POLL Top 10 poll #15: #15 player in history - Runoff

[MilkSpiller22]

Tris Speaker (CF) 1907 - 1928

1 MVP, 1 top 5 MVP, 1 top 10 MVP, 1 additional season with MVP votes (MVP only given in 4 years of his career)

135.0, 62.1

Bold: RBI - 1, 2B - 8, HR - 1, OPS - 1, TB - 1, all time 2B

OPS+ buckets

180 - 3
160 - 6
140 - 6
120 - 2

Ken Griffey Jr (CF) 1989 - 2010

1 MVP, 4 top 5 MVP, 2 top 10 MVP, 3 additional seasons with MVP votes, 13 ASG, 10 GG, 7 SS

83.8, 54.0

Bold: RBI - 1, HR - 4, R - 1, TB - 2

OPS+ buckets

180 - 0
160 - 3
140 - 5
120 - 4

now do pujols... who is better than both... just not a CF...

 

[LHG]

Tris Speaker (CF) 1907 - 1928

1 MVP, 1 top 5 MVP, 1 top 10 MVP, 1 additional season with MVP votes (MVP only given in 4 years of his career)

135.0, 62.1

Bold: RBI - 1, 2B - 8, HR - 1, OPS - 1, TB - 1, all time 2B

OPS+ buckets

180 - 3
160 - 6
140 - 6
120 - 2

Ken Griffey Jr (CF) 1989 - 2010

1 MVP, 4 top 5 MVP, 2 top 10 MVP, 3 additional seasons with MVP votes, 13 ASG, 10 GG, 7 SS

83.8, 54.0

Bold: RBI - 1, HR - 4, R - 1, TB - 2

OPS+ buckets

180 - 0
160 - 3
140 - 5
120 - 4

There is no question in my mind who is better. Speaker had so many more dominant top seasons than Griffey and his WAR7 is better than Griffey's as well.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

There is no question in my mind who is better. Speaker had so many more dominant top seasons than Griffey and his WAR7 is better than Griffey's as well.

old school player longevity does not impress me much though...

 

[LHG]

Yes. The 10th guy from one era shouldn't be in over the top guy from another. The game has changed over time, but being the best in your era is still measurable.

That is why we try to measure based on + stats (OPS+, ERA+). These are independent of era and help show just how good a player was regardless of what was going on around him at that time.

 

[calsnowskier]

I really don't understand this argument at all. "We don't want too many of those players at the top of the poll so we need to start looking at other eras". That is how you determine the next best player?

Because if there are multiple people from one era while no one from another era, why is one era soooo much better than the other? Especially when the well represented era was much more of a part-time era?

The era-independent stats (+ stats, essentially), are not perfect. A small sample pool DOES effect the numbers, and that should be weighed in the final analysis.

 

[LHG]

old school player longevity does not impress me much though...

I still do not understand that argument. Both played the same amount of seasons. How is Griffey, with all the medical advances in his time period compared to Speaker's, more impressive in playing 22 seasons.

 

[calsnowskier]

Griffey had a great peak (that wasn't just a single year blip) and longevity too.

Gotta go Clemens. The pitchers are not getting any respect here

Speaker destroys Griffey, though. Both in career WAR as well as WAR7.

 

[LHG]

Because if there are multiple people from one era while no one from another era, why is one era soooo much better than the other? Especially when the well represented era was much more of a part-time era?

The era-independent stats (+ stats, essentially), are not perfect. A small sample pool DOES effect the numbers, and that should be weighed in the final analysis.

Part-time era? You mean because those players weren't paid enough to focus their offseasons on training?

Can you clarify on small sample pool affecting the numbers? What small sample are you referring to? All these players we are looking at are playing between 16 and 25 years.

 

[calsnowskier]

I do want to be clear, however. Griffey getting in the discussion at 15 on it’s own is not a bad thing. I think that is quite valid. Put a gun to my head, I may take him over Speaker, when I factor in all the “non-stats“ issues (Speaker’s era already being WELL represented being my primary argument). But he got such a kid glove (pun FULLY intended) treatment from the media during his playing days that his reverse-stink is much more aromatic than anything B or C received. And we all lived in that world for 20 years.

