POLL Top 10 poll: #18 player ever

[LHG]

i will re



also, can i ask, what is the reasoning for the single years?? or the very short mini periods??

I did that to reflect the number of players on the rankings for each year. So, for example, because 5 players were active from the years of 1954-1960, I just list that time period. But for 1940, for example, only 1 player was active but in 1939 there were 2 and in 1941-1950 there were 2 as well. Maybe too precise that it is clunky but that is how I'm approaching it.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I did that to reflect the number of players on the rankings for each year. So, for example, because 5 players were active from the years of 1954-1960, I just list that time period. But for 1940, for example, only 1 player was active but in 1939 there were 2 and in 1941-1950 there were 2 as well. Maybe too precise that it is clunky but that is how I'm approaching it.

yea.. kind of realized that right after posting... the more we do the more clunky it will be... because most players start their career and retire at different times...

but still nice to see. the players who competed against eachother... somewhat... the only problem, is that pre 1990s there was no connection between AL/NL other than the WS... so even if 2 players careers are in the same time period, they did not necessarily play wtih the same players......


maybe thats why the baseball all star game USED to be so huge... and why it broke down...

 

[Clayton]

I'd put Trout over DiMaggio. Consider a head to head comparison:
Joe DiMaggio (CF) 1936 - 1951 (3 years lost to WWII)

3 MVP, 3 top 5 MVP, 4 top 10 MVP, 2 additional seasons with MVP votes, 13 ASG (AS every year of career)
79.1, 52.1
Bold: R 1, 3B 1, HR 2, RBI 2, TB 3
OPS+ buckets
190 - 0
180 - 2
170 - 1
160 - 1
150 - 2
140 - 2
130 - 1
120 - 1
110 - 1

Mike Trout (CF) 2011 - current

3 MVP, 6 top 5 MVP, ROY, 11 ASG
86.2, 65.1
Bold: R 4, RBI 1, BB 3, OBP 4, SLG 3, OPS 4, TB 1, WAR 5
OPS+ buckets
190 - 1
180 - 2
170 - 4
160 - 3
150 - 0
140 - 0
130 - 0
120 - 0

Nah, Im not there with Trout yet. Dimaggio has more years and is missing prime years due to war.

If I removed 3 prime years from Trout it wouldnt be close

 

[calsnowskier]

And I know I could have just showed oWAR instead of using a roundabout post. But I wanted to show how much of bench was based on defense compared to piazza.

WAR =/= oWAR + dWAR

Not hinting that you said it was, just making it clear so everyone is aware…

 

[LHG]

Nah, Im not there with Trout yet. Dimaggio has more years and is missing prime years due to war.

If I removed 3 prime years from Trout it wouldnt be close

I agree that DiMaggio losing prime years to the war is a consideration but I also look at what he did do. His OPS+ buckets aren't that top heavy, unlike Trout's. Trout had 7 seasons (thus far) of 170 or better OPS+. DiMaggio only had 3 seasons of 170 or better. Yes, he lost some prime seasons to the war, but had he played, what are the chances that any of them would have been that good? Even if all three were 170 or better OPS+, he'd still lose out to Trout on a seasons in that range.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

WAR =/= oWAR + dWAR

Not hinting that you said it was, just making it clear so everyone is aware…

never said it... but i do wish that it did.... let the oWAR be position independent...

 

[calsnowskier]

I'd put Trout over DiMaggio. Consider a head to head comparison:
Joe DiMaggio (CF) 1936 - 1951 (3 years lost to WWII)

3 MVP, 3 top 5 MVP, 4 top 10 MVP, 2 additional seasons with MVP votes, 13 ASG (AS every year of career)
79.1, 52.1
Bold: R 1, 3B 1, HR 2, RBI 2, TB 3
OPS+ buckets
190 - 0
180 - 2
170 - 1
160 - 1
150 - 2
140 - 2
130 - 1
120 - 1
110 - 1

Mike Trout (CF) 2011 - current

3 MVP, 6 top 5 MVP, ROY, 11 ASG
86.2, 65.1
Bold: R 4, RBI 1, BB 3, OBP 4, SLG 3, OPS 4, TB 1, WAR 5
OPS+ buckets
190 - 1
180 - 2
170 - 4
160 - 3
150 - 0
140 - 0
130 - 0
120 - 0

Just a quick note…

I specifically do not include OBP or SLG in bold because they are included in OPS. Showing all three should make it appear the player is better that he was dues to double dipping.

