POLL Top 10 poll #21: #21 player in history - Runoff 2

[calsnowskier]

my next 4 position players

1.AROD
2. Foxx
3. Morgan
4. Ott

after Ott, i feel like there is a lot of 'traffic'

Trout, i just cant decide on where to place him... his prime is clearly amongst the elite... but until he shows anything else, whether it is an extension to his prime years, or is a real part of a WS team, i dont think i can vote for him above players even like griffey...

Trout is a great peak v longevity case. Without a peak, accumulators have a real problem getting traction. But can peak players (even WAR7) get traction without accumulation? I personally value peak over longevity, so I think (given some time separation) I can get behind Trout. But if he can’t at least put together some additional seasons that are 5 WAR or higher, he falls into the Koufax situation (not exactly, but close).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Trout is a great peak v longevity case. Without a peak, accumulators have a real problem getting traction. But can peak players (even WAR7) get traction without accumulation? I personally value peak over longevity, so I think (given some time separation) I can get behind Trout. But if he can’t at least put together some additional seasons that are 5 WAR or higher, he falls into the Koufax situation (not exactly, but close).

i do too... but the problem with trout is that although he was the best player for a while, he never had the SPECIAL season, and he also never won anything...

i bring up Mickey... Mantle had 2 SPECIAL seasons... and he won plenty of WS... if he didnt do anything else, he would have easily been top 20...

but trout needs to separate himself from the pack more...

 

[LHG]

Some of those war7 you took jaws and not war7.

Also unfortunately you are also showing the problem with war. I would easily take Griffey over more than half of the players you listed.

Looks like I only did that with I-Rod. All others look correct.

 

[LHG]

my next 4 position players

1.AROD
2. Foxx
3. Morgan
4. Ott

after Ott, i feel like there is a lot of 'traffic'

Trout, i just cant decide on where to place him... his prime is clearly amongst the elite... but until he shows anything else, whether it is an extension to his prime years, or is a real part of a WS team, i dont think i can vote for him above players even like griffey...

Trout is a great peak v longevity case. Without a peak, accumulators have a real problem getting traction. But can peak players (even WAR7) get traction without accumulation? I personally value peak over longevity, so I think (given some time separation) I can get behind Trout. But if he can’t at least put together some additional seasons that are 5 WAR or higher, he falls into the Koufax situation (not exactly, but close).

i do too... but the problem with trout is that although he was the best player for a while, he never had the SPECIAL season, and he also never won anything...

i bring up Mickey... Mantle had 2 SPECIAL seasons... and he won plenty of WS... if he didnt do anything else, he would have easily been top 20...

but trout needs to separate himself from the pack more...

Trout bests Griffey both in WAR7 and career WAR, with 8 fewer seasons under his belt! Did Griffey win anything special (i.e WS)?

 

[calsnowskier]

Looks like I only did that with I-Rod. All others look correct.

IRod is no question behind Bench/Berra, so he really doesn’t need to be looked at yet anyway.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Trout bests Griffey both in WAR7 and career WAR, with 8 fewer seasons under his belt! Did Griffey win anything special (i.e WS)?

again, i did not say i would choose Griffey over trout... i said i was unsure who i would pick...

but yes, of course Griffey has no rings as well... but griffey had a full career, and i would say griffey had more splashy best seasons than trout did...

 

[LHG]

again, i did not say i would choose Griffey over trout... i said i was unsure who i would pick...

but yes, of course Griffey has no rings as well... but griffey had a full career, and i would say griffey had more splashy best seasons than trout did...

I am curious what the splashy best seasons look like to you. I think mainly of Griffey's career home run total and his likeable personality that mainly grabs people's attention.

 

[calsnowskier]

Trout led the league in OPS 4 times. Griffey never led the league in OPS.

Trout has 3 seasons with better WAR than Griffey’s best WAR season.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think I may be sold on Trout ALREADY being better than Griffey. I am not entrenched on that opinion yet, but that, right now, is my default stance.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I am curious what the splashy best seasons look like to you. I think mainly of Griffey's career home run total and his likeable personality that mainly grabs people's attention.

first i will state this... OPS+ and WAR, becasue they include factors about the league itself, it sort of punishes players who play in better overall seasons...

