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

[calsnowskier]

Frank Robinson is also pretty rock solid over Griffey imo

I always viewed Robinson and Henderson as 2 players who should be similarly ranked. I have always thought Robinson was under appreciated. I don’t really have a theory as to why that is. Maybe because he was overshadowed by Aaron?

 

[msgkings322]

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

Shohei Ohtani

 

[calsnowskier]

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

I TRY not to focus on that level of personal “attack”, but it is something that I do notice.



Not that it was an attack, I just couldn’t think of a better descriptor.

 

[LHG]

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.

Look deeper on payroll back then, even guys like Speaker didn't get paid that much. I wouldn't be surprised if he had an offseason job for a good part of his career. I don't think top players were getting well paid (for their time) until the 40s/50s.

One could assume that every era would produce the same number of all-time greats but statistics would probably not bear that out. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some eras had more player representation than others. Just like many things in life, this is probably something that would ebb and flow. And even if all eras had similar numbers of all-time greats, how would that bear out? In the Top 10? 25? 50?When do you decide to artificially force an era into voting?

 

[LHG]

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.

Except player pay probably forced more guys to quit MLB then.

 

[msgkings322]

I TRY not to focus on that level of personal “attack”, but it is something that I do notice.



Not that it was an attack, I just couldn’t think of a better descriptor.

Observation

I saw you nominated Griffey in the nomination thread though….this may be the first time the nomination rules have distorted things too much, seems capricious to have 6 nominees. This should have been Randy vs Roger? Maybe with Maddux and Speaker too if you don’t like just 2?

 

[eaglesnut]

Griffey had 60 more extra base hits than Tris in less at bats.

 

[calsnowskier]

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

I like all those names, and most are already in the “rotation” while most of the others probably SHOULD be in the “rotation”.

Collins, though, is below Morgan, and really shouldn’t be considered until Morgan is off the board and Brouthers is a name I have not added yet, but probably should have been a “rotation piece” long before now.

 

[eaglesnut]

Except player pay probably forced more guys to quit MLB then.

Sure and that would just decrease the talent pool even further.

 

[eaglesnut]

Griffey had 60 more extra base hits than Tris in less at bats.

Griffey had 300 more RBIs

 

[calsnowskier]

Shohei Ohtani

His inclusion was torpedoed at 14.

 

[TheGoodMan19]

Unit, size, Big

 

[Clayton]

Griffey had 60 more extra base hits than Tris in less at bats.

Tris has 252 more Stolen Bases and 220 more runs so thats probably a factor here

 

[calsnowskier]

Observation

I saw you nominated Griffey in the nomination thread though….this may be the first time the nomination rules have distorted things too much, seems capricious to have 6 nominees. This should have been Randy vs Roger? Maybe with Maddux and Speaker too if you don’t like just 2?

i use my votes primarily as tie breakers to “thin the herd”. If I had voted my true top 3, the runoff would have had about 3 or 4 additional players, Griffey among them.

 

[msgkings322]

i use my votes primarily as tie breakers to “thin the herd”. If I had voted my true top 3, the runoff would have had about 3 or 4 additional players, Griffey among them.

My point is maybe this is too many players in the runoff, it’s fine just another observation

 

[eaglesnut]

Tris has 252 more Stolen Bases and 220 more runs so thats probably a factor here

So Tris is sitting at 2nd while Griffey is touching them all.

 

[LHG]

Sure and that would just decrease the talent pool even further.

How can you both critique the time period for having fewer players to replace older players and also say that the replacements decreased the talent pool even further? There was plenty of minor league teams around at that time, they just were not controlled by MLB teams at that time.

 

[Clayton]

So Tris is sitting at 2nd while Griffey is touching them all.

Same with Rickey Henderson I guess

 

[calsnowskier]

My point is maybe this is too many players in the runoff, it’s fine just another observation

I don’t disagree. But when you allow 3 noms each in the nom phase, you need to advance the top approx 150%. Doing less chops too much potential prime meat.

 

[msgkings322]

I don’t disagree. But when you allow 3 noms each in the nom phase, you need to advance the top approx 150%. Doing less chops too much potential prime meat.

I guess, today we see the risks of that though