As others have pointed out, Koufax getting as much support seems to be more about honoring the elder statesman than just looking at the numbers when it comes to people who selected pitchers. For hitters, there isn't a clear elder statesman so it looks like people are either going with the numbers (Bonds) or spreading the votes out amongst many others. It's also interesting to me that ARod so far has no votes while Bonds has so many. Again, I guess if you are going to vote and disregard PEDs, Bonds is considered better than ARod.

As for Rose, it doesn't surprise me that for something like this, people would be ok voting for him but not a PED user. I don't think there was ever any evidence that Rose's career stats were effected by his gambling.

There's a lot less known about the extent of usage of amphetamines than there is about PEDs. No one knows for sure who was using either or how much, but the big difference seems to be that during the PED era, more players were putting up numbers that had never been seen before for home runs and slugging. There have been 48 times a player hit 50 or more home runs. 23 of those were between 1995 and 2007 so almost half in a 13 year period. Sure there were other factors (ball probably juiced compared to other years, smaller fields, expansion so more pitchers), but the added strength provided by PEDs seemed to have a greater impact on offense than the added alertness that amphetamines was providing.

Yeah I wonder if anyone has done a rigorous study of this controlling for possible confounding variables.

How come Acuna is on the list but Frank Robinson is not?

Bonds is definitely the greatest living juicer. The things that man could do with a needle! Too bad we don't have highlights, it would be fun to watch.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Frank Robinson is not alive.

He's not living, for one thing.

Greatest
 

Al Gorditadogg gets it! It’s much easier than some folks are making it…. G1911- you flatter yourself, I don’t hate you. Never even met you and don’t want that “pleasure”. All of my posts have been on topic, and the cracks in your flimsy comebacks are showing. You got trucked on this one. Memory Lane deceit =bad, Bonds’ clear PED abuse= good. You really need a t-shirt that reads “Because the math”, it would make as much sense as you. Lots of defendable ideas for “greatest living player”, but your guy Barry ain’t it… Trent King

As most are aware, in 2015, MLB conducted a fan poll (is that not what we are doing here?) and the four greatest living players, as selected by the fans, were Aaron, Bench, Koufax and Mays. With Willie and Hank now deceased, the real question is 'who replaces them?' on the list.

If I don't care about steroid use, it's Barry and Roger for sure. Taking the 'roids guys off the table, I'm going with Nolan and Rickey.

And if I have to pick one, it's between Bench and Koufax, and I've always been a Reds fan, so Johnny takes the top spot. If you weren't in the top four in 2015, how could you be the best now?

I’m actually against using PED’s and I dislike Bonds. The gap between Bonds and any of your approved people is just so enormous that I don’t see good enough reason to ignore the math to select someone else. As I’ve already said multiple times, I get the argument against allowing a steroid user, but I and many others (who you seem able to not screech about constantly) put the math first. That’s not difficult to understand, whether one agrees or disagrees with a math centric approach.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my position against fake and fraudulent auctions, or your bizarre off topics attacks over things you’ve completely made up and can’t find in transcripts because they never happened. Write me an email with your feelings if you have too, you hijack a third parties legitimate topic every 2-4 weeks to do this weird shit lol

Yes he is. I don’t think I’d want to watch him stick a needle in his ass, but he was definitely the best of the steroid players.

Were amphetamine users "juicers"? I would lean yes.

How about people who received cortisone injections regularly? I don't know. It's pretty clear Koufax couldn't have pitched successfully without them. Is it the performance enhancing thing people object to, or the "cheating"?

What if a player now has a medically documented condition requiring HGH?

Yeah, I don't think so. People usually just bring up amphetamines as a way to minimize the huge proven advantages steroids and HGH have in baseball performance.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I went with Bench because, in my opinion, he's the only guy alive who is probably the greatest player at his position.

Where was it proven in a systemic fashion? I would bet a lot of guys used and it didn't do shit for them.

Schmidt.

I'm curious what the results of a "which living ball player would you like to have a meal with and talk baseball for a few hours?" Would look like.

Reggie.

Solid choice, he's a good guy too. Bench, Pujols, Ichiro, Koufax, all seem like guys I'd like to spend an evening with. Bonds would not be on my list.

Dykstra, Gooden, and Strawberry.

I thought Koufax would probably be very reserved and guarded. Reggie, on the other hand, I could see just telling you what he really thought. I mean how great would it be to hear the truth about him and Munson, for example? Reggie spanned some serious real estate too, broke in while Mantle was still playing, and was still playing when Bonds came up.

Nuanced.

The answer to the question is probably "yes", but it's not to the same degree. I am sympathetic to this argument, but whenever I hear it it is usually overstated to draw an equivalence to excuse the steroid guys.

Steroids do a hell of a lot more than cortisone shots in 1964 or greenies in 1972. The records books got erased, guys smashing 50 homers every year like it was nothing. Lots of things are performance enhancers, but not all performance enhancers are thus equal or the same.

