Top 10 poll: #16 player ever

[MilkSpiller22]

With a healthy representation of Latin and Asian players that the pre-expansion era didn’t have. Blacks have pretty much abandoned baseball at this point, so that is a virtual wash.

there is definitely a difference between the lack of minority players then and lack of black players now.

But there is also 14 more teams than there was back then.

All in all, clearly the players are better now, so not sure if I would call it a wash.

Baseball just became America’s #3 sport for athletes. But some body frames were always going to go baseball. So I don’t know how much the athlete has declined. If any.

 

[Cedrique]

there is definitely a difference between the lack of minority players then and lack of black players now.

But there is also 14 more teams than there was back then.

All in all, clearly the players are better now, so not sure if I would call it a wash.

Baseball just became America’s #3 sport for athletes. But some body frames were always going to go baseball. So I don’t know how much the athlete has declined. If any.

There's also a lot more people now than there was 100 years ago. In the US alone the population has tripled since 1924.

 

[steveringo]

Whats the argument for Foxx over Pujols? I already gave my RBat+ comparison where Pujols wins in all but 2 years when comparing their whole career.

I simply forget to consider him.... Perhaps being a big player in the steroid era is hurting him?

Also, remember when no one believed he was 20 when he was first signed? That was pretty funny...

 

[steveringo]

i kind of think we need a side step, just to rank the next 5 pitchers... without it, i fear a very weird 2nd runoff again...

It simply comes down to personal value. Rank them separately, based on your favorite statistics, then try to determine if you like pitching more than hitting - then where to squeeze them in....

 

[calsnowskier]

Frank Robinson (RF) 1956 - 1976

2 MVP, 4 top 5 MVP, 4 top 10 MVP, 5 additional seasons with MVP votes, 12 (+2) ASG, ROY, 6 SS, 2 GG

107.2, 52.9

Bold: R 3, HR 1, RBI 1, OPS 4, TB 1, 2B 1

OPS+ buckets

200 - 0
180 - 2
160 - 5
140 - 8
120 - 3

Is there anything else that I should include in these analyses? I think I got the important points.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Is there anything else that I should include in these analyses? I think I got the important points.

for bolded... OPS+ and WAR....

 

[calsnowskier]

for bolded... OPS+ and WAR....

I list whatever bolded the player has. I do, however, omit OPS+ because it is only a derivative of OPS (which I already list). WAR is covered in WAR and WAR7, imho.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I list whatever bolded the player has. I do, however, omit OPS+ because it is only a derivative of OPS (which I already list). WAR is covered in WAR and WAR7, imho.

id probably agree with OPS and OPS+ trying to see whether it is possible to be bolded in one but not the other...

WAR, i disagree... sure you mention WAR7 and total WAR... but a season bolded in WAR represents more than a bolded in any other stat other than maybe OPS+... as it says he was the BEST player of that season... whether you like WAR or not, it is still a good quick glance...

 

[calsnowskier]

id probably agree with OPS and OPS+ trying to see whether it is possible to be bolded in one but not the other...

WAR, i disagree... sure you mention WAR7 and total WAR... but a season bolded in WAR represents more than a bolded in any other stat other than maybe OPS+... as it says he was the BEST player of that season... whether you like WAR or not, it is still a good quick glance...

Fair.

maybe I will add WAR moving forward

 

[calsnowskier]

At this point, I would place the cut after Pujols at 5 votes. But I still have 2 votes to place and we have about 20 hours left for debate and changed minds and extra voters.

 

[jon2tanman]

https://stathead.com/baseball/versu...to=1928&player_id11=cepeda001orl&p11yrto=1961

 

[LHG]

At this point, I would place the cut after Pujols at 5 votes. But I still have 2 votes to place and we have about 20 hours left for debate and changed minds and extra voters.

Based on your OPS+ buckets method, maybe consider Mike Trout here.

Name

200+

190-199

180-189

170-179

160-169

150-159

140-149

130-139

120-129

Seasons Ranked

Career

Ranked %

Joe DiMaggio

0​

0​

2​

2​

2​

2​

2​

1​

0​

11​

13​

85%​

Jimmie Foxx

3​

0​

4​

1​

1​

2​

2​

2​

1​

16​

20​

80%​

Albert Pujols

0​

1​

2​

3​

1​

4​

1​

1​

1​

14​

22​

64%​

Frank Robinson

0​

1​

1​

1​

4​

7​

2​

2​

1​

19​

21​

90%​

Tris Speaker

0​

1​

3​

5​

1​

3​

3​

0​

2​

18​

22​

82%​

Mike Trout

0​

2​

2​

4​

3​

0​

1​

1​

0​

13​

14​

93%​

 

[LHG]

Based on your OPS+ buckets method, maybe consider Mike Trout here.

