Top 10 poll: #8 player ever

[calsnowskier]

i know... but my point was simply, for an all time great, he has a very quiet legend... i find it weird...

Chicks dig the long ball.

hitters have always gotten more love than pitchers. And pitchers from the “old days” who didn’t star in a major city are fuct.

 

[Robotech]

Seriously, no Kevin Maas?

I want Kevin Mitchell!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Chicks dig the long ball.

hitters have always gotten more love than pitchers. And pitchers from the “old days” who didn’t star in a major city are fuct.

again... i understand why... i am just stating fact, that he doesnt have the legend that he should... especially if he is considered SP #1...

 

[Robotech]

Damn, I'm surprised he was only 5'10" 186 lbs. I assume that the 186 is from his rookie year and that he was 200 or more lbs later on. However, back in the 1989, the guy seemed like he was 10 feet tall. I assumed that that he had just a few good years and that his rate stats were average, but these numbers are really solid. .880 OPS and OPS+ of 142 are really very good. The current Giants don't have anyone this good. LOL.

 

[steveringo]

This is so difficult. Especially since none of us ever saw him play. Who are you bumping from the current list, though?

It is difficult, but it is just for fun.

I think starting pitchers - especially when they were 'expected' to go 9 innings - are supremely more important than any other position player. So, I rate them higher than most.

I'd rank him before Cobb & Aaron. Also, I'd have The Kid 7th or 8th...

 

[LHG]

I THINK what I said was that I was moving Wagner above Hornsby, but that Speaker was below both. I would need to find that discussion to refresh my memory, though. I think that was in the #7 nom thread…

The conversation starts here:

I think Lou Gehrig is definitely in the running for this spot but I still think Hornsby edges him out. However, I'd go Johnson and Young before Hornsby. Johnson's WAR7, before adjustment, is the best in all of MLB (91.1). However, if you use the adjusted WAR7 (66.2), only Hornsby (73.9) and Gehrig (67.6) are higher. I think scaling down WAR7 for early 20th century and 19th century pitchers have some merit but I don't know how that is determined so I don't know if it is beneficial or harmful to the process of determining the best.

And one name that isn't in this discussion yet, but should be, is Tris Speaker. I'd probably rank him higher than Honus Wagner and right up there with Stan Musial.

Tris Speaker Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Check out the latest Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More of Tris Speaker. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, draft status, bats, throws, school and more on Baseball-reference.com

www.baseball-reference.com

 

[LHG]

i am ok having a pitcher be in the top 10... i aint pushing down the position... the problem with pitcher is the who do you start with question is just not as clear... and then there is Clemens, who gets the same negativity as Bonds... so people might have a hard time starting with him...

it is an accepted belief that when you compare eras, that elites would have been elites no matter when they played, but the average and below average players have gradually been improving

i brought this up earlier, in an earlier thread.... but it is not a coincidence that the last .400 BA was in 1941... stats are just so much harder to reach now... that is not saying elite players now are better than they were back then either...

But ERA+ is just as flawed as a statistic as any other... there has not been any good stat to compare different eras... so it is all up to you and how you want to judge...

All statistics are flawed, yet we use them, because they are the only data we have. Maybe not your intent but it seems like that is just an easy statement to make to dismiss an opinion that you don’t agree with.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

All statistics are flawed, yet we use them, because they are the only data we have. Maybe not your intent but it seems like that is just an easy statement to make to dismiss an opinion that you don’t agree with.

Umm!!! Who has dismissed any opinion?? If you think era+ is the golden star for pitching, use it!! I don’t like the stat, and I don’t use it. Not sure where you are coming from here.

 

[LHG]

Umm!!! Who has dismissed any opinion?? If you think era+ is the golden star for pitching, use it!! I don’t like the stat, and I don’t use it. Not sure where you are coming from here.

Maybe I'm lumping you and cal together on this. You said that ERA+ is flawed. I think you also said WAR7 is flawed for pitchers (or was that the WAR7 adjusted number for early pitchers). I know that you've talked about making your own stats to better measure players. I would ask what stats do you most rely on now for measuring how good a pitcher was?

