Top 10 poll #8: #8 player in history - Runoff

[calsnowskier]

I think postseason boosts are overrated. Penalize a good player on a bad team? Dumb, in my opinion. Essentially, Mantle gets a boost merely because he was a good Yankee. Musial gets a knock because he was a good Cardinal (when they were in a good period). Post season should only count when comparing two similar players who spent a similar amount of time in the postseason.

And just because a player played a premium versus non premium position shouldn't make a difference, unless the premium position player played it defensively equal or better than the non premium position player did.

Even the most orange of Giants fans won’t argue that Bum should be a HOFer, even while granting he belongs AT LEAST on the short list of greatest post-season pitchers ever. While he was a good regular season pitcher, he was nowhere near a HOF-caliber player when the whole picture is viewed.

Basically, post-season performance should be acknowledged, but at the end of the day, it is really a SSS, and should be treated as such.

 

[calsnowskier]

musial was in the playoffs plenty... 99 PA... 4 WS... only one HR and 8 RBIs... and like i said, he was in two WS in his MVP seasons.... there are no excuses for not being good....

the only thing Mantle had was more opportunities... and i agree that is an advantage... also never said how big of a bonus the LEGEND MAKER is...

but it has to be something....

Posey has bad playoff numbers as well. Yet not a single Giants fan wil use that against him in any way, shape or form.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Even the most orange of Giants fans won’t argue that Bum should be a HOFer, even while granting he belongs AT LEAST on the short list of greatest post-season pitchers ever. While he was a good regular season pitcher, he was nowhere near a HOF-caliber player when the whole picture is viewed.

Basically, post-season performance should be acknowledged, but at the end of the day, it is really a SSS, and should be treated as such.

i disagree about that... Maybe it is my yankee fandom speaking...

but i just dont see how you can not include post season to a players overall analysis... i mean, isnt that when they face the better teams/better talent... compared to the season where you have so many games vs total scrubs...

i have never said how much it should be factored in... but it certainly should be more than just a tie breaker...

it is also something that the positive is going to be taken into account much more than the negative...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

i have said it many times in our HOF threads... that as much as i hate Schilling... he is a clear HOFer IMO... thanks to his post season numbers pushing him over the fence....

 

[Cedrique]

i disagree about that... Maybe it is my yankee fandom speaking...

but i just dont see how you can not include post season to a players overall analysis... i mean, isnt that when they face the better teams/better talent... compared to the season where you have so many games vs total scrubs...

i have never said how much it should be factored in... but it certainly should be more than just a tie breaker...

it is also something that the positive is going to be taken into account much more than the negative...

Yeah it's your Yankee fandom speaking.

Seriously though it's a sample size thing, especially going back before 1969. Outside of the Yankees and maybe the Brooklyn Dodgers most players had very limited chances in the postseason. If you look at Yogi Berra's first few World Series, he didn't do much offensively. But lucky for him he got like 10 more tries and eventually his postseason stats look more like his regular season. Even Mantle's World Series stats don't look that remarkable. He had some great series and some not so great series, and overall his numbers look slightly lower than what he did in the regular season, which you'd expect since like you said, you're facing good teams.

I think using postseason accomplishments in a positive way to make a borderline Hall of Fame case is fine but it is tough to put too much into it in these "best player ever rankings" unless they were really spectacular. But everyone has a different criteria, which is what makes these threads fun.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah it's your Yankee fandom speaking.

Seriously though it's a sample size thing, especially going back before 1969. Outside of the Yankees and maybe the Brooklyn Dodgers most players had very limited chances in the postseason. If you look at Yogi Berra's first few World Series, he didn't do much offensively. But lucky for him he got like 10 more tries and eventually his postseason stats look more like his regular season. Even Mantle's World Series stats don't look that remarkable. He had some great series and some not so great series, and overall his numbers look slightly lower than what he did in the regular season, which you'd expect since like you said, you're facing good teams.

I think using postseason accomplishments in a positive way to make a borderline Hall of Fame case is fine but it is tough to put too much into it in these "best player ever rankings" unless they were really spectacular. But everyone has a different criteria, which is what makes these threads fun.

why?? isn't all time best, also about legend?? most players we have never seen... so we are basing it on stories and legends anyway/?

what is the difference with rewarding Ted Williams bonus points for losing time because of military action??