Name

200+

190-199

180-189

170-179

160-169

150-159

140-149

130-139

120-129

Seasons Ranked

Career

Ranked %

Joe DiMaggio

0​

0​

2​

2​

2​

2​

2​

1​

0​

11​

13​

85%​

Jimmie Foxx

3​

0​

4​

1​

1​

2​

2​

2​

1​

16​

20​

80%​

Albert Pujols

0​

1​

2​

3​

1​

4​

1​

1​

1​

14​

22​

64%​

Frank Robinson

0​

1​

1​

1​

4​

7​

2​

2​

1​

19​

21​

90%​

Tris Speaker

0​

1​

3​

5​

1​

3​

3​

0​

2​

18​

22​

82%​

Mike Trout

0​

2​

2​

4​

3​

0​

1​

1​

0​

13​

14​

93%​

Another way to look at this group:
160+ seasons
Trout - 11
Speaker - 10
Foxx - 9
Pujols - 7
Robinson - 7
DiMaggio - 6

180+ seasons
Foxx - 7
Speaker - 4
Trout - 4
Pujols - 3
DiMaggio - 2
Robinson - 2

 

[calsnowskier]

Based on your OPS+ buckets method, maybe consider Mike Trout here.

Name

200+

190-199

180-189

170-179

160-169

150-159

140-149

130-139

120-129

Seasons Ranked

Career

Ranked %

Joe DiMaggio

0​

0​

2​

2​

2​

2​

2​

1​

0​

11​

13​

85%​

Jimmie Foxx

3​

0​

4​

1​

1​

2​

2​

2​

1​

16​

20​

80%​

Albert Pujols

0​

1​

2​

3​

1​

4​

1​

1​

1​

14​

22​

64%​

Frank Robinson

0​

1​

1​

1​

4​

7​

2​

2​

1​

19​

21​

90%​

Tris Speaker

0​

1​

3​

5​

1​

3​

3​

0​

2​

18​

22​

82%​

Mike Trout

0​

2​

2​

4​

3​

0​

1​

1​

0​

13​

14​

93%​

My comment about where I putting the cutoff was not including any opinion by me. I was saying that 5 votes was the cutoff at the time. Since, one of those votes changed, and a few people voted, so the cutoff is at a different point (as I type this, it currently sits at 7 votes)

 

[LHG]

My comment about where I putting the cutoff was not including any opinion by me. I was saying that 5 votes was the cutoff at the time. Since, one of those votes changed, and a few people voted, so the cutoff is at a different point (as I type this, it currently sits at 7 votes)

You mentioned that you still had two nomination votes to give and wanted people to "sway" you. I'm suggesting that two of Trout, Speaker and Foxx could be two well placed votes.

 

[calsnowskier]

Based on your OPS+ buckets method, maybe consider Mike Trout here.

Name

200+

190-199

180-189

170-179

160-169

150-159

140-149

130-139

120-129

Seasons Ranked

Career

Ranked %

Joe DiMaggio

0​

0​

2​

2​

2​

2​

2​

1​

0​

11​

13​

85%​

Jimmie Foxx

3​

0​

4​

1​

1​

2​

2​

2​

1​

16​

20​

80%​

Albert Pujols

0​

1​

2​

3​

1​

4​

1​

1​

1​

14​

22​

64%​

Frank Robinson

0​

1​

1​

1​

4​

7​

2​

2​

1​

19​

21​

90%​

Tris Speaker

0​

1​

3​

5​

1​

3​

3​

0​

2​

18​

22​

82%​

Mike Trout

0​

2​

2​

4​

3​

0​

1​

1​

0​

13​

14​

93%​

You should apply a filter to your buckets. One of Trout’s 190 seasons was one in which he only played in 36 game (146 PAs)

Personally, I go by 100 games played for inclusion.

 

[LHG]

You should apply a filter to your buckets. One of Trout’s 190 seasons was one in which he only played in 36 game (146 PAs)

Personally, I go by 100 games played for inclusion.

Good point. I didn't think to check games played on any of these players when putting seasons in the buckets.