Greatest Living Player...
 

I know; I know; perhaps too soon, but the first online 'poll' I saw included only Sandy Koufax, Pete Rose & Nolan Ryan.

My choice would be Johnny Bench, who revolutionized the art of catching.

I never learn how to set up a poll here, but, if someone wants to - and doesn't think it's too soon...I will be sure to add one vote for JB.


My apologies if anyone if offended by me bringing this up...but, if that be the case, part of me says , 'Lighten Up Francis'.

.

Greatest living player
 

No offense taken by this member. You named 3 of my choices- JB, Sandy,
Nolan. A couple guys "on deck" are Cal R, Rickey Henderson. Trent King

Bonds and Clemens and ARod, but nobody wants to go there I am sure.

Otherwise, Henderson and Schmidt? Maddux?

I'll second Cal Ripken and add Albert Pujols.

Bonds by a very wide gap. If most popular, someone else, but there’s not much of a reasonable math argument for anyone else as greatest.

Don't sweat it. MLB writers beat you to the question.
https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/artic...13132_40505956

+1. The numbers don't lie, all other considerations excluded. 7 MVPs, 4th in WAR (#1 for position players), 5th in OPS, #1 in HR and Walks, 5th in total bases, and over 500 SB for good measure.

Well, since no one else has gone there yet, I will. If Barry Bonds is the greatest living baseball player, then Lance Armstrong is the greatest living cyclist.

I think any "greatest baseball player" conversation has to define how PEDs are considered.

Gotta put Randy Johnson in the convo

I would say Roger Clemens with Barry Bonds second.:)

Greatest
 

PeterSpaeth- Good call on Mike Schmidt. Bad calls otherwise.

BK 400- you are spot on.

Exhibitman- I am shocked by your comment, you are normally a very sound
and lucid thinker. The numbers for Bonds are, in fact, a lie. That's the
problem, he's persona non grata. The fault for that lies with Barry Bonds.

G1911- Once again, a swing and a miss. I'd recommend some HGH and
the clear and the cream, to improve your approach here. Popularity isn't
the measure, Bench and Koufax somehow fly under the radar despite their
greatness. Just as Hulk Hogan actually wasn't the "world's greatest
wrestler", sideshow Barry can't be the world's greatest living player. I am
sure you'll blow a gasket by citing "appeals to authority" and all sorts of
tortuous reasoning, but it won't change the reality that the clown you
champion is a pariah by his own hand. Aroid too, to save you the trouble.
This reply is plenty long so, to cap it off, Frankenstein monsters don't
make the cut- and it's remarkable I even have to say it.

Trent King

Your personal attacks are off topic. Please stay on topic :)

It is off topic but funny to read. Just wait for his picks and how the PEDs they took don't count because amphetamines are just like drinking a few cups of coffee. Also all the PEDs done before and after the steroid era do not count. It is just the steroid era PED guys that are bad and need to be punished.

Trent, how is Maddux a bad call? His numbers blow away Ryan and certainly Koufax from a career perspective.

I understand your perspective on steroids.

Greatest
 

BNorth- you don’t have to wait for my picks, I listed some of them already. The list is consistent with what many others have written. Read the posts…. G1911- Nah, wrong. You complaining about being off topic is 1) wrong and 2) as valid as Bonds complaining that someone cheated against him. This isn’t rocket science, partner. Immediately default to contrarian mode is silly and, in Bonds’ case for “greatest” living player, patently absurd. His “greatness” came from a test tube. Shame, he was a wonderful player without all the deliberate, pervasive, relentless doping. End of story- you do you from here, ok? Trent King

Greatest
 

PeterSpaeth- I thought you went down the Bonds, Clemens, Aroid road. Bad calls. I’m lukewarm on GM, personally. Don’t hate the idea but feel many others trump him. Trent King

With you being very obviously anti PED I assumed your picks was in jest as it is far from PED free.:eek:

Picking Bonds is not contrarian. It is the mathematically obvious choice, and he appears to have more votes so far than anyone else in this thread. It is possible to just make your case in a reasonable way without leaping to the over the top angry posts.

Amphetamines "have been around the game forever," the Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt writes in his new book, "Clearing the Bases," which HarperCollins will publish next month. "In my day," he says, they "were widely available in major-league clubhouses."

His [Selig's] predecessors knew about them, too, but they didn't want to do anything about them, either. At a drug trial in Pittsburgh in 1985, Dale Berra and Dave Parker testified that Willie Stargell and Bill Madlock dispensed greenies to their Pirates teammates. John Milner told the jury that Willie Mays had a bottle of red juice, or liquid amphetamines, in his locker when they played for the Mets.

In the book -- in which Schmidt also discusses Barry Bonds, the legacies of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, and Pete Rose -- Schmidt writes that the elimination of amphetamines could have "possibly far greater implications for the game than the crackdown against steroids."

The word "greatest" includes more than stats imo, I'm going with Koufax and his impeccable character.

