Poll - Greatest Living Player
 

Here's a poll for greatest living player to go along with the discussion in another thread. I think I included all players mentioned in that thread as well as added a few active players. If you choose Other, please post who your vote would be for.

Lots of good players to choose from. I chose one with no votes yet, of course.

I choose Leon Luckey.

Among other things, he's capable of juggling three threads (out of the top six) with basically the same name on the main forum.

That takes talent, I tell you...real talent.

:D

I went with Nolan Ryan, but was very close to choosing Pete Rose or Cal Ripken. All did things nobody will likely ever do again.

Thanks. The duplicate one was deleted. Juggling 2 is no big act.
It should be an interesting poll...
Carry on....
.

I chose Bonds, but I considered Henderson. I had a conversation with a small group of people (no one from this site) about this yesterday and there were only four names that came up as possibilities. Bonds, Henderson, Pujols and Maddux. Only Bonds and Henderson actually got top votes, but both Pujols and Maddux got multiple honorable mentions, or as someone said, they could be convinced that it's either one of them if you had a good argument.

Pete Rose. Always have loved the ballplayer..

Leon, thanks for moving this thread over.

Someone voted for Other. If they are willing to post who they would vote for, I'd like to know since I thought I listed players that covered the most likely suspects.

Rickey.
When you look at what he did, he was in a league by himself.

I went with Rickey Henderson too. Bonds second choice.

It was me. I jokingly posted that Leon was my answer.

At the time, three of the top six threads on the main page were, "greatest living player" discussions. I found that a bit ridiculous. My poll answer matched my mood at the time.

As an aside, I'm surprised Sadaharu Oh isn't on the list. Are we only considering MLB players?

I think Bonds is the choice, but Reggie and Brett probably deserve to be on the list for votes.

-Al

Derek jeter

Admittedly I picked Clemens, which I know people have issue. However, then I went with my top 5 for fun and three of them are being held out of the hall. That is a little sad to think about.

Bonds is the answer. Could list many stats, but his 7 MVPs when no one else in league history has more than 3 is ridiculous.

Bonds

Sincere question for people who pick Bonds; do you think Bonds was better than Willie Mays too? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't he have been the greatest living player this whole time?

My point is that stats are stats and you can use stats to discuss Bonds, but if you do, then how do you factor Mays ahead of him at all?

Yes, I rank the all time top 3 as Ruth, Bonds, Mays

Mays was not really the best when he passed. Barry was better but it looks better to have an old guy have the spot than someone many hate. I would have also had Hank Aaron ahead of Willie while he was alive. I do not think Willie was ever the best living player.

Josh Gibson...what too soon?

Nice poll!
 

I went with Rickey Henderson.

Yes, yes, N/A.

My vote is Aaron Judge. I think, for starters, that he is better than Ohtani.

I know this doesn't make a lot of sense, but while you still can I think you have to give an edge to "The Greatest of the Oldest Surviving Generation" or some such, and to me, with Willie gone, that would be Koufax. As an aside, Koufax is the last surviving player talked about on Larry Ritter's "Glory of Their Times" tapes recorded in the early 1960s, with several of the old-timers being interviewed opining that he would have been great in their time, too.

Ohtani has way more to accomplish before he can begin to enter the conversation. I don't even want to hear his name in this discussion. We'll talk in 20 years. Trout has garnered a whopping single vote, and he's farther on his way than any other current player.

I get that point. It does have an elder statesman feel to it.

My top three all-time right now are Ruth, Williams, Mays in that order.

So to me, Mays has been the greatest since Williams passed away in 2002. In between Ruth passing away in 1948 and Williams doing enough to move up to the greatest (while still active), I think Cobb would have been the greatest for a time. I'd have to look at Williams over the years to see when I thought he passed Cobb, who died in 1961 after Williams retired.

I have never figured out my top list after the top three, but I'd like to sit down one day and just deep dive into it. Bonds could be fourth, but I think Walter Johnson has a good case for the spot.

For the record I waffle back and forth and forth between Ruth, Mays and Bonds for greatest all-time, but usually wind up with Mays as #3 for the sole reason that Ruth and Bonds were SO much better than their peers when they played than Mays was. So I usually land Ruth/Bonds/Mays/Charleston/Aaron for position players, and if I try and add pitchers my brain explodes and I stop thinking about it.

