Your Top 25 MLB Players of All-Time

[Shanemansj13]

Your Top 25 MLB Players of All-Time

No particular order:

1. Norm Cash
2. Al Kaline
3. Coot Veal
4. Bo Belinsky
5. Vic Power
6. Frank Larry
7. Don Mossi
8. Ted Lepcio
9. Dave Sisler
10. Charlie Maxwell
11. Rusty Kuntz
12. Jim Gilliam
13. Billy Ripken
14. Frank Bolling
15. Mickey Stanley
16. Ozzie Virgil
17. Bill Mazeroski
18. Gus Zernial
19. Ryan Raburn
20. Ty Cobb
21. Schoolboy Rowe
22. Bob Lemon
23. Steve Zimmerman
24. Ron Flanagan
25. Red Rufensore

Don't like my list? Let me "re-accommodate" you....punk!

The funny thing is that Ryan Raburn had his best season of his career for the....

The Indians

 

[Clayton]

I'm just curious but when people say 'I don't care about PEDS' do they mean that they think that PEDs should be legal? That seems to be the same argument and kind of a dangerous one.

 

[Chewbaccer]

I'm just curious but when people say 'I don't care about PEDS' do they mean that they think that PEDs should be legal? That seems to be the same argument and kind of a dangerous one.

I don't think they should be legal, and I think players caught now should face strong punishment(as they do), but given for around 20 years there, a large percentage of players were using PEDs(I know some still are, but it's not nearly as rampant today as it once was), and you can't change history. At the time, there were no rules regarding the use of steroids, and why white wash some of the greatest players from the era when the era happened, and there's really no way of knowing who was and wasn't clean.

Chipper Jones is my all time favorite player, and I've never heard him linked to any PED usage, but given the time he played, I definitely wouldn't be shocked if it came out he was using, and if it did, it would have zero impact on his status as my favorite player.

Trying to rid the game of them is a good thing, but pretending a good 20+ year era of baseball didn't happen, and trying to remove those players from history and excluding them from all time lists isn't the way to go.

Pud Galvin drank an elixir containing monkey testosterone. He was baseball's first 300 game winner, and is in the HOF. PEDs have been around forever, and the players that used them when there were no rules against them shouldn't be blackballed.

 

[Clayton]

Trying to rid the game of them is a good thing, but pretending a good 20+ year era of baseball didn't happen, and trying to remove those players from history and excluding them from all time lists isn't the way to go.

I feel like there is a very large gap from 'getting rid of players from the game' and 'using their late year statistics to justify overall rankings' in terms of this conversation, though.

The steroids add a weird curve to some players that doesnt really exist on the older players. It breaks the ability to use statistics to compare players from different eras with a straight face. Obviously no era is perfect and usually other sports use championships as a measure but baseball doesnt really work like that generally.

Its why a lot of this is opinion. I still have Bonds and Clemens on my list but I dont have them with the super high rankings their stats suggest they deserve.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

I'm just curious but when people say 'I don't care about PEDS' do they mean that they think that PEDs should be legal? That seems to be the same argument and kind of a dangerous one.

It's more I don't care if it's not a legitimate accomplishment in my view, which is even harder to understand considering it's ALL about accomplishments. It's little different than stealing stats from players like Maddux and Griffey jr who are the rightful most accomplished starting pitcher and power hitter in the past 40 years.
Griffey and Aaron in particular were robbed of their rightful glory by Bonds.
They also teach young people it's smart to cheat, it's important to take away what they cheated to gain.

 

[Liberal Icon]

I'm just curious but when people say 'I don't care about PEDS' do they mean that they think that PEDs should be legal? That seems to be the same argument and kind of a dangerous one.

Actually, it isn't that they do not care about PED but they know B.S when they see one. They believe its effect on baseball and home runs is exaggerated. How else do you explain the sudden interest in steroids in 2003 when Bonds was roped in while as far back as 1994 FBI investigated steroids use in MLB in its "Operation Equine" investigations but these same hypocrites in the media didn't think it was worth making any big deal about it? What is the difference between 1994 and 2003? Barry Bonds! Because the same holier than thou media pundits who were after blood when Bonds was roped in the steroids saga in 2003 cheered one of those who were implicated in the 1994 "Operation Equine" investigation during the 1998 homerun chase.
The same pundits and writers who made a big deal about PED in 2003 did not give a rat azz in 1994 during an FBI investiagtion of steorids use in MLB why should people care about PED now because the media tells them to do so?

 

[Liberal Icon]

It's more I don't care if it's not a legitimate accomplishment in my view, which is even harder to understand considering it's ALL about accomplishments. It's little different than stealing stats from players like Maddux and Griffey jr who are the rightful most accomplished starting pitcher and power hitter in the past 40 years.
Griffey and Aaron in particular were robbed of their rightful glory by Bonds.
They also teach young people it's smart to cheat, it's important to take away what they cheated to gain.