Trent, my friend, context and nuance. I said "all other considerations excluded" and based on the numbers alone Bonds is the greatest living player. if you want to base the answer on a more holistic approach that considers something other than the stats, that is certainly a defensible and understandable position. If that is the case, my vote goes to Mike Schmidt. The power and the skill at the hot corner are a 1-2 punch at one of the toughest positions to play with one of the lowest HOF ratios. IMO the best third baseman of all time, dead or alive. I can see an argument for Bench now that Berra is dead but still think of Berra as the GOAT.

i don't rate pitchers the same as position players. Too different a job. Best living pitcher I go with Koufax by a nose over Randy Johnson because at his best if you had one game you had to win and the pitcher had to go all the way, Koufax would be my choice. Randy Johnson, amazing player. Threw 37 shutouts in 23 years. Koufax threw 40 in 12 years. Johnson completed 100 games in 23 years; Koufax 137 in 12. His last year before he retired for medical reasons, WHIP of 0.985, 27 complete games, 5 shutouts, 317 strikeouts.

Ryan is my favorite pitcher ever, but not quite the same guy as Johnson or Koufax at their best. At Ryan's best he was about 25% less than Koufax and Johnson at their best. 7.7 WAR vs. 10+ WAR.

For me, Koufax had far too short a career and even peak to be in the conversation with Johnson, Pedro, and, IMO, Maddux. He was of course not blowing people away like the others and Ryan, but was the consummate artist. Fiour CYAs in a row, did anyone other than Unit do that?

If you look past the steroids, nobody quite approached Clemens.

There is a decent argument that Pedro Martinez is the greatest peak value pitcher in baseball history. In 2000 he led the AL in ERA with a 1.74. 2nd place was all-time great and cheating Roger Clemens at... 3.70. 5 seasons with an ERA+ over 200, something Koufax and Ryan did 0 times. In context, he dominated the league to a truly historical level.

Johnson and Maddux had better total careers and are very close together. WAR has them essentially tied, which feels about right for once. Maddux was Pedro level dominant in 94/5. I would probably pick Maddux but would not argue Johnson as the greatest living pitcher. Having Clemens/Maddux/Johnson/Pedro all at essentially the same time was a lot of fun to watch.

Ken Griffey Jr gets my vote with Koufax/Pedro M on the pitching side.

Greatest living player
 

Exhibitman- Now that's more along the lines of what you normally write:)
No doubt, pitchers are a different breed for sure, apples to oranges with
position players.

Someone above stated there's more than being the "greatest" than stats.
That's a wise comment. Seems like these men who have been widely viewed
(not exclusively, widely) as the greatest, are almost viewed as an
ambassador of sorts. Ambassador isn't to be taken literally, but it's the
closest I can get and still make a point. Musial, Mantle, Williams, Aaron,
Mays come to mind- not perfect people, but the standard isn't perfection.
Instead, they come to embody the sport in the minds of many. This is why
the HGH/PED guys don't cut it. Are many of those guys controversial and
talented? Yep? Are any the greatest? Nope. All the parsing in the world
(greenies vs HGH, etc) doesn't remove the patina of sleaze that surrounds
some of those mentioned, and sleaze doesn't equate to greatness- period.

Trent King

As a Phillies fan, it would be hard for me to argue against Mike Schmidt. However, I could also see Albert Pujols as a possibility. While the second half of his career was certainly nothing special, his overall numbers are impressive.

Actually, I'm good with all three!

You know who we all forgot and who had an ever better single season as a pitcher than Martinez?

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Carlton.jpg

In 1972: 12.1 WAR, 27 wins, 1.97 ERA, 41 games started and 30 complete games, 8 shutouts, 310 strikeouts. For a 6th place team that only won 59 games.

Peak WAR on Martinez was 11.7. He appeared in 31 games (29 started) in 2000, completed 7 (4 shutouts).

We are just never again going to see workhorse numbers like the 1960s-1970s pitchers, except maybe from a knuckleball pitcher. That cuts both ways in the argument. Is Pedro better because he worked 25% less than Carlton, or is Carlton better because he sustained his excellence with that workload? Same issue with Koufax-Johnson. Discuss.

Bonds. By a landslide.............

Personally, I lean to the importance of workload and my interest is more historical than modern. But in context, Pedro dominated to a level Carlton never came close to, which is the argument for Pedro. If the focus is on workload, we must conclude every one of the X best pitching seasons are 19th century.

In 2000, Pedro's 11.7 WAR, is less than Carlton's WAR of 12.1, but within the .5 margin of error WAR advertises. 2nd in the league was 6.2 WAR. His ERA was less than half the 2nd best pitcher in the league.

In 1972, Carlton posted a 1.97. 2nd place was Nolan at 1.99, there were five pitchers other than Carlton sub 2.50. 2nd in WAR was 7.1.

Pedro is not "better because he worked 25% less than Carlton", nobody would ever make such an absurd argument. Both were easily the best pitcher in the league those years, but Pedro's season was contextually better because he annihilated the league.

Tarik Skubal is currently 8 - 3 for a Tigers team with 34 total wins.

But my pick for greatest living player is Rickey Henderson. When people talked about Willie being the greatest living player, it was the combination of his 5 tools that gave him that title.

