Top 10 poll: #6 player ever

[msgkings322]

Bring the stats. Defend your position!

He did deliver his meat to at least 10,000 people (in his own estimation)

 

[calsnowskier]

He did deliver his meat to at least 10,000 people (in his own estimation)

Churchill has smoked out millions…

 

[LHG]

Wilt Chamberlain definitely gave his meat to people he invited to party.

I completely missed that you wrote Wilt on your reply, yet I knew that you had picked Chamberlain. Weird how the brain works.

 

[msgkings322]

I completely missed that you wrote Wilt on your reply, yet I knew that you had picked Chamberlain. Weird how the brain works.

Yeah I was just going for a quick joke saying Wilt instead of Neville and now it's taken on a life of its own lol

 

[LHG]

Churchill has smoked out millions…

I cannot figure out a way to reply to this without it getting weird. I'm bowing out on this.

 

[LHG]

Baseball-references addressed this older pitcher war issue. They created a new war7 based on a max of 250 innings.

I was pulling WAR7 from BBRef.

 

[LHG]

Based on this voting, this baseball card in my collection OFFICIALLY has 3 of the top 5 players of all-time on it. Such a cool card.

View attachment 384539

Nice card. Don't think I have anything quite like that. Probably coolest card I have is a minor league card of Michael Jordan from his one year stint in Birmingham.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I was pulling WAR7 from BBRef.

I know. But look at the adjusted WAR7

Starting Pitcher JAWS Leaders | Baseball-Reference.com

Starting Pitcher JAWS Leaders

www.baseball-reference.com

 

[LHG]

I know. But look at the adjusted WAR7

Starting Pitcher JAWS Leaders | Baseball-Reference.com

Starting Pitcher JAWS Leaders

www.baseball-reference.com

Interesting. I didn't even notice that column that was right next to WAR7. Johnson still is the best pitcher in that category, but it is much closer to Clemens now.
Not sure how much weight you put on JAWS or S-JAWS, I know very little about it but have heard of it in previous years on HOF talks. Based on those numbers, Johnson is also superior to any other pitcher in MLB history.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Interesting. I didn't even notice that column that was right next to WAR7. Johnson still is the best pitcher in that category, but it is much closer to Clemens now.
Not sure how much weight you put on JAWS or S-JAWS, I know very little about it but have heard of it in previous years on HOF talks. Based on those numbers, Johnson is also superior to any other pitcher in MLB history.

jaws is just a simple combination of WAR7 and WAR.... kind of means nothing...

there is also a category WAR/162... that i find interesting too... more so for offense than pitching...

but i really only look at WAR7 for prime, and WAR for longevity... but i barely look at longevity... i do think it is important... but if longevity is your thing i care more about milestone numbers... like 3000 hits...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Interesting. I didn't even notice that column that was right next to WAR7. Johnson still is the best pitcher in that category, but it is much closer to Clemens now.
Not sure how much weight you put on JAWS or S-JAWS, I know very little about it but have heard of it in previous years on HOF talks. Based on those numbers, Johnson is also superior to any other pitcher in MLB history.

also, even more than WAR7 and WAR and JAWS... i like the WAR-SHARE stat... this is so much better than WAR7 IMO... as it measures how often you were best, top 5, top 10 in a season...

now of course this benefits players pre expansion baseball...

 

[LHG]

also, even more than WAR7 and WAR and JAWS... i like the WAR-SHARE stat... this is so much better than WAR7 IMO... as it measures how often you were best, top 5, top 10 in a season...

now of course this benefits players pre expansion baseball...

Looking at that BBRef page, no matter what category you sort by in the first 7 columns, Walter Johnson sits at the top except WAR/162. He comes in third, behind two ***** League pitchers who brings us back to how do you rank them with such sporadic stat numbers.
Looking at Johnson's more basic numbers, he still holds the major league record for most shutouts thrown in a career at 110. The next guy is at 90. That is pretty impressive, no matter what era any other pitcher threw in.
He won 417 games, when wins were more impressive a category for a pitcher. That places him 2nd all time. And he did that on Washington teams that had winning records in only 10 of his 20 seasons and 4 of those seasons were the last 4 of his career. The remaining 10 seasons saw winning percentages lower than .450.
He held the record for most career strikeouts until the 1980s, when a series of pitchers barely got past him before Nolan Ryan and, later, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson, came on the scene. That was almost a 60 year stretch where his record held.
And he wasn't bad at all with a bat. Of his career WAR, 12.7 comes from offense.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Looking at that BBRef page, no matter what category you sort by in the first 7 columns, Walter Johnson sits at the top except WAR/162. He comes in third, behind two ***** League pitchers who brings us back to how do you rank them with such sporadic stat numbers.
Looking at Johnson's more basic numbers, he still holds the major league record for most shutouts thrown in a career at 110. The next guy is at 90. That is pretty impressive, no matter what era any other pitcher threw in.
He won 417 games, when wins were more impressive a category for a pitcher. That places him 2nd all time. And he did that on Washington teams that had winning records in only 10 of his 20 seasons and 4 of those seasons were the last 4 of his career. The remaining 10 seasons saw winning percentages lower than .450.
He held the record for most career strikeouts until the 1980s, when a series of pitchers barely got past him before Nolan Ryan and, later, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson, came on the scene. That was almost a 60 year stretch where his record held.
And he wasn't bad at all with a bat. Of his career WAR, 12.7 comes from offense.

no doubt... statistically speaking, no matter what stat you take Walter Johnson is the best pitcher of all time... question for him is not his stats, its the WHEN he played...

this is the problem with almost all rankings... they are dominated by players from Pre-color barrier...

its funny, how we look down on this period... but love its legends... also why if we have at least half the list in this era, that i would have to put oscar Charleston in the top 10.... just to balance the hypocrisy...