After doing the analysis, I would vote Speaker here. The only real argument in favor of Griffey is the era general argument (which I stand behind, btw). But any objective look at the numbers has Speaker well ahead of Griffey.

 

[calsnowskier]

Pujols has 7 years of better Rbat+ than Griffey's best year.

If you factor in his whole career, Griffey was actually below average at fielding in CF. Its one of those optics + prime + story = legend but we're still about 8-15 spots too early for that imo

I agree. Pujols was the #2 hitter of his era, and belongs here over Griffey.

I say this before doing my analysis, but I strongly believe that to be true.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I still do not understand that argument. Both played the same amount of seasons. How is Griffey, with all the medical advances in his time period compared to Speaker's, more impressive in playing 22 seasons.

speaker is a little different as he actuall had some of his best seasons past the age of 30... in fact in his war7, his third and 5th best were when he was 35 and 32...

but usually they are in decline... i would need to relook at my old school longevity premise with a player like Speaker...

 

[Clayton]

I agree. Pujols was the #2 hitter of his era, and belongs here over Griffey.

I say this before doing my analysis, but I strongly believe that to be true.

Frank Robinson is also pretty rock solid over Griffey imo

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I agree. Pujols was the #2 hitter of his era, and belongs here over Griffey.

I say this before doing my analysis, but I strongly believe that to be true.

it isnt even close... and then you can add Pujols was a post seasons stud too... which makes the difference even further....

 

[calsnowskier]

now do pujols... who is better than both... just not a CF...

Tbf, though, CF vs 1B/DH SHOULD involve a sizable modifier.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Tbf, though, CF vs 1B/DH SHOULD involve a sizable modifier.

there is defense and then there is offense.... if you are analyzing their offense, then there is no modifier... the question is how much of a "bonus" do you give for position... but that should be AFTER the offense analysis...

i cant imagine, defense/position bonus being large enough to make it close between the 2...

 

[LHG]

Tbf, though, CF vs 1B/DH SHOULD involve a sizable modifier.

Isn't that one of the reasons to consider WAR in reviews of players? I understand it is not a perfect stat but can help in considering things such as defensive value.

 

[msgkings322]

Griffey has not won yet... so lets not talk gloom about IF HE WINS.... with that said, i do suspect that IF he does win, we will lose some people from taking this "seriously"... and we may start seeing weird names that really dont belong...

All 5 Griffey voters so far are people who don’t bother posting in these threads (which is fine just noting the types)

 

[LHG]

I would really encourage people to look into the following offensive players before casting a vote for Griffey:
Tris Speaker
Albert Pujols
Mike Trout
Eddie Collins
Alex Rodriguez
Mel Ott
Nap Lajoie
Frank Robinson
Jimmie Foxx
Joe DiMaggio
Eddie Mathews
Mookie Betts
Dan Brouthers
Wade Boggs
Roger Connor
Arky Vaughan
Johnny Mize
Carl Yastrzemski
Chipper Jones
George Brett
Al Kaline
Cal Ripken, Jr
Frank Thomas

 

[calsnowskier]

Part-time era? You mean because those players weren't paid enough to focus their offseasons on training?

Can you clarify on small sample pool affecting the numbers? What small sample are you referring to? All these players we are looking at are playing between 16 and 25 years.

Small pool in that there are 30 teams currently and only, what, 12 teams when Speaker played? And currently, even the 26th player on a roster makes generational money, so the late bloomers are actually able to bloom. In Speaker’s day, only the superstars were able to make enough money to REALLY hone their craft. Late bloomers died on the vine.

I believe this argument is over used. I will grant that. But over-used =/= wrong. And having multiple handfuls of players from the way-back era before some eras are even represented once just doesn’t make sense and indicates a flaw in the analysis somewhere.

Statistically speaking, every era should produce approx the same number of all-time greats.

 

[eaglesnut]

old school player longevity does not impress me much though...

Yeah there were less young guys able to take those jobs. Now there's huge systems of player development. If you can hang on long now that's impressive.