The other factor is that nobody gave a shit in 1964 if Koufax needed a cortisone shot. Nobody really cared much if Mays needed an energy pill (I'm not sure there's actually proof on him?). In 2001, I was a ten years old kid. Even I knew that something just wasn't quite right with what I was watching in San Francisco every day of the season. People cared. We had congressional hearings, league bans, an entire national drama (hence why we have some posters going a little absurd with the anger here to Bonds) over what this generation was doing in near real time.

Going after Mays (if guilty) and Koufax as equivalent to Bonds is historical revisionism and greatly overstating the case and impact. But are what they did (or these charges are, at least) performance enhancing? Yes, it appears so to me.

Bonds cheated, Mays may have taken greenies (or similar, I am not a drug expert). On the other hand, so were half+ the pitchers and players Bonds was facing. Bonds' cheating became symbolic of the sin of a generation. If Bonds and Bonds alone was doing the cheating, I would be much more in tune with the angry group here. But it wasn't that much of an uneven playing field when everyone is doing it. That doesn't make it okay, but if I sat here and picked at everyone's flaws, I would end up with a list with 0 names on it. Selectively denying the sin of a whole generation while excusing breaking Baseball's biggest no-no for the last century (and other 'character failings' we'll say to be generous) is not consistent character clause. This is why I throw out the character clause; all it really means is "I like X and not Y so Y is bad and ineligible and X that I like wins" and that is stupid. Personally, I would like to conclude that Randy Johnson is the greatest living player and that it was Mays, a hero in my household that my mother adores for a kindness he did half a century ago, until last week. But the great thing about math and consistent standards, is that it separates my bullshit from reality, and my bullshit ain't worth any more than anyone else's bullshit while reality is always actual reality.

So do we vilify Bonds more because he happened to play in a generation which had better drugs available?

I think he is villified more because he 1) violated the record books, 2) is an egotistical ass, 3) it's a popular virtue signal opinion pushed by the media that's easy and requires no nuance or thought, which is almost always the kind of simple idea that gains traction and 4) if you vilify past generations of players too, then you lose the frame of comparison that makes what the roids generation did a sin; meaning the anger isn't justifiable and can't be. The bad guys can't be everyone, a tractionable narrative requires an easily identified group that is bad and one that is good.

While better drugs were available in 2001 than in 1971, steroids were a thing well before then. Baseball players of that time were not taking the best designer drugs of that time. They were popping energy pills to stay going, not working with advanced laboratories to push the bounds of sport.

Yes, that's what I was getting at before, the simplistic narrative of the evil roiders and our clean heroes of yesteryear who built their muscles chopping wood and hauling ice or whatever.

Note the date.

Fed Proc
. 1981 Oct;40(12):2689-92.
The amphetamine margin in sports
V G Laties, B Weiss
PMID: 7286248
Cite
Abstract
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes. Laboratory analogs of such performances have also been used and similar enhancement demonstrated. The amount of change induced by the amphetamines is usually small, of the order of a few percent. Nevertheless, since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important.

Or lifting plows, if you're Jimmie Foxx! But I suppose a game of nostalgia will always be nostalgic, even in the wrong ways.

A clean narrative is a red flag for bullshit. Every era has its sins, and it is also true that few eras have bastardized the record book as the steroid one did. Erasing eras one doesn't like is pointless virtue signaling and performance must always be kept in context of time and place. In time and place, Bonds absolutely dominated the game as it existed when he played like no player has since Babe Ruth. While I don't like him or what he has come to represent, fairly or not (and some of it is definitely unfair; he started juicing after Sosa and McGwire and many others, he is not the progenitor or the cause), reality doesn't care about my feelings one bit. I have greatly reduced interest in baseball after the 60's and basically no interest after the early 2000's, but that doesn't mean the legends of black and white are actually greater or better.

It's a good point, but from what I have read, nobody ever filled stadiums like the great Willie Mays. I mean wherever he went, there were constant attendance records. Would people have flocked in such numbers to watch somebody who was just slightly better than his peers? Of course not. They wanted to see that 5-tool greatness that Mays harnessed probably better than anyone else because he could beat other teams in so many ways.

Nothing to see here, folks...

Attachment 625600

+ 341,769,853 - 3 or 4. Thank You!

The dispositive point for me is that amphetamines were not banned by the MLB until 2006. As such, suspected greenie users who ended their careers before 2006 were never cheaters.

Steroids, however, were banned in 1991. Prosecutors determined that Bonds tested positive in 2000. As a cheater, Bonds won 4 MVP awards and hit 317 home runs.

The argument that everyone did roids when Bonds did roids and therefore Bonds played on a level playing field rings hollow. If everyone playing the game is caught cheating at the game (which is patently untrue), then I'd argue that none of them are great.

Agree with this. The more modern steroid users were violating known rules and skirting testing protocols. Some of them lied before Congress. And they changed their bodies at near comical rates. Ultimately a false comparison to what happened in the past. Presumably almost all players have used performance enhancing drugs at some level if they drink coffee. The more modern cheaters took things to an extreme that has rightfully earned the vile they have received.