Nobody was robbed of anything. This is media bullshit.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

Actually, it isn't that they do not care about PED but they know B.S when they see one. They believe its effect on baseball and home runs is exaggerated. How else do you explain the sudden interest in steroids in 2003 when Bonds was roped in while as far back as 1994 FBI investigated steroids use in MLB in its "Operation Equine" investigations but these same hypocrites in the media didn't think it was worth making any big deal about it? What is the difference between 1994 and 2003? Barry Bonds! Because the same holier than thou media pundits who were after blood when Bonds was roped in the steroids saga in 2003 cheered one of those who were implicated in the 1994 "Operation Equine" investigation during the 1998 homerun chase.
The same pundits and writers who made a big deal about PED in 2003 did not give a rat azz in 1994 during an FBI investiagtion of steorids use in MLB why should people care about PED now because the media tells them to do so?

The effects on Bonds' stats were profound.
He was clearly in decline before cheating, then he became superman.
Clemens was also in decline, then PEDs gave him his most dominant period at a time he would have been winding down his career.
If you took Maddux's career chart, added PEDs at the same point Clemens was cheating, he would likely have over 400 wins and a sub 3.00 career era.
If Griffey Jr had used he would without doubt have had 800 or so hrs. He lost his power to back injuries like those McGuire had before PEDs turned him into the Hulk.
Aaron on PEDS ? I'm guessing 900 hrs.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

Nobody was robbed of anything. This is media bullshit.

No, defending the cheating bastards is BS.

 

[handicappers]

Nobody was robbed of anything. This is media bullshit.

False

 

[Liberal Icon]

The effects on Bonds' stats were profound.
He was clearly in decline before cheating, then he became superman.
Clemens was also in decline, then PEDs gave him his most dominant period at a time he would have been winding down his career.
If you took Maddux's career chart, added PEDs at the same point Clemens was cheating, he would likely have over 400 wins and a sub 3.00 career era.
If Griffey Jr had used he would without doubt have had 800 or so hrs. He lost his power to back injuries like those McGuire had before PEDs turned him into the Hulk.
Aaron on PEDS ? I'm guessing 900 hrs.

The effects on Bonds stats were profound? This is one of the most ridiculous statements borne out of no scientific evidence but emotional postulate on this topic I have ever heard. I gave links to scientifically sourced articles on this topic but all that I hear is singling out Bonds for opprobrium based on nothing more than the crap from the lazy and ignorant media being bandied out about here.
I will take the words of a scientific researcher of steroids and baseball, like Professor Charles Yesalis of Penn State or Chris Yeager "The Problem of Steroids Use in MLB is Exaggerated" over a media influenced Braves' partisan like you.

 

[Liberal Icon]

False

Based on what, emotional underpinning or scientific facts?

 

[Liberal Icon]

No, defending the cheating bastards is BS.

"Coors Field opened in 1995 and in just the small 21 year sample size that we have, it has become the greatest run-scoring environment in MLB history. In 2000, the Houston Astros switched from their pitcher-friendly Astrodome to hitter-friendly Enron Field (now Minute Maid Park). It ranks second in terms of helping hitters. Don’t forget about the Pittsburgh Pirates, Milwaukee Brewers, and Texas Rangers, who also got brand new stadiums during this time that aided hitters. When The Arizona Diamondbacks came into the league in 1998, they too played in a park that “significantly inflates offensive statistics.” Plus, the St. Louis Cardinals, Baltimore Orioles, Chicago White Sox, Seattle Mariners, and San Diego Padres have all moved their outfield fences in."

Were people who played in different era prior to this expansion cheated? You may want to read Professor Arthur DeVany's well-researched paper "Steroids, baseball, and the laws of genius." There are other great articles on the effect of PED and home runs that any educated fan can read rather than appeal to the nonsensical emotional crap peddled by the ignorant, Bonds -hating pundits in the media:

• Baseball Prospectus' book Baseball Between the Numbers, with a chapter "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?", again by Nate Silver but using a different approach than the article above: By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the [so-called] Juiced Era than in previous periods.
  
  
• The Juice, book by Will Carroll containing a chapter-length analysis by Jay Jaffe in which no effect is detected; the text is not available on line, but what is available are Carroll's comments: As Jay Jaffe showed in The Juice and Nate Silver showed in Baseball Between The Numbers, there's no statistical evidence that performance-enhancing drugs of any type show up in the numbers. I'm not saying there's not an effect, just that people smarter than me can't find it statistically.
  
  
• Professors Jonathan R. Cole (sociology, Columbia) and Stephen M. Stigler (statistics, University of Chicago), in an article "More Juice, Less Punch" in the December 22, 2007 Op-Ed section of The New York Times, examined before-and-after stats for identified steroid users and concluded that examination of the data on the players featured in the Mitchell report suggests that in most cases the drugs had either little or a negative effect.
  

