POLL Top 10 poll: #30 player in history - Runoff

[calsnowskier]

Runoff for the #30 player in baseball history. Poll closes Saturday AM.

Spoiler: Tags

@navamind @LHG
@steveringo @broncosmitty @packerzrule
@jarntt @redseat
@black francis @molsaniceman @Fountain City Blues
@Used 2 B Hu @MilkSpiller22
@CitySushi @Clayton @UK Cowboy
@Beengay fudgepackers @Hbomb @Maximus Rex
@Pure Steel @jon2tanman @Boglodyte
@nynasty @Hank Kingsley @Wamu
@Robotech @kcden @jwolt92
@Sportsguy9695 @DHoey @chillerdab
@DorianRo @socaljim242
@msgkings322 @Cedrique @BigFin
@catman @omarsrevenge @rmilia1
@obxyankeefan @femurov @Nosferatu
@Maverick426h @TheGoodMan19
@blstoker @Diamondeye @trojanfan12
@mr.hockey4242 @Janus @VikingFan2k2
@Stakesarehigh @eaglesnut @boogiewithstu2007
@SF11704 @Hunter Montana

 

[calsnowskier]

I am thinking…

Bench
Kershaw
Ott
Ohtani
Clemente
Gibson

Going by only resumes, only Bench, Kershaw and Ott deserve to be here.

 

[LHG]

I am thinking…

Bench
Kershaw
Ott
Ohtani
Clemente
Gibson

Going by only resumes, only Bench, Kershaw and Ott deserve to be here.

I'm going with:
Kershaw
Ott
Clemente
Gibson
Bench
Ohtani

 

[Clayton]

Whats the argument for Kershaw over Gibson? Seems like they both had roughly the same number of ace years and Gibson had the better prime. Era adjusted stats Im guessing.

 

[redseat]

Done

 

[LHG]

Whats the argument for Kershaw over Gibson? Seems like they both had roughly the same number of ace years and Gibson had the better prime. Era adjusted stats Im guessing.

Gibson's adjusted ERA buckets are a lot lower than Kershaw's. Gibson's raw numbers look really impressive but he did it in an era where pitchers were more dominant in general than Kerhsaw's era.

 

[Clayton]

Gibson's adjusted ERA buckets are a lot lower than Kershaw's. Gibson's raw numbers look really impressive but he did it in an era where pitchers were more dominant in general than Kerhsaw's era.

If we were voting purely on ERA+ then Pedro would've been the top pitcher

I'm good with Bench getting 30, though. Cardinals fans and Giants fans likely both like catchers a lot.

 

[calsnowskier]

Interesting results so far. Not what I expected.

 

[msgkings322]

Whats the argument for Kershaw over Gibson? Seems like they both had roughly the same number of ace years and Gibson had the better prime. Era adjusted stats Im guessing.

Kershaw career ERA+ 156, WHIP 1.01, unadjusted ERA 2.50

Gibson career ERA+ 127, WHIP 1.188, unadjusted ERA 2.91

Both MVPs once, 3 Cys for Clay 2 for Bob

Kershaw much higher winning %

It's not close with them

 

[msgkings322]

Gibson's adjusted ERA buckets are a lot lower than Kershaw's. Gibson's raw numbers look really impressive but he did it in an era where pitchers were more dominant in general than Kerhsaw's era.

Kershaw has a lower unadjusted ERA as well, by .41, not to mention WHIP, it's not close

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Kershaw career ERA+ 156, WHIP 1.01, unadjusted ERA 2.50

Gibson career ERA+ 127, WHIP 1.188, unadjusted ERA 2.91

Both MVPs once, 3 Cys for Clay 2 for Bob

Kershaw much higher winning %

It's not close with them

I haven’t figured out how to measure it yet. But kershaw played in a weak NL. And a weak division. Your giant fans know this.

No, that shouldn’t take away from his greatness. But era+ and war are not going to addess this.

There was always a saying that pitching in the national league drops your era by a good amount.

Now, I understand Gibson and Seaver were also NL pitchers. But the lack of DH which is a big reason the NL was looked down on that came in 1973. And wasn’t a major factor to quality of teams yet.

 

[msgkings322]

I haven’t figured out how to measure it yet. But kershaw played in a weak NL. And a weak division. Your giant fans know this.

No, that shouldn’t take away from his greatness. But era+ and war are not going to addess this.

There was always a saying that pitching in the national league drops your era by a good amount.

Now, I understand Gibson and Seaver were also NL pitchers. But the lack of DH which is a big reason the NL was looked down on that came in 1973. And wasn’t a major factor to quality of teams yet.

This is a lot of dancing around to make your square peg fit in a round hole my man but Kershaw is without question the best pitcher left on the board.

He even has a triple crown you are so fond of

 

[broncosmitty]

This is a lot of dancing around to make your square peg fit in a round hole my man but Kershaw is without question the best pitcher left on the board.

He even has a triple crown you are so fond of

Gibsons prime was as dominant an era for starters as we’ve seen. So much so they lowered the mound.

And his numbers still come up short compared to Kershaws.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

This is a lot of dancing around to make your square peg fit in a round hole my man but Kershaw is without question the best pitcher left on the board.

He even has a triple crown you are so fond of

Is it??Or isn’t it what we are doing in this exercise?? How to compare players of different eras. Why should our observations about an era not be included??

 

[msgkings322]

Is it??Or isn’t it what we are doing in this exercise?? How to compare players of different eras. Why should our observations about an era not be included??

Why should overwhelming push back on your observations not be included? WHIP and ERA are not era dependent (Gibson of course had a higher mound for most of his career), nor are Cy Youngs and triple crowns. Kershaw had a better career than Gibson, but you have every right to be wrong about them.

 

[Clayton]

Kershaw career ERA+ 156, WHIP 1.01, unadjusted ERA 2.50

Gibson career ERA+ 127, WHIP 1.188, unadjusted ERA 2.91

Both MVPs once, 3 Cys for Clay 2 for Bob

Kershaw much higher winning %

It's not close with them

Gibson also had more than 1,100 more innings pitched. We'll see where Kershaws stats are when he adds those innings on there.

Kershaw has a 4.49 playoff ERA.

 

[Clayton]

Maybe its just optics with Kershaw. 13 playoff losses is terrible optics for a legend. IIRC a lot of those loses were with the Dodgers as the favorite.