets is one way... but I still give a player more credit for being the best in a season than I do if someone had good stats...

for example, if someone had a 180 OPS+ which is clearly a great season, but if someone else that season had 190...

while player B had a 170 OPS+, and lead baseball that year...

what is better that 180, or that 170...

 

[Clayton]

there is a HUGE difference...

and that is....?

A lot of this involves the Cardinals beating him

 

[MilkSpiller22]

and that is....?

not sure what you are asking... what is the difference between being a good post season player and a good WS player??

well... the WS is the most important series there is, so if you are not a good WS player when you had the opportunity to play in the WS, then you really can't be a good post season player... Can you??

and WS is of course going to get the major focus, since WC games are a newer invention...

being a WS hero is also what creates Legends... which again to me is why I am shocked you cardinal fans love Musial so much more than Pujols... but I think that is really based on other things besides baseball play....

 

[LHG]

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..

I wasn't focused on early players when this came up but, since you are bringing this back up, have you looked at Hank Aaron's numbers in his 30s/40s? How do you explain his general success during point in his career?
Your theory that some guys who did not fade as much as you think they should at the end of their careers from the early part of baseball and that is due to the era that they played in is a pretty hard sell. Can you give some real subjects to explain this? And please don't cherry pick. Can you point out 20 of the top players from the early days (not sure the full time period you are referencing) and compare their 30s/40s to the same level of players from outside the era you are you are referencing and then show how, in general, those time periods saw different declines from players overall?

 

[Clayton]

not sure what you are asking... what is the difference between being a good post season player and a good WS player??

well... the WS is the most important series there is, so if you are not a good WS player when you had the opportunity to play in the WS, then you really can't be a good post season player... Can you??

and WS is of course going to get the major focus, since WC games are a newer invention...

being a WS hero is also what creates Legends... which again to me is why I am shocked you cardinal fans love Musial so much more than Pujols... but I think that is really based on other things besides baseball play....

Honestly I think thats a load of crap. Winning a playoff series is a big deal. World Series is a small sample size. Same difference for the most part. People give Cardinals fans crap for loving David Freese.

If a position player is a star and beats you in a World Series, your manager messed up

 

[DHoey]

McGwire is tough to make an argument for top 50. Injuries took two years off his prime and everything after that is boosted. His 98 season is one of the all time great batting seasons but for an obvious reason. Even if I'm not factoring in the roids he is below Joe Medwick which means McGwire is likely fringe top 100.

The problem I have with McGwire, is I think he was roiding the whole time. I feel like Bonds or A-Rod didn't start right away.

 

[LHG]

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.

Buckets.

I'm not certain we are fully understanding each other.

Let me see if I can further explain this. We have player A and player B. Consider:

OPS+ by buckets:
190-199 - Player A (2), Player B (2)
180-189 - Player A (1), Player B (1)
170-179 - Player A (3), Player B (2)
160-169 - Player A (2), Player B (3)
150-159 - Player A (3), Player B (4)
140-149 - Player A (5), Player B (4)

Player A played 21 seasons and has a career OPS+ of 148
Player B played 22 seasons and has a career OPS+ of 138

Do you choose who is better solely on buckets?

 

[DHoey]

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.

I feel bad for Koufax. I think if it were today, he would have had surgery on his arm and bounced back strong ala Verlander

 

[Clayton]

The problem I have with McGwire, is I think he was roiding the whole time. I feel like Bonds or A-Rod didn't start right away.

In general he isnt someone Im going to stump for. With or without roids Bonds and A-Rod were better players.

 

[calsnowskier]

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?....)

 

[DHoey]

In general he isnt someone Im going to stump for. With or without roids Bonds and A-Rod were better players.

That's the sad part. I think both Bonds and A-Rod would have been all time greats even if they hadn't had juiced.

 

[calsnowskier]

buckets is one way... but I still give a player more credit for being the best in a season than I do if someone had good stats...

for example, if someone had a 180 OPS+ which is clearly a great season, but if someone else that season had 190...

while player B had a 170 OPS+, and lead baseball that year...

what is better that 180, or that 170...

I can agree to that, to a degree. But OPS+ is already comparative. And getting into that level of minutia is difficult to do at scale.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm not certain we are fully understanding each other.

Let me see if I can further explain this. We have player A and player B. Consider:

OPS+ by buckets:
190-199 - Player A (2), Player B (2)
180-189 - Player A (1), Player B (1)
170-179 - Player A (3), Player B (2)
160-169 - Player A (2), Player B (3)
150-159 - Player A (3), Player B (4)
140-149 - Player A (5), Player B (4)

Player A played 21 seasons and has a career OPS+ of 148
Player B played 22 seasons and has a career OPS+ of 138

Do you choose who is better solely on buckets?

I am arguing that career rate stats (and OPS+ is a comparative rate stat) is essentially worthless. It essentially puts 2 distinctly different players into a single dataset. I care about career WAR to an extent (mainly because the fictitious player we talked about with 30 tack-on seasons of -2.0 WAR doesn’t actually exist) because WAR is a counting stat. I don’t give a shit about career OPS because it includes seasons where the player wasn’t expected to provide anything.

 

[calsnowskier]

I feel bad for Koufax. I think if it were today, he would have had surgery on his arm and bounced back strong ala Verlander

Likely.

But he didn’t.

And interesting point bringing in post-TJ as a comparison to PEDs.

 

[DHoey]

Likely.

But he didn’t.

And interesting point bringing in post-TJ as a comparison to PEDs.

^^^I didn't do that.

 

[calsnowskier]

^^^I didn't do that.

You didn’t?

Maybe I read into it more than you INTENDED, but I think that’s EXACTLY what you did.

 

[Clayton]

I get the feeling that Ohtani is going to be the next player after Clemens. Although Im not entirely sure Clemens is the next player

 

[DHoey]

You didn’t?

Maybe I read into it more than you INTENDED, but I think that’s EXACTLY what you did.

It was not my intent at all. Gonna get real deep if someone wants to argue they are related. Both are science...one accepted, one taboo....HMMMM.

 

[LHG]

I get the feeling that Ohtani is going to be the next player after Clemens. Although Im not entirely sure Clemens is the next player

Man, I hope not. That is based entirely on what we think he is likely to do. Top 50? Okay, I'm willing to give that to him already. Top 20? Not a chance, not based on resume, no.

 

[Clayton]

Man, I hope not. That is based entirely on what we think he is likely to do. Top 50? Okay, I'm willing to give that to him already. Top 20? Not a chance, not based on resume, no.

I do feel like I need to get my 'Show-Me State' card out when I see someone being ranked on potential.

It'll make this a fun experiment, though. This list will age really well in a decade or look quite embarrassing. It could be the bellbottoms or slap bracelets of the list.