But Griffey led the league in HRs 4 times, with over 50 twice... he had over 100 RBIs 8 times, with 1 season of over 140, leading the league once, he also had an OPS of over 1.000 4 times(never leading the league) and never above 1.100

Trout- never lead the league in HRs, and never had over 50... had over 100 RBIs 3 times, never with more than 120 and never leading the league... he had 4 seasons with an OPS over 1.000, never above 1.100, leading the league 3 times...

now of course those are cherry picked stats... but those are the flashy numbers people look at...

Griffey was the better power bat...

of course if i didnt cherrypick i could have shown how good Trout was in everything else...

but for just who had the flashier best seasons... that would be Griffey...

Griffey also won only one MVP, but lost twice to Juan Gonzalez when he was the best choice to win... but of course MVPs would often go to the best player on a post season team...

 

[steveringo]

 

[MilkSpiller22]

View attachment 390634

and reasons like this, is why he should be a top 5 pitcher of all time... that was his best season... but he had other all time best seasons in 1999 and 1997... you can probably say pedro put up the best 4 seasons(accumulated) of all time...

 

[steveringo]

and reasons like this, is why he should be a top 5 pitcher of all time... that was his best season... but he had other all time best seasons in 1999 and 1997... you can probably say pedro put up the best 4 seasons(accumulated) of all time...

His eight losses in 2000:

9 ip - 6 h - 1 er - 17 k
8 ip - 7 h - 3 er - 7 k
6 ip - 6 h - 1 er - 7 k
8 ip - 5 h - 3 er - 9 k
6.2 ip - 6 h - 4 er - 10 k
8 ip - 3 h - 2 er - 9 k
7 ip - 4 h - 3 er - 9 k
8 ip - 5 h - 1 er - 9 k

 

[msgkings322]

His eight losses in 2000:

9 ip - 6 h - 1 er - 17 k
8 ip - 7 h - 3 er - 7 k
6 ip - 6 h - 1 er - 7 k
8 ip - 5 h - 3 er - 9 k
6.2 ip - 6 h - 4 er - 10 k
8 ip - 3 h - 2 er - 9 k
7 ip - 4 h - 3 er - 9 k
8 ip - 5 h - 1 er - 9 k

That first one, complete game 17Ks, 1 run and lost 1-0 presumably

 

[steveringo]

That first one, complete game 17Ks, 1 run and lost 1-0 presumably

Yep. His entire Red Sox career was like that... Offense always took the day off...

Remember, in Montreal he had a perfect game into the 10th, but the expos couldn't score. Expos won it in the 10th, but Pedro gave up a hit and lost the perfect game...

 

[LHG]

first i will state this... OPS+ and WAR, becasue they include factors about the league itself, it sort of punishes players who play in better overall seasons...

But Griffey led the league in HRs 4 times, with over 50 twice... he had over 100 RBIs 8 times, with 1 season of over 140, leading the league once, he also had an OPS of over 1.000 4 times(never leading the league) and never above 1.100

Trout- never lead the league in HRs, and never had over 50... had over 100 RBIs 3 times, never with more than 120 and never leading the league... he had 4 seasons with an OPS over 1.000, never above 1.100, leading the league 3 times...

now of course those are cherry picked stats... but those are the flashy numbers people look at...

Griffey was the better power bat...

of course if i didnt cherrypick i could have shown how good Trout was in everything else...

but for just who had the flashier best seasons... that would be Griffey...

Griffey also won only one MVP, but lost twice to Juan Gonzalez when he was the best choice to win... but of course MVPs would often go to the best player on a post season team...

I'd say it equalizes it because the point is showing how much better that player was that year compared to the league that year. It sets the standard to determine who the best were.

The two played in different eras. Of course Griffey is going to have more home runs. Everyone did in the 90s. He still hit more than most that decade but it was an expectation. For all the talk of steroids I do wonder how much the balls in that time frame played into that as well (much like the 2019 season).

But your point about flashy is made. Home runs are sexy and he lead the league and hit more of them.