Greatest
 

Carter and bk400- Thank you for the lucidity, it helps to combat the
deliberate obfuscation we've been seeing from the usual suspects. A few
closing points:

1) This debate is NOT about evil roiders versus real heroes. THAT is the
simplistic view and it's wrong.

2) The original post question asked for the greatest living MLB player. It is
obvious that such a person, whoever he is, should possess statistical
gravitas and some measure of respect by those involved. This
person doesn't need to be "perfect", a saint, or everyone's favorite. The
person certainly cannot be someone whose first impression nearly always
comes back to duplicity for personal gain. That person can be termed
sneaky, successful, or opportunistic- but "great" isn't the word.

3) For those who think it's cool or mature to choose Bonds, it may be worth
the time to ask yourself if you truly think he best represents this
sport you claim to adore. If you truly can't think of anyone else, you are
the problem. He's sludge at the bottom of the barrel in this conversation.

4) For what it's worth, I thought Bonds was an excellent player before his
head grew and his power numbers mysteriously skyrocketed. I'm sure
many of you thrilled to his latter career exploits. I did not. You got duped
or, at barest minimum, knew it was fake and played along by excusing it
somehow within yourself. This doesn't make Bonds great, it makes the
entire chapter/era rather sad. Bonds doesn't give a rip, he laughed all the
way to the bank (and people STILL defend it).

Trent King

I also believe those two were the greatest ever at their positions.


IMO, As far as Bonds is concerned, BEFORE he started cheating, he was certainly one of the two best active players along with Ken Griffey, Jr.

He had as many advantages as anyone and didn't have to suffer to attain like those who came before...he stood on their shoulders and never seemed to be thankful...he just got greedy and took the easy way...same as Clemens.

Though it is not truly relevant to the 'Living GOAT' discussions, the fact that both Bonds and Clemens are absolute jerks (along with Rose) does enter into our choices.


I'll stick with Bench

honorable mentions go to Schmidt and Henderson.
.

Players are able to file for exemptions and take approved prescriptions for substances like Adderall. It's use is accepted and there are exemptions for it.

Are there similar exemptions for substances like anabolic steroids or HGH?

If there is not, then I think MLB has made a clear distinction between the two substances and what their effect on the game is.

How in the hell does Koufax get so much love? I understand he had an unreal short stretch, but Greg Maddux is clearly a better pitcher. Does Koufax's religion have anything to do with his popularity do you think?

#1 Barry bonds
#2 Greg maddux
Both can be found in 1987 leaf boxes

I don't think it's his religion. I think it's the strikeouts and no hitters, plus he had a certain mystique about him. Maddux is just a nerdy guy, and was an artist, not a blow you away pitcher. But there is no question in my mind from an overall perspective there is no comparison, Maddux was far greater.

It's because Koufax went out on top. Very few players do. He finished his career winning a pitching Triple Crown and that's the last image you have of him.

Take Maddux for example. He finished his career being traded to the Dodgers for a player to be named later and finished his career going 2 and 4 for them with a 5.09 ERA.

I think Mussina's final season probably helped push him over the hump and into the HOF too. He went out a 20 game winner.

Maddux never captured the public imagination even at his unhittable peak. People like power pitchers.

So I ask again: is it the cheating people object to or the performance enhancement, or some of each? If (hypothetically) a player has a medical exemption to take HGH, are we OK with that?

Addie Joss went out on top too. Unfortunately his excuse disqualified him.

I remember Maddux being in a pretty popular ESPN commercial with Glavine back in the day.

Bonds for me, and it’s not even close. By the eye test, what he did before he allegedly took roids, and even into his 40’s his season’s were beyond legendary. He’s not in the Hall for a reason, but he was the best I’ve ever seen. Nolan Ryan and Clemens would be next on my list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did Acuna and Betts make the list over Carl Yastrzemski and Rod Carew? Not that I’d vote for Yaz or Carew, but they are closer to the conversation than Acuna and Betts.

Are the picks for Ryan a result of that nostalgia aspect discussed earlier? I understand he was a physical freak and his strike outs and no hitters are very impressive, but he never won a Cy Young and lost almost 300 games.

Nah, the guy who performed 12% better than league average for his career is definitely deserving once we cross out the generation we don't like.

Greatest and favorite are not synonyms. There is no honest statistical way to put Koufax and Ryan on top. Popular opinion polls are almost always useless because people will just vote for whoever or whatever they like without any real rational basis; they are not a tabulation of real analyses.

I don't understand why people are so keen to point out Ryan's flaws as opposed to his achievements. Sure, the entire picture is needed for anything, but the man pitched for mostly bad teams pushing 30 years. What do you expect his W-L record to look like? He couldn't carry those teams all by himself.

A guy who gets tons of love around here for greatest of all time also lost 279 games and pitched for one of the historically poorest teams. While I understand the differences between the two men, the point being that they didn't have too much help! Nolan far less so than Johnson.

It's because I saw him PITCH!