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

[MilkSpiller22]

In the event of a 3-way tie, I will just declare the winner, with no runoff…

does that mean currently, if you pick Pedro, there will be no 3rd runoff and Foxx wins??

i like that!!!

 

[DHoey]

Put them all on the list as 21a, 21b, 21c

 

[eaglesnut]

Pedro was a 10/10/10 and Griffey a 10/10/8/10/10 in Major League Baseball featuring Ken Griffey Jr for N64. The greatest sports game ever made.

 

[steveringo]

Did Redseat say he voted by mistake, but then didn't correct it?

Do we count that - so it's a tie between Pedro and XX?

 

[LHG]

Did Redseat say he voted by mistake, but then didn't correct it?

Do we count that - so it's a tie between Pedro and XX?

Does this make it a hanging chad or a stolen election?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

we need two more voters to end this...

Pedro- 10
Foxx-11
Griffey-11

if we get two voters(cal still has not voted), one for pedro and onefor Foxx,

then Foxx wins, if i understand correctly since there would be a 2 way tie for 2nd and a third runoff would be impossible...

if we change @redseat eat to Pedro(like he said), i will change my vote to Foxx... and we wont need Cal to vote...

in both scenarios Foxx will win, and there wont be a third runoff...

 

[Clayton]

I have Griffey at 30, Foxx at 21 and Pedro at 17.

I Don't hate XX right after Pujols. I think they're in the same tier

 

[jon2tanman]

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

It was partially replied to by milkspiller, however Choosing WAR as the main stat to compare careers is extremely flawed. A dozen of those players on that list wouldn't crack the top 50. If people are going by only 1 or 2 stats, then why even have a poll? Ever just look at the back of a baseball card and be able to tell who had a better career? just my opinion and I'm working on my first cup of coffee, so pardon all the short sentences lol

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have Griffey at 30, Foxx at 21 and Pedro at 17.

I Don't hate XX right after Pujols. I think they're in the same tier

basically the same player...

 

[calsnowskier]

I am applying my vote after the fact to Pedro to avoid the extreme tie breaker of an 11-12-11 vote.

Pedro and Foxx advance.

 

[LHG]

It was partially replied to by milkspiller, however Choosing WAR as the main stat to compare careers is extremely flawed. A dozen of those players on that list wouldn't crack the top 50. If people are going by only 1 or 2 stats, then why even have a poll? Ever just look at the back of a baseball card and be able to tell who had a better career? just my opinion and I'm working on my first cup of coffee, so pardon all the short sentences lol

I agree that WAR by itself is not enough and looking at the back of a card to see career achievements is fun. However, going by card stats can be deceiving too. That's why I like cal's system of reviewing the careers. It gives more context (awards won or in consideration, how dominant the player was in light of the league that year) and helps to align different eras.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I agree that WAR by itself is not enough and looking at the back of a card to see career achievements is fun. However, going by card stats can be deceiving too. That's why I like cal's system of reviewing the careers. It gives more context (awards won or in consideration, how dominant the player was in light of the league that year) and helps to align different eras.

although i do agree that OPS+ and WAR are the 2 best commercial stats that answer who is the best player or hitter...

i do think acknowledging the stats faults help look past those stats while mainly using those stats in a quick analysis...

also, the bucket process has a clear flaw... it doesnt represent league rankings well....

comparing players from different seasons, just because player A has the better OPS+ in one season than player B, does not mean Player A was a higher rank in their season than player B...

 

[calsnowskier]

although i do agree that OPS+ and WAR are the 2 best commercial stats that answer who is the best player or hitter...

i do think acknowledging the stats faults help look past those stats while mainly using those stats in a quick analysis...

also, the bucket process has a clear flaw... it doesnt represent league rankings well....

comparing players from different seasons, just because player A has the better OPS+ in one season than player B, does not mean Player A was a higher rank in their season than player B...

But it does say that he was better when compared to the masses. That acknowledges any league-wide trends for that season (shorter distance from home to first due to larger bases or no shifting or a different tightness in the weaving of the ball or an enforcement policy on PEDs being used or not used or the lowering of the mound…

when I look at bold numbers, I like to look at unadjusted stats. Those are the most “tire meets road” numbers that exists. But when I look at buckets, I like adjusted numbers because it matters when those buckets were filled.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But it does say that he was better when compared to the masses. That acknowledges any league-wide trends for that season (shorter distance from home to first due to larger bases or no shifting or a different tightness in the weaving of the ball or an enforcement policy on PEDs being used or not used or the lowering of the mound…

when I look at bold numbers, I like to look at unadjusted stats. Those are the most “tire meets road” numbers that exists. But when I look at buckets, I like adjusted numbers because it matters when those buckets were filled.

Again. I am not critiquing the buckets. It has its merit. But not acknowledging the faults of it may make some rely on it too much.

It doesn’t tell the whole picture. And also realizing that the end number is so dependent on the adjustment, actually creates a larger margin of error between the seasons. As in a 190 might not always be better than a 180 of a different season.

Again. Buckets are great. But it’s not the perfect quick glance.

 

[calsnowskier]

Again. I am not critiquing the buckets. It has its merit. But not acknowledging the faults of it may make some rely on it too much.

It doesn’t tell the whole picture. And also realizing that the end number is so dependent on the adjustment, actually creates a larger margin of error between the seasons. As in a 190 might not always be better than a 180 of a different season.

Again. Buckets are great. But it’s not the perfect quick glance.

“Quick glance” is exactly just that, though…. A quick glance. I think WAR (WAR7 more so, but it is not as readily available), accolades and OPS+ buckets ARE the “perfect” “quick glance” stats. They set the stage and do 90% of the heavy lifting for you. Once you have narrowed the field down to a small handful from those, then you can fine tune the last few options by digging deeper.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

“Quick glance” is exactly just that, though…. A quick glance. I think WAR (WAR7 more so, but it is not as readily available), accolades and OPS+ buckets ARE the “perfect” “quick glance” stats. They set the stage and do 90% of the heavy lifting for you. Once you have narrowed the field down to a small handful from those, then you can fine tune the last few options by digging deeper

Maybe this is something we will have to agree to disagree. I am not a ops+ buckets guy.

in no way would I stop you and lhg to use it. Or anyone else if they want to. And it’s nice that you post it for a starter for those who may not want to the research.

I

 

[calsnowskier]

Maybe this is something we will have to agree to disagree. I am not a ops+ buckets guy.

in no way would I stop you and lhg to use it. Or anyone else if they want to. And it’s nice that you post it for a starter for those who may not want to the research.

I

Totally fair.

I completely support your right to be wrong.