 

[LHG]

Consider WAR7 as we talk about Griffey (54). His WAR7 ranks behind these hitters:
Mike Trout - 65.1
Eddie Collins - 64.3
Alex Rodriguez - 64.3
Nap Lajoie - 60.1
Joe Morgan - 59.3
Wade Boggs - 56.4
Cal Ripken Jr - 56.3
Carl Yastrzemski - 55.6
Mookie Betts - 55
Roberto Clemente - 54.5
Ivan Rodriguez - 54.3

His career WAR of 83.8 (in 22 seasons) ranks behind these hitters:
Eddie Collins - 124.3 (25)
Alex Rodriguez - 117.6 (22)
Mel Ott - 110.9 (22)
Frank Robinson - 107.2 (21)
Nap Lajoie - 106.9 (21)
Joe Morgan - 100.6 (22)
Carl Yastrzemski - 96.5 (23)
Cal Ripken Jr - 95.9 (21)
Eddie Mathews - 95.9 (17)
Roberto Clemente - 94.9 (18)
Cap Anson - 94.3 (27)
Adrian Beltre - 93.5 (21)
Al Kaline - 92.8 (22)
Wade Boggs - 91.4 (18)
George Brett - 88.6 (21)
Mike Trout - 86.2 (14)
Chipper Jones - 85.3 (19)
Charlie Gehringer - 84.8 (19)
George Davis - 84.5 (20)
Roger Connor - 84.3 (18)

Hey @jon2tanman , do you have a nice counter to this information?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'd say it equalizes it because the point is showing how much better that player was that year compared to the league that year. It sets the standard to determine who the best were.

The two played in different eras. Of course Griffey is going to have more home runs. Everyone did in the 90s. He still hit more than most that decade but it was an expectation. For all the talk of steroids I do wonder how much the balls in that time frame played into that as well (much like the 2019 season).

But your point about flashy is made. Home runs are sexy and he lead the league and hit more of them.

that's my point about war and adjusted numbers, because they compare to the league, the league average is very important... in a better season, elite players adjusted numbers will adjust less...

I care more about whether a player is the best(or top 5,10) in their league than whether they have high adjusted numbers... that's the biggest problem with the buckets imo..

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'd say it equalizes it because the point is showing how much better that player was that year compared to the league that year. It sets the standard to determine who the best were.

The two played in different eras. Of course Griffey is going to have more home runs. Everyone did in the 90s. He still hit more than most that decade but it was an expectation. For all the talk of steroids I do wonder how much the balls in that time frame played into that as well (much like the 2019 season).

But your point about flashy is made. Home runs are sexy and he lead the league and hit more of them.

but that's also the thing... if you think he is clean.. or not punish him for being dirty, then aren't his home run numbers more impressive...

and he also had 2 seasons with 56 HRs... that is 2 seasons of top 20 all time... point is unlike Trout, he had the SPECIAL seasons... whether scarred or not...

Trout did not have any SPECIAL... he was just the best... same with Pujols.. he didn't have any SPECIAL season...

Special is defined as MVP/CY caliber season with all time great numbers... so best of the best seasons...

 

[Cedrique]

first i will state this... OPS+ and WAR, becasue they include factors about the league itself, it sort of punishes players who play in better overall seasons...

But Griffey led the league in HRs 4 times, with over 50 twice... he had over 100 RBIs 8 times, with 1 season of over 140, leading the league once, he also had an OPS of over 1.000 4 times(never leading the league) and never above 1.100

Trout- never lead the league in HRs, and never had over 50... had over 100 RBIs 3 times, never with more than 120 and never leading the league... he had 4 seasons with an OPS over 1.000, never above 1.100, leading the league 3 times...

now of course those are cherry picked stats... but those are the flashy numbers people look at...

Griffey was the better power bat...

of course if i didnt cherrypick i could have shown how good Trout was in everything else...

but for just who had the flashier best seasons... that would be Griffey...

Griffey also won only one MVP, but lost twice to Juan Gonzalez when he was the best choice to win... but of course MVPs would often go to the best player on a post season team...

Just a quick note. I think Runs Scored is kind of an underrated stat. And Mike Trout led the league in Runs 4 times. (1 less than Rickey Henderson). It gets overlooked but Trout is a multifaceted player. He's a guy with power, but he also takes his walks and has a .410 lifetime OBP and early in his career was a big stolen base threat. And his stolen base success rate is 85%.
I know you already said those were cherry picked stats but I just wanted to point that out.