POLL Top 10 poll #19: #19 player in history - Runoff

[msgkings322]

you keep on bringing up henderson... he is not similar at all... the reason Henderson is so high is because he is a unicorn and its hard to measure the things he did ON THE FIELD... being the best baserunner of all time is not measured well...

Joe D is not the same... everything he has done on the field is measured as accurately as anyone else... using the same formulas and same stats as everyone else... its his LEGEND that we cant measure... but that is more about the fans than the player....

but again... i am ok with the FEELS reasons... its once you bring the on the field reasons is where i am confused... and even saying it is both is just a cop out... because all these players are great thats why they are in discussion...

sure, i am picking on you... but it really isnt even intended to be AT YOU... i am just trying to understand whether people really think Joe D was THAT good or if it is just the legend status...

I just don't see how you can look at Joe's numbers and not think he was great (plus defense, accolades, all of which we are weighing)

I'm done here, we've each said our piece

 

[MilkSpiller22]

You and I have have gone at it in this project. I think we have handled it like adults. I have learned from you and I hope you have learned from me.

That rarely comes without challenging preconceived ideas or others’ new ideas. In life, accepting all widely held “facts” is lazy. Without discussion, you are nothing but a lemming.

yea, but you were getting annoyed at me calling you a homer... and i was having fun calling you a homer... not the same as arguing about players...LOL...

 

[calsnowskier]

Comparing Jackie to Rickey is not an apt comparison. Comparing Jackie to Gehrig or Clemente is a much more apt comparison. Gehrig was a great player, but he gets massive boosts based on completely extra-baseball reasons. Jackie was very good, but gets HUGE props for societal reasons that have nothing to do with “in-a-vacuum” baseball. Clemente was a great humanitarian and a great player. But his on field was amplified because of his humanitarianism and because of how his career ended.

 

[calsnowskier]

yea, but you were getting annoyed at me calling you a homer... and i was having fun calling you a homer... not the same as arguing about players...LOL...

I already forgot about that. I was talking about our debates on peak vs longevity and using custom stats etc.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I just don't see how you can look at Joe's numbers and not think he was great (plus defense, accolades, all of which we are weighing)

I'm done here, we've each said our piece

nobody said he wasnt great... everyone in question is great... the only question is HOW great...

 

[calsnowskier]

But for the record, I still think Kent is a top 5-ish all time 2B.

Certainly below Morgan and Collins and Lajoie. But he is in the same neighborhood as Alomar and Whitaker and Robinson

Edit: Sandburg is probably above him as well…

 

[msgkings322]

nobody said he wasnt great... everyone in question is great... the only question is HOW great...

Top 20 great, obviously

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Comparing Jackie to Rickey is not an apt comparison. Comparing Jackie to Gehrig or Clemente is a much more apt comparison. Gehrig was a great player, but he gets massive boosts based on completely extra-baseball reasons. Jackie was very good, but gets HUGE props for societal reasons that have nothing to do with “in-a-vacuum” baseball. Clemente was a great humanitarian and a great player. But his on field was amplified because of his humanitarianism and because of how his career ended.

also Jackie is impossible to measure... because he has such a short career for obvious reasons... but at his absolute best, he was an inner circle type of player...

in fact, thats why i kind of have Jackie over Joe D... both have short careers... both get a pass for it... so i care more about the prime of their prime...
and there jackie was better than Joe...

 

[msgkings322]

Comparing Jackie to Rickey is not an apt comparison. Comparing Jackie to Gehrig or Clemente is a much more apt comparison. Gehrig was a great player, but he gets massive boosts based on completely extra-baseball reasons. Jackie was very good, but gets HUGE props for societal reasons that have nothing to do with “in-a-vacuum” baseball. Clemente was a great humanitarian and a great player. But his on field was amplified because of his humanitarianism and because of how his career ended.

Gehrig's numbers are enough to put him late top 10 IMO though

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But for the record, I still think Kent is a top 5-ish all time 2B.

Certainly below Morgan and Collins and Lajoie. But he is in the same neighborhood as Alomar and Whitaker and Robinson

Edit: Sandburg is probably above him as well…

he is comparable to the likes of Utley and Cano... Cano was best of the three, but has the stigma... so...

 

[calsnowskier]

Gehrig's numbers are enough to put him late top 10 IMO though

I don’t disagree. He got an extra 2 or 3 slots based entirely on a speech he gave. And at that range, 2 or 3 slots are HUGE. For something completely unrelated to anything on the field.

 

[msgkings322]

also Jackie is impossible to measure... because he has such a short career for obvious reasons... but at his absolute best, he was an inner circle type of player...

in fact, thats why i kind of have Jackie over Joe D... both have short careers... both get a pass for it... so i care more about the prime of their prime...
and there jackie was better than Joe...