I agree that some players just never had the opportunity... and I never said those players should get penalized... but if a player has become a legend, how does that not help them??

and its funny, this discussion became more about mantle vs Musial... Musial has played in the playoffs.... more than most of his peers... we are to ignore his mediocrity??


again, I have never said what percentage post season should count for in an analysis... all I have said, is that it is more than just a tie breaker...


the question will be when we do see 2 close players, how big of an affect the playoffs are... I again, don't think Mantle and Musial are that close... would take mantle over Musial without the playoffs as well... just with it, it is even less close...

this race really is going to be between Johnson and Mantle...


I have admitted, I have no clue how to value pitching between eras... I find it much more difficult than offensive players...

I have a hard time voting for Johnson, when I am not convinced he is even the all time best... I do think he is better than CY...

 

[calsnowskier]

why?? isn't all time best, also about legend?? most players we have never seen... so we are basing it on stories and legends anyway/?

what is the difference with rewarding Ted Williams bonus points for losing time because of military action??

I agree that some players just never had the opportunity... and I never said those players should get penalized... but if a player has become a legend, how does that not help them??

and its funny, this discussion became more about mantle vs Musial... Musial has played in the playoffs.... more than most of his peers... we are to ignore his mediocrity??


again, I have never said what percentage post season should count for in an analysis... all I have said, is that it is more than just a tie breaker...


the question will be when we do see 2 close players, how big of an affect the playoffs are... I again, don't think Mantle and Musial are that close... would take mantle over Musial without the playoffs as well... just with it, it is even less close...

this race really is going to be between Johnson and Mantle...


I have admitted, I have no clue how to value pitching between eras... I find it much more difficult than offensive players...

I have a hard time voting for Johnson, when I am not convinced he is even the all time best... I do think he is better than CY...

These discussions have rarely actually been about the players actually on the board at that time. By the time the players get to the final 2 stage, they have probably been debated 8 ways to Sunday in the previous 2 or 3 phases.

And, as you state yourself, it is difficult to directly argue Johnson vs Mantle. So it is more productive to debate Mantle vs Musial vs Hornsby because it is more of an apples vs apples vs apples debate and then debate Young vs Johnson for the same reason. Then, through those debates, the final vote of Mantle vs Johnson can be made using those (unrelated) debates as a basis for weighing the pitcher vs hitter comparison.

Also, neither Johnson nor Mantle are in my personal top 3 atm (Hornsby, Wagner, Clemens), so doing the side debates are fun to fine tune my own opinions on where everyone sits in the bigger picture.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

These discussions have rarely actually been about the players actually on the board at that time. By the time the players get to the final 2 stage, they have probably been debated 8 ways to Sunday in the previous 2 or 3 phases.

And, as you state yourself, it is difficult to directly argue Johnson vs Mantle. So it is more productive to debate Mantle vs Musial vs Hornsby because it is more of an apples vs apples vs apples debate and then debate Young vs Johnson for the same reason. Then, through those debates, the final vote of Mantle vs Johnson can be made using those (unrelated) debates as a basis for weighing the pitcher vs hitter comparison.

Also, neither Johnson nor Mantle are in my personal top 3 atm (Hornsby, Wagner, Clemens), so doing the side debates are fun to fine tune my own opinions on where everyone sits in the bigger picture.

Clemens, I think is my number one pitcher as well... but there is no chance he will be chosen as a number one pitcher because of the steroid hate... I am even ok with Randy Johnson, tom Seaver, and a few others as the number one pitcher... but I also can't defend my opinion well when it comes to WJ... the entire knock on him is the when he played...

although I have accepted the fact that my top 10 and the boards top 10 are not going to be the same... or likely even similar...

 

[LHG]

These discussions have rarely actually been about the players actually on the board at that time. By the time the players get to the final 2 stage, they have probably been debated 8 ways to Sunday in the previous 2 or 3 phases.

And, as you state yourself, it is difficult to directly argue Johnson vs Mantle. So it is more productive to debate Mantle vs Musial vs Hornsby because it is more of an apples vs apples vs apples debate and then debate Young vs Johnson for the same reason. Then, through those debates, the final vote of Mantle vs Johnson can be made using those (unrelated) debates as a basis for weighing the pitcher vs hitter comparison.

Also, neither Johnson nor Mantle are in my personal top 3 atm (Hornsby, Wagner, Clemens), so doing the side debates are fun to fine tune my own opinions on where everyone sits in the bigger picture.

Hornsby gets my vote once Johnson gets in. Until then, I'm sticking with Johnson. He is just too good to be continuing to ignore.