I don't think there's another living player with the five-tool talent of Rickey Henderson. Every generation there's another Mantle, Griffey, Trout, etc. but there will never be another Rickey Henderson. Lots of speed in the world but you still need four other elite skills to get to where he was.

I also disagree with Bonds. Greatest living player doesn't mean best stats or most awards. If you reduce greatest living player to stats and math, then how did Willie Mays end up as greatest living player as long as Bonds is alive? I think it's because those aren't actually the terms people look at the greatest living player in.

I don't know that I would consider Rickey Henderson to be a 5-tool player if you are using the idea of 5-tools as being hit for average, hit for power, running, fielding and throwing. Rickey clearly had running covered, but he only won a single gold glove, and I don't remember anything being written about his throwing arm being anything special. He was also a career .279 hitter with 297 home runs. While Rickey was clearly a great player, I don't think 5-tool player really describes him.

If Rickey is a 5 tool player, so is Bonds.

Agreed. I'm not sure Bonds had the arm to really be considered a 5-tool player, but he makes it for the other 4 tools (even before PEDs are factored in).

Rickey won a Gold Glove, he won 3 silver sluggers for his position, hit 81 career home runs from the lead off spot, has an OBP over 400 and was still playing games in center at 43 years old.

Five tool doesn't necessarily mean you are a perennial gold glove winner or Vlad Guerrero. It means you're doing everything well.

He played in 4 games and 27 innings in center for Boston in 2002 at the age of 43. I'm not sure that really supports your argument.

He played most of his games during his career in left field which is usually where you put someone who doesn't have the greatest arm so I think that is still the weakest tool of his and doesn't really make him a 5-tool player. I don't ever remember anyone talking about anyone being afraid to run on him because of his great throwing ability.

Rickey played the outfield until he was 44 years old. Would a liability in the field have that kind of career in the era of the DH? I realize he played in the National League before the universal DH but he was still patrolling the field for Seattle and Boston.

He's second all time in put outs in Left Field and he's 19th all time in assists. Doesn't like a liability to me. Again, not Vlad but is that really the standard?

Which tool was Griffey lacking?

Staying on the field.

I love Griffey more than anyone else in the discussion but he had such an uneven career and he never won. I also don't think there's a lot separating Griffey from Trout, who is also living.

But I don't think we'll ever see another Rickey.

Rickey Henderson was basically league average for the last decade of his career, 104 OPS+.

I understand that. But what do you consider to be great? I consider it to be a player you're unlikely to ever see again. I love Griffey, but Trout is still active. I don't really see a lot separating them or feel like I'll never see another Griffey again.

I don't know how people define their feelings for Mays, but a lot of people describe him as a once in a life player. That is my opinion on Rickey. I really don't think anyone will ever be a better lead off hitter than he was and I highly doubt his accomplishments will be surpassed, and that's because he was impossibly good at what he did.

It’s not what I consider, it’s your given reasons. You said it was because he was five tool and then had to walk back the importance of five tools because Rickey requires a rather broad definition of them to qualify.

You said he’s over Griffey because Griffey was not as good the second half of his career, even though he was more effective than Rickey’s last decade.


If the judgement requires having to find reasons after the first few fail and ends on a subjective feeling, it’s just not a very compelling argument.

He played for a long time and played a lot of games in left field which would lead to a lot of putouts regardless of his fielding ability. I'm not saying he was a liability in the field just that I don't think he was ever considered an elite defender (1 gold glove) or had an above average throwing arm. The fact that he played 18 games in left field for the Dodgers at age 44 doesn't change that.

I said Griffey's career was uneven and he didn't win. Only you are talking about what you're talking about.

And I do think Rickey was good at everything, which made him a five tool player. Other posters have the idea that to be a five tool player you have to be the greatest at all five tools at the same time.

Rickey's WAR also puts him 14th all time among position players. The only living players with a higher total than him are A-rod (suspended for PED use) and Bonds (long suspected of PED use). Griffey is at 37 and under 100 WAR for his career.

I think you have to be at least above average at all 5-tools to be considered a 5-tool player. Ted Williams and Babe Ruth were 2 of the greatest players of all time, but I don't think either was considered more than average fielders so I'm not sure I would call either of them a 5-tool player.

I think of Griffey and Bonds as five tool players. I think of Henderson as a unique combination of speed and slugging, but not five tool.

The stats are sketchy but Ruth had a shotgun of an arm in right.

He won a Gold Glove. I would say that makes him above average. I realize it was one, but there are plenty of people overlooked or voted into Gold Gloves for reasons that are often hard to understand (Palmeiro, for example. Lots of people don't think Jeter should have won five either).

As a fan I remember Rickey for his flashy catches and making things look effortless. I don't think he was the greatest left fielder of all time or anything but I remember watching what I thought was a very good outfielder.

Since he was initially a pitcher, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a good throwing arm in the outfield. However, I don't remember him ever being talked about as a great fielder. Maybe it's just because of all the focus on his hitting and because the fielding stats aren't as plentiful from that time.

Discussions of great fielding are rarely focused on stats.