It's flat out bizarre you think Jackie had better numbers than Joe. Seriously, what are you seeing?

Jackie Robinson Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Check out the latest Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More of Jackie Robinson. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, draft status, bats, throws, school and more on Baseball-reference.com

www.baseball-reference.com

Joe DiMaggio Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Check out the latest Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More of Joe DiMaggio. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, draft status, bats, throws, school and more on Baseball-reference.com

www.baseball-reference.com

Joe had a much higher OPS, OPS+, HRs, RBIs, significantly more WAR, MVPs (and 2nd place MVP votes), titles, bolded numbers, and was a top 3 all time CFer

Jackie stole more bases

Come on man

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Gehrig's numbers are enough to put him late top 10 IMO though

gehrig was a unicorn in another way.... he was a post season stud... probably the best post season player of all time... not just because he had the opportunity... he met the opportunity...

unlike Joe D, who was average at best in his opportunity given in the post season... never having that ONE big season... he may have won 9 WS... but he was not the reason they won once they made it into the post sesaon... Now of course, he was one fo the biggest reasons they had 9 WS...

 

[Cedrique]

Comparing Jackie to Rickey is not an apt comparison. Comparing Jackie to Gehrig or Clemente is a much more apt comparison. Gehrig was a great player, but he gets massive boosts based on completely extra-baseball reasons. Jackie was very good, but gets HUGE props for societal reasons that have nothing to do with “in-a-vacuum” baseball. Clemente was a great humanitarian and a great player. But his on field was amplified because of his humanitarianism and because of how his career ended.

I disagree with that a little. The way I see it, Jackie was great but he had a shortened career because he didn't start in the majors til he was 28. In his (late and abbreviated) prime he led the majors in WAR 3 times.

 

[calsnowskier]

also Jackie is impossible to measure... because he has such a short career for obvious reasons... but at his absolute best, he was an inner circle type of player...

in fact, thats why i kind of have Jackie over Joe D... both have short careers... both get a pass for it... so i care more about the prime of their prime...
and there jackie was better than Joe...

Jackie made it the NL at age 28.

His numbers were very good, no question. But they weren’t OMG numbers.

And then he absolutely destroyed any good feelings anyone ever had for him by declining a GREAT trade.

He was a monster. Hands down.

 

[calsnowskier]

he is comparable to the likes of Utley and Cano... Cano was best of the three, but has the stigma... so...

More than a stigma. He has a failed test and a suspension.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Jackie made it the NL at age 28.

His numbers were very good, no question. But they weren’t OMG numbers.

And then he absolutely destroyed any good feelings anyone ever had for him by declining a GREAT trade.

He was a monster. Hands down.

I retract my Jackie vs Joe d comment. I was reactionary to show how lots of players were better than him that i ended up exaggerating.

Still Jackie was really great for a short time. Just not Joe d great.

 

[calsnowskier]

I retract my Jackie vs Joe d comment. I was reactionary to show how lots of players were better than him that i ended up exaggerating.

Still Jackie was really great for a short time. Just not Joe d great.

I actually think we (I) have been discounting Jackie in this project more than we (I) should have. I don’t know if this will last long enough for him to be listed, but this mini-convo made me look at him with fresh eyes, and now I think he may have his name called here.

 

[LHG]

I feel like you and Milk and others are really underrating him considering all he accomplished including defensively, missing 3 prime years, not staying around for accumulation over multiple mediocre years (like Pujols), etc. The mystique counts but it's just an add on. There's a reason he is on a lot of lists and Foxx and Ott don't show up on them and it's not just mystique, DiMaggio was the real deal dude.

I'm simply not going to only vote numbers here, impact/mystique/legend matters for these lists (same with Henderson for example) IMO. And DiMaggio's numbers and accolades are very worthy. He's not top 10 for sure, top 20 is appropriate.

I get that you are using legend status to elevate him but the numbers just are not there compared to these other guys. Look at OPS+ seasons and compare them to Foxx and Ott. They have more dominant seasons than DiMaggio. Sure, he missed three years, but there is nothing in his body of work that suggests his missed seasons would have been as good as Foxx and Ott's similarly aged seasons.

It seems that you are buying into the hype and rating based on that. Hype isn't always backed up by reality. And I'm not trying to say DiMaggio wasn't one of the all time greats. He was. Anyone who gets rated at Top 50 baseball is all time, considering MLB has seen well over 20,000 players in its history. My point is that there are a few more who are better than haven't been ranked. Hype has to be taken with a huge amounts of grains of salt.

 

[LHG]

Gehrig's numbers are enough to put him late top 10 IMO though

This I agree with you on. He has the numbers to back that ranking up.