Clemens, Wagner and Mantle are all Top 15, in my opinion, but none are Top 10. I just think Johnson, Young, Hornsby, Speaker and Musial are better.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

as to pre expansion baseball players... I think people would find it interesting looking at the top 10s in BA... and how there is such a significant drop off on the ranked 10 player...

that tells me a big something on how terribly skewed BA stat is, which is really the biggest reason why some of these pre-expansion players look so good...

 

[LHG]

Clemens, I think is my number one pitcher as well... but there is no chance he will be chosen as a number one pitcher because of the steroid hate... I am even ok with Randy Johnson, tom Seaver, and a few others as the number one pitcher... but I also can't defend my opinion well when it comes to WJ... the entire knock on him is the when he played...

although I have accepted the fact that my top 10 and the boards top 10 are not going to be the same... or likely even similar...

I think Clemens is the 3rd best pitcher, and it has nothing to do with the steroids issue. I just think Johnson and Young, based on numbers, are better. All three pitched in an era where people say "well, this issue waters down the numbers". There isn't an era where someone couldn't make that argument about a pitcher.

 

[LHG]

as to pre expansion baseball players... I think people would find it interesting looking at the top 10s in BA... and how there is such a significant drop off on the ranked 10 player...

that tells me a big something on how terribly skewed BA stat is, which is really the biggest reason why some of these pre-expansion players look so good...

I haven't really seen anyone making much about BA in these polls, though.

 

[chappee11]

i have said it many times in our HOF threads... that as much as i hate Schilling... he is a clear HOFer IMO... thanks to his post season numbers pushing him over the fence....

Schilling has HOF numbers even without his postseason performances, which are legendary. It’s a travesty that he didn’t get in while a guy like Mussina cruises right in.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think Clemens is the 3rd best pitcher, and it has nothing to do with the steroids issue. I just think Johnson and Young, based on numbers, are better. All three pitched in an era where people say "well, this issue waters down the numbers". There isn't an era where someone couldn't make that argument about a pitcher.

I do agree all eras have its own issues... the biggest point that I truly believe is that although the elites would be elite in any era, the average player has improved dramatically... and as the average player gets better, statistics are just harder to see the type of numbers we have seen...

I do think It is fair to say that the consistent dominant numbers would be harder to reach in a later era...

 

[calsnowskier]

I think Clemens is the 3rd best pitcher, and it has nothing to do with the steroids issue. I just think Johnson and Young, based on numbers, are better. All three pitched in an era where people say "well, this issue waters down the numbers". There isn't an era where someone couldn't make that argument about a pitcher.

I agree. But acknowledging the asterisk that applies to each person is important so each voter can weigh it based on their own weight system.

I ”ding” a pre-1900 player the worst. Milk will devalue pre-color barrier players the most. Others look at the 90s/00s and omit everyone. All those arguments are valid. And they differ for each person.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I haven't really seen anyone making much about BA in these polls, though.

but it is the most glaring difference... nobody talks about the stat per say... but we all hide behind it...

 

[calsnowskier]

Schilling has HOF numbers even without his postseason performances, which are legendary. It’s a travesty that he didn’t get in while a guy like Mussina cruises right in.

Messina was a swell guy famous for helping little old ladies cross the street. And he CHOSE his greatness well into his career, showing how smart he was. Not like these other “little old lady-helpers” who just had their greatness thrust upon them on draft day instead.

 

[calsnowskier]

but it is the most glaring difference... nobody talks about the stat per say... but we all hide behind it...

I don’t even look at it or acknowledge it. If you want to argue that I do through my “love” of OPS, than OK. I will not defend myself against such an odd attack.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Messina was a swell guy famous for helping little old ladies cross the street. And he CHOSE his greatness well into his career, showing how smart he was. Not like these other “little old lady-helpers” who just had their greatness thrust upon them on draft day instead.

Mussina is interesting... he was actually the WAR darling... I don't think he would have gotten in so fast if he was eligible a few years before... if he would have even gotten in... but he was eligible when WAR was getting popular... so voters went heavy on WAR...

 

[chappee11]

Clemens, I think is my number one pitcher as well... but there is no chance he will be chosen as a number one pitcher because of the steroid hate... I am even ok with Randy Johnson, tom Seaver, and a few others as the number one pitcher... but I also can't defend my opinion well when it comes to WJ... the entire knock on him is the when he played...

although I have accepted the fact that my top 10 and the boards top 10 are not going to be the same... or likely even similar...

Clemens is right near the top of guys that I ever saw. Maddux and Randy Johnson are right at the top, as well. But I think Pedro Martinez at his peak was the best of them all. He didn’t have the longevity, of course, but he was just electric at his peak. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like that before, or since.