 

[Clayton]

I agree that DiMaggio losing prime years to the war is a consideration but I also look at what he did do. His OPS+ buckets aren't that top heavy, unlike Trout's. Trout had 7 seasons (thus far) of 170 or better OPS+. DiMaggio only had 3 seasons of 170 or better. Yes, he lost some prime seasons to the war, but had he played, what are the chances that any of them would have been that good? Even if all three were 170 or better OPS+, he'd still lose out to Trout on a seasons in that range.

They'd probably be 3 seasons between 140 and 180.

Trouts prime is better than almost everyone, though. Most things pointing towards picking prime here would point me to Pedro and not Trout

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Just a quick note…

I specifically do not include OBP or SLG in bold because they are included in OPS. Showing all three should make it appear the player is better that he was dues to double dipping.

not to mention, you do HRs, and Walks... which are the main skills of OBP and SLG... so it would be more like triple dipping...

 

[calsnowskier]

Nah, Im not there with Trout yet. Dimaggio has more years and is missing prime years due to war.

If I removed 3 prime years from Trout it wouldnt be close

Trout hasn’t finished his career. DiMaggio missed years.

Just look at at what is, not what could be.

 

[Clayton]

Just look at at what is, not what could be.

Ted Williams would be in a much different spot

 

[calsnowskier]

not to mention, you do HRs, and Walks... which are the main skills of OBP and SLG... so it would be more like triple dipping...

Well, OPS is LITERALLY OBP + SLG. HR and Walks are just in the recipe for OPS (along with singles, doubles and triples (and Ks and GDIP and…)

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Nah, Im not there with Trout yet. Dimaggio has more years and is missing prime years due to war.

If I removed 3 prime years from Trout it wouldnt be close

would he?? joe D missed his three seasons at 28, 29,30... sure those are prime age... but he also started his career at 21... so it might not be as prime as you think...

and trout did all of his damage through age 27... so if he missed 28,29,30, he would basically have the same WAR7, just a better perception, because he missed those three seasons, not got injured during them...

 

[calsnowskier]

Ted Williams would be in a much different spot

I didn’t vote for him at 3, but I doubt he wouldnt have dropped that far. MAYBE below Cobb, but that is a stretch.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well, OPS is LITERALLY OBP + SLG. HR and Walks are just in the recipe for OPS (along with singles, doubles and triples (and Ks and GDIP and…)

i was agreeing with you for not including OBP and slugging...

you only brought up the OPS double dip.... i brought up the fact that HR and BBs were the main skills of OBP and slugging, and you do include those... like you should..... because those are the skills of the stat...

 

[LHG]

Just a quick note…

I specifically do not include OBP or SLG in bold because they are included in OPS. Showing all three should make it appear the player is better that he was dues to double dipping.

Good call.

 

[LHG]

I didn’t vote for him at 3, but I doubt he wouldnt have dropped that far. MAYBE below Cobb, but that is a stretch.

I would have voted Ted Williams at the 6th spot (Ruth, Bonds, Johnson, Mays and Cobb would have been above him in my list).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I didn’t vote for him at 3, but I doubt he wouldnt have dropped that far. MAYBE below Cobb, but that is a stretch.

williams is my #4 on my list... unfortunately, i am still trying to figure out the rest of my list after 4....

but IMO we got the clear top 4... i dont like the order... but we got the right players...

i have

1. Ruth- most dominant
2. Bonds- most dominat
3. Mays- best overall player
4. Williams- best pure hitter

 

[calsnowskier]

I would have voted Ted Williams at the 6th spot (Ruth, Bonds, Johnson, Mays and Cobb would have been above him in my list).

I am not convinced Johnson is the GOAT pitcher, let alone that high among all players. I think he was OK at #9

 

[calsnowskier]

williams is my #4 on my list... unfortunately, i am still trying to figure out the rest of my list after 4....

but IMO we got the clear top 4... i dont like the order... but we got the right players...

i have

1. Ruth- most dominant
2. Bonds- most dominat
3. Mays- best overall player
4. Williams- best pure hitter

I think they are the clear 4. If someone really want to get argumentative, I could see an argument for Cobb of Williams, but I think that is still a stretch.

The order for the other 3 is well within the opinion range where I am OK with any order amongst them.