 

[calsnowskier]

I want Kevin Mitchell!

Bubble Butt!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Maybe I'm lumping you and cal together on this. You said that ERA+ is flawed. I think you also said WAR7 is flawed for pitchers (or was that the WAR7 adjusted number for early pitchers). I know that you've talked about making your own stats to better measure players. I would ask what stats do you most rely on now for measuring how good a pitcher was?

when making your own stats I use raw data. Never compared different eras in my created stats. But I would like to.

there is a couple things when it comes to adjusted stats that I don’t like and it gives a big advantage.
By comparing to the average player that adjusts way to nicely to older generations.

 

[redseat]

How is Cy Young only possibly #8?

 

[msgkings322]

How is Cy Young only possibly #8?

He's only a pitcher, and from the way early days, and not even the best pitcher ever

 

[redseat]

He's only a pitcher, and from the way early days, and not even the best pitcher ever

True hadn't really looked at it like that

 

[LHG]

He's only a pitcher, and from the way early days, and not even the best pitcher ever

Yeah, but he's still quite good and pitchers are valuable too. I'd put him in my Top 10.

 

[msgkings322]

Yeah, but he's still quite good and pitchers are valuable too. I'd put him in my Top 10.

Only 3 spots left, where would you put him?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah, but he's still quite good and pitchers are valuable too. I'd put him in my Top 10.

How bout Christy Mathewson. How you rank them three??

 

[LHG]

How bout Christy Mathewson. How you rank them three??

Mathewson is a Giant legend but I'd put him just outside the Top 25.

 

[LHG]

Only 3 spots left, where would you put him?

My votes right now are, in order, Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Rogers Hornsby.

 

[LHG]

1) Babe Ruth (defeated Willie Mays 23-9)
2) Willie Mays (defeated Barry Bonds 26-11)
3) Ted Williams (defeated Barry Bonds 18-17)
4) Barry Bonds (defeated Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb 20-11-8)
5) Hank Aaron (defeated Ty Cobb 17-16)
6) Ty Cobb (defeated Lou Gehrig 24-9)
7) Lou Gehrig (defeated Walter Johnson 19-10)

Who is the #8 player ever? Vote for your top 3. This poll will close Friday AM.

@navamind @LHG @Stokes1931 @steveringo @broncosmitty @packerzrule @Shanemansj13 @jarntt @redseat @trojanfan12 @black francis @molsaniceman @Fountain City Blues @Used 2 B Hu @MilkSpiller22 @mr.hockey4242 @chappee11 @CitySushi @Clayton @UK Cowboy @Beengay fudgepackers @Hbomb @Diamondeye @Maximus Rex @Pure Steel @jon2tanman @Boglodyte @nynasty @Hank Kingsley @Wamu @Janus @Robotech @kcden @jwolt92 @Sportsguy9695 @DHoey @chillerdab @DorianRo @socaljim242 @VikingFan2k2 @PolarVortex @msgkings322 @Cedrique @BigFin @catman @omarsrevenge @rmilia1 @Stakesarehigh @obxyankeefan @femurov @Nosferatu @Maverick426h @TheGoodMan19 @Bodega @blstoker

Because nobody asked, here are the careers for each player that has been ranked already:
1) Babe Ruth (1914-1935)
2) Willie Mays (1948-1973)
3) Ted Williams (1939-1960)
4) Barry Bonds (1986-2007)
5) Hank Aaron (1954-1976)
6) Ty Cobb (1905-1928)
7) Lou Gehrig (1923-1939)

As for overlap? Here is many of these players were active in the following time periods:
1876-1904 - 0
1905-1913 - 1
1914-1922 - 2
1923-1928 - 3
1929-1935 - 2
1936-1938 - 1
1939 - 2
1940-1947 - 1
1948-1953 - 2
1954-1960 - 3
1961-1973 - 2
1974-1976 - 1
1977-1985 - 0
1986-2007 - 1
2007-2024 - 0