 

[BallsOfFurry]

"Coors Field opened in 1995 and in just the small 21 year sample size that we have, it has become the greatest run-scoring environment in MLB history. In 2000, the Houston Astros switched from their pitcher-friendly Astrodome to hitter-friendly Enron Field (now Minute Maid Park). It ranks second in terms of helping hitters. Don’t forget about the Pittsburgh Pirates, Milwaukee Brewers, and Texas Rangers, who also got brand new stadiums during this time that aided hitters. When The Arizona Diamondbacks came into the league in 1998, they too played in a park that “significantly inflates offensive statistics.” Plus, the St. Louis Cardinals, Baltimore Orioles, Chicago White Sox, Seattle Mariners, and San Diego Padres have all moved their outfield fences in."

Were people who played in different era prior to this expansion cheated? You may want to read Professor Arthur DeVany's well-researched paper "Steroids, baseball, and the laws of genius." There are other great articles on the effect of PED and home runs that any educated fan can read rather than appeal to the nonsensical emotional crap peddled by the ignorant, Bonds -hating pundits in the media:

• Baseball Prospectus' book Baseball Between the Numbers, with a chapter "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?", again by Nate Silver but using a different approach than the article above: By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the [so-called] Juiced Era than in previous periods.
  
  
• The Juice, book by Will Carroll containing a chapter-length analysis by Jay Jaffe in which no effect is detected; the text is not available on line, but what is available are Carroll's comments: As Jay Jaffe showed in The Juice and Nate Silver showed in Baseball Between The Numbers, there's no statistical evidence that performance-enhancing drugs of any type show up in the numbers. I'm not saying there's not an effect, just that people smarter than me can't find it statistically.
  
  
• Professors Jonathan R. Cole (sociology, Columbia) and Stephen M. Stigler (statistics, University of Chicago), in an article "More Juice, Less Punch" in the December 22, 2007 Op-Ed section of The New York Times, examined before-and-after stats for identified steroid users and concluded that examination of the data on the players featured in the Mitchell report suggests that in most cases the drugs had either little or a negative effect.

If you wanted to come up with unrepresentative stats, Coors would be the field to study.
PEDs had enormous affects on power. We had guys who had almost no power hitting 40 plus hrs.

You'd have to be blind to think otherwise.

 

[Liberal Icon]

If you wanted to come up with unrepresentative stats, Coors would be the field to study.
PEDs had enormous affects on power. We had guys who had almost no power hitting 40 plus hrs.

You'd have to be blind to think otherwise.

You claim you use stats yet you refuse to read the articles I put up that are actually based on science that refute what you have been saying here.

 

[Liberal Icon]

If you want to read about power and effect on baseball read Professor Adair's well known and well-researched book "The Physics of baseball." It would help you to understand more on this topic before you make any unfounded assertion on this topic. You can also read Professor DeVaney's well-researched paper "Baseball, Steroids and the Laws of Genius." It will greatly help you move from a partisan posture on steroids to a well-informed student on the topic.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

If you want to read about power and effect on baseball read Professor Adair's well known and well-researched book "The Physics of baseball." It would help you to understand more on this topic before you make any unfounded assertion on this topic. You can also read Professor DeVaney's well-researched paper "Baseball, Steroids and the Laws of Genius." It will greatly help you move from a partisan posture on steroids to a well-informed student on the topic.

Let's cut through the subterfuge with easy to understand facts.

In 1994 the year before PEDs really took off there were 3306 HRs in MLB. At the peak of use in 2000 the number had risen to 5693.
That is a 69 percent increase over 8 seasons.
The rest is smoke, don't get fooled by obtuse manipulations of statistics, this is the picture in black and white.
Cheaters damn near destroyed the record book, we need to reclaim it for those who went about things the right way.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

You claim you use stats yet you refuse to read the articles I put up that are actually based on science that refute what you have been saying here.

I gave you non-bs read it,
it take long.

 

[Voltaire26]

If you want to read about power and effect on baseball read Professor Adair's well known and well-researched book "The Physics of baseball." It would help you to understand more on this topic before you make any unfounded assertion on this topic. You can also read Professor DeVaney's well-researched paper "Baseball, Steroids and the Laws of Genius." It will greatly help you move from a partisan posture on steroids to a well-informed student on the topic.

Is this still about Barry Bonds? Love him or hate him, Barry Bonds was a great hitter and he would be in my all-time starting line up. Some people you are not going to get to see the logic.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You lost all credibility with Bonds at #1.
Even if you choose to forget the cheating and give him credit for his clean stats, he's far from the top player in history.
I choose to ignore him altogether.

I had Ruth number 1.