 

[DHoey]

If Ruth was so good he is able to remove an all time great like Gehrig out of the “top 10”, couldn’t the reverse be said as well? That the existence of Gehrig helped Ruth enough to drop him a few slots?

Gehrig was top 5 in MVP voting 9 times. 9 FUCKING times, out of 14 full seasons. His peak was on par with Ruth. People don't like to hear it because Ruth is baseball god but it's true.

 

[LHG]

no doubt... statistically speaking, no matter what stat you take Walter Johnson is the best pitcher of all time... question for him is not his stats, its the WHEN he played...

this is the problem with almost all rankings... they are dominated by players from Pre-color barrier...

its funny, how we look down on this period... but love its legends... also why if we have at least half the list in this era, that i would have to put oscar Charleston in the top 10.... just to balance the hypocrisy...

There is this weird balance of wanting to see players with a large enough resume to consider them yet ding them if they were "accumulators". The problem with Charleston (or any other player from the ***** Leagues) is the lack of a large enough resume to use some measure of objectivity to consider. Baseball is a heavily statistical sport and so the best way to measure greatness is in the stats. Yes, legend and lore play a part in how well a player was adored and favored but for the purposes of this list, we are trying to compromise on who the collective thinks the greatest players of all time were. Without good stats, we just fall back into narratives. Narratives can be highly subjective. Maybe you could start a thread where you just provide your Top 10 or 15 and give the reasons. Everyone else can share as they see fit. Just not sure how to fit Charleston in this list without breaking down any objective standard of who should be included.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

There is this weird balance of wanting to see players with a large enough resume to consider them yet ding them if they were "accumulators". The problem with Charleston (or any other player from the ***** Leagues) is the lack of a large enough resume to use some measure of objectivity to consider. Baseball is a heavily statistical sport and so the best way to measure greatness is in the stats. Yes, legend and lore play a part in how well a player was adored and favored but for the purposes of this list, we are trying to compromise on who the collective thinks the greatest players of all time were. Without good stats, we just fall back into narratives. Narratives can be highly subjective. Maybe you could start a thread where you just provide your Top 10 or 15 and give the reasons. Everyone else can share as they see fit. Just not sure how to fit Charleston in this list without breaking down any objective standard of who should be included.

Again. I am not saying he is top 10.

What I am saying is that if we as fans complain non stop about that era of baseball and how their stats were exaggerated for this reason.

When a list then gets dominated by the best players of that period. Then aren’t we also saying that if the other players were allowed to play in the MLB would have also made the list.

 

[LHG]

Again. I am not saying he is top 10.

What I am saying is that if we as fans complain non stop about that era of baseball and how their stats were exaggerated for this reason.

When a list then gets dominated by the best players of that period. Then aren’t we also saying that if the other players were allowed to play in the MLB would have also made the list.

I think of two things in response to this:
1. How many of us voting complain non stop about that era of baseball? For me, personally, I find it difficult to really figure out that era. It is subjective to simply make a blanket statement that the players in that era were not very good because of segregation and so they should be discounted.

2. We have no way of knowing how much things would have changed had players like Oscar Charleston played in the AL or NL. Maybe he would have dominated, maybe he would have just been okay. No idea. I think its a shame that the best of any ethnicity didn't get a chance in the big leagues back then but I'm not ready to chuck the accomplishments of those who did play at that time.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think of two things in response to this:
1. How many of us voting complain non stop about that era of baseball? For me, personally, I find it difficult to really figure out that era. It is subjective to simply make a blanket statement that the players in that era were not very good because of segregation and so they should be discounted.

2. We have no way of knowing how much things would have changed had players like Oscar Charleston played in the AL or NL. Maybe he would have dominated, maybe he would have just been okay. No idea. I think its a shame that the best of any ethnicity didn't get a chance in the big leagues back then but I'm not ready to chuck the accomplishments of those who did play at that time.

sorry... i am talking general... not about anyone... and not necessarily here...

 

[LHG]

sorry... i am talking general... not about anyone... and not necessarily here...

Probably a bit late in this process to do so, but maybe it would be good to get a pulse on how everyone feels about that era so we can have an idea of how people are approaching it. Of course, I've missed some dialogue on the various threads so maybe that has already been discussed and I either missed it or forgot it.

 

[TheGoodMan19]

There is this weird balance of wanting to see players with a large enough resume to consider them yet ding them if they were "accumulators". The problem with Charleston (or any other player from the ***** Leagues) is the lack of a large enough resume to use some measure of objectivity to consider. Baseball is a heavily statistical sport and so the best way to measure greatness is in the stats. Yes, legend and lore play a part in how well a player was adored and favored but for the purposes of this list, we are trying to compromise on who the collective thinks the greatest players of all time were. Without good stats, we just fall back into narratives. Narratives can be highly subjective. Maybe you could start a thread where you just provide your Top 10 or 15 and give the reasons. Everyone else can share as they see fit. Just not sure how to fit Charleston in this list without breaking down any objective standard of who should be included.

Placing Gibson, Paige and the greats from the "Segregated" Leagues is like ranking Sadaharu Oh, Shigeo Nagashima and Eiji Sawamura. Could they have played in the majors, probably. Would Oh have hit 868 home runs, no. Granted, you have to respect a guy who hit 30 homers at age 40, no matter the level. Take him out of those bandbox stadiums and he's not coming anywhere near 800.