POLL Top 10 poll: #24 player in history - Runoff 2

[eaglesnut]

Griffey is actually very interesting because a vote for him is assuming he was clean. But his adjusted numbers are going to be affected negatively to the steroid era. As the averages are all going to be higher.

So really you can’t use the adjusted numbers for him.

I voted Bonds high, Clemens too. I'm not too concerned with steroids overall. I look at what the guy did.

Unless they're a yankee of course. Then I'm fine not considering them at all.

Griffey's peak stacks up and so does his longevity.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Looking at his stats, though, he looks like a bad base stealer. He was getting caught almost as much as he was stealing. And that is with incomplete CS numbers from his era.

this is why I don’t look at sb the same way during deadball era. It was a different style of play that actually created more baserunning.

The hit and run was basically ran on every bat. Which will cause a lot of CS.

 

[calsnowskier]

Ken Griffey Jr (CF) 1989 - 2010

1 MVP, 4 top 5 MVP, 2 top 10 MVP, 3 additional seasons with MVP votes, 13 ASG, 10 GG, 7 SS

83.8, 54.0

Bold: WAR 3, RBI 1, HR 4, R 1, TB 2

OPS+ buckets

200 - 0
180 - 0
160 - 3
140 - 5
120 - 4

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

OPS+ buckets

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

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I voted Bonds high, Clemens too. I'm not too concerned with steroids overall. I look at what the guy did.

Unless they're a yankee of course. Then I'm fine not considering them at all.

Griffey's peak stacks up and so does his longevity.

His raw stats. Sure. But not his adjusted.

Griffey is a perfect example of a player who is NOT an advanced stat darling. But again that is also not fair if you believe he is clean.

But if you just base it on raw numbers then he is even further away from players like Mel Ott.

 

[calsnowskier]

Frank was a MUCH better OPS guy. He had considerably more career WAR, and their WAR7 is essentially equal. Accolades are close, but imho, slightly favors Robinson. Same with bolds.

 

[eaglesnut]

Ott and Robinson do have some longevity over Griffey but Griffey at his best is better than either guy at their best.

 

[calsnowskier]

Ott and Robinson do have some longevity over Griffey but Griffey at his best is better than either guy at their best.

His WAR7 is only 2 higher than Robinson (higher, yes, but barely statistically relevant) and only 0.2 higher than Ott (a true dead heat).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Ott and Robinson do have some longevity over Griffey but Griffey at his best is better than either guy at their best.

this is where there is inconsistency to your comment... not by you... just the interesting thing about stats...

KG, had a couple seasons with SPECIAL HR levels and RBI levels... where Ott and Robinson dont compare...

but because of the steroid era, the averages were very skewed, so the adjusted numbers actually hurt griffey, where both ott and robinson were better, even those seasons...

BUT context matters... doesnt it?? if you want to claim that Griffey was one of the only clean ones, you kind of CANT USE THOSE ADJUSTED STATS...

its just a weird dynamic...

 

[calsnowskier]

this is where there is inconsistency to your comment... not by you... just the interesting thing about stats...

KG, had a couple seasons with SPECIAL HR levels and RBI levels... where Ott and Robinson dont compare...

but because of the steroid era, the averages were very skewed, so the adjusted numbers actually hurt griffey, where both ott and robinson were better, even those seasons...

BUT context matters... doesnt it?? if you want to claim that Griffey was one of the only clean ones, you kind of CANT USE THOSE ADJUSTED STATS...

its just a weird dynamic...

Griffey also played in an era where most parks were tiny while Robinson and Ott played in eras where the parks were HUGE.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

His WAR7 is only 2 higher than Robinson (higher, yes, but barely statistically relevant) and only 0.2 higher than Ott (a true dead heat).

and higher based on position bonus... which then means Ott and Robinson did much more to reach that WAR...

but again, griffey is such a weird one because of his times, that i honestly dont think adjusted numbers work for him...

 

[calsnowskier]

and higher based on position bonus... which then means Ott and Robinson did much more to reach that WAR...

but again, griffey is such a weird one because of his times, that i honestly dont think adjusted numbers work for him...

I am attacking your takes, but you are making great points. Keeping all these things in mind are important.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I am attacking your takes, but you are making great points. Keeping all these things in mind are important.

oh... i am still on the griffey after these guys... i am just pointing out the inconsistencies of the stats we are using...

its all about context, if you are boosting Griffey for being the best of the clean, then how can you use the adjusted stats that are skewed because of the dirty??

 

[jon2tanman]

Griffeys glove was just as good as his bat, and if we are looking at WAR the center fielders were pretty damn good in the 90s. All that being said I didn't vote for the kid.

 

[calsnowskier]

Griffeys glove was just as good as his bat, and if we are looking at WAR the center fielders were pretty damn good in the 90s. All that being said I didn't vote for the kid.

Griffey was GREAT. And his spot in this list isn’t that far off (5-10 spots probably).

He just doesn’t deserve to be listed YET.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Griffey was GREAT. And his spot in this list isn’t that far off (5-10 spots probably).

He just doesn’t deserve to be listed YET.

I agree. But this heavy talk on him has moved him up my list. By a nice amount too.

 

[calsnowskier]

I agree. But this heavy talk on him has moved him up my list. By a nice amount too.

Off the top of my list…

Robinson
Ott
Trout
Bench
Berra
Carter?
Cochrane?
IRod?
Mathewson
Alexander?
Seaver?

I think is about where I had him from the start (though I had him ahead of Trout coming in while now I have Trout ahead of him)

 

[Cedrique]

But his numbers don’t compare to Robinson, who played during the “turf-era”. And Trout, who still isn’t done, has very comparable numbers, with already a higher WAR7. Imho, Trout > Griffey.

At best, Griffey is the #3 available bat (#4 if you count ARod)

FWIW, Robinson was a little before the turf era. He played about 40 games on turf to Griffey's 985. I'm not sure that makes me put Griffey ahead of him though. I hadn't considered the turf shortening careers in this whole exercise until someone brought it up recently. Then again Trout came After the turf era and he hasn't been able to stay on the field for the last 5 seasons.....

 

[eaglesnut]

Griffey also played in an era where most parks were tiny while Robinson and Ott played in eras where the parks were HUGE.

Griffey has more doubles than Ott. Only 4 less than Robinson.

Ott was a beast though. I had largely forgotten about him until this exercise.

 

[Cedrique]

Griffey has more doubles than Ott. Only 4 less than Robinson.

Ott was a beast though. I had largely forgotten about him until this exercise.

Yeah I have to look closer at Ott. He had a pretty long run of great seasons. I also have his autograph. (well, maybe I do. Who knows if it's real. His name only has 6 letters so it probably isn't that hard to forge....)

 

[calsnowskier]

FWIW, Robinson was a little before the turf era. He played about 40 games on turf to Griffey's 985. I'm not sure that makes me put Griffey ahead of him though. I hadn't considered the turf shortening careers in this whole exercise until someone brought it up recently. Then again Trout came After the turf era and he hasn't been able to stay on the field for the last 5 seasons.....

And yet, Trout already has a superior WAR7 to Griffey.