-Al

Sorry, I have no idea where you’re going with this. I wouldn’t have responded; however, you quoted me and then wrote this.

I had to go with Griffey Jr. just because I liked the way he played.

I ranked them:

(1) Rose - Hit King
(2) Bonds - unfortunately tainted by PEDs
(3) Koufax

Well, it's complicated. There is normally a player who may or may not be the greatest but is chosen as the elder statesman. I think Koufax assumes that role.

Bonds is clearly the best but has more baggage than LaGuardia. Rose and Clemens have similar issues.

Schmidt and Bench are both generally seen as the greatest players ever at their position.

Henderson, Griffey Jr, Ripken Jr also could have their justifications.

Not sure about the greatest living player, BUT I think he deserves to be in this top 20 voting list.

Bonds??????? That cheatin' POS??? How can ANYONE vote for that clown? You know there is a reason he's not in the HOF, right? Pujols is the obvious choice. No question he is clean and did AMAZING things in his career. I get the Koufax contingent but he had 6 good years and 6 average/below average seasons. I discount almost every guy on that list as most weren't even the best player of their era except Bench.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Because of math.

Greatest
 

That’s “new” math, G1911. The Bonds folks are voting for an asterisk “greatest” player ever. Bonds’ most noteworthy achievements are all tarnished, every single one. It boggles my mind that people have become so jaded as to willingly select someone as their “living representative” as best ever (living) at a sport they enjoy, and which he knowingly tarnished. People can argue all they want for their pick or their favorite, but your guy Bonds will always be ***. This isn’t difficult, and yes I know you aren’t the only one pining for him. Trent King

I'm sorry you people are really over the top angry, but the people picking Bonds are all just doing very basic math. He's far and away the mathematical answer, and thus is the prevailing choice by a large margin. You are free to design reasons to exclude him, but this really is not difficult to understand why people follow the math. Your emotions over steroids do not make actual math '"new" math'.

I wouldn't consider a 'no steroids' allowed choice to be unreasonable, but it is pretty unreasonable that we have several people in various stages of incredulity and/or meltdown over people picking the obvious mathematical choice.

Who is the best at X and who I like best are completely different things.

I'll go with 1) Sandy Koufax, 2) Johnny Bench, 3) Ichiro Suzuki as the 3 best living players.

Barry Bonds would be on the greatest living player list, maybe "the", but he cheated his way to home run stats, so he's out of the discussion.

Pete Rose, same as Barry. More hits than anyone, but he gambled when the rules very clearly say "no betting", so he's out also.

It's all subjective, as these discussions always are. My choices may not be yours. It is what it is. I'm not changing
my mind; you're not changing yours.

I go Rickey. Bonds is clearly the best by any metric but I’m entitled to take steroids into account. Other than Bonds, none of the guys seem to really jump out. Wonder if some of that is because more of us saw these guys in real life and the mystique is a bit gone as compared to figures from the past.

Greatest living
 

G1911- a few short weeks ago, you engaged in a REAL meltdown over the way Memory Lane handled the theft of in- process auction cards. You posted 60+ messages and went hard against some of your best internet buddies while doing so (you then tried to pretend like it didn’t happen, but those pesky facts you love so dearly indicate otherwise). You were appalled at what you believe was Memory’s deceit, lack of professionalism, and ethically murky behavior. Remember that?? Now, remarkably, you ignore your own “rules”. Bonds’ behavior wasn’t ethically questionable, it was unethical-period. His deceit was well planned, repeated, and utterly deliberate- yet this type of deceit gets the G1911 seal of approval. Take a hard look at the word “hypocrisy” in your Webster’s. No need to get back with me on that. This isn’t the post of someone having a meltdown, by the way- check your Memory Lane manifesto for that:) Trent King

I see two problems excluding players from this sort of discussion for steroids. One, we don't really know who else may have used them (not everyone confessed or got caught). Two, players for whom many have a nostalgia bias used or likely used amphetamines, which while perhaps not as potent as steroids appear by most definitions to be PEDs. So this dividing line between juicing villains and clean heroes may not be that clear. It feels a bit wishful thinking and nostalgia driven to me.

If someone feels that the actual math you are talking about is tainted by the use of PEDs, I understand why they would discount Bonds' numbers and not pick him as their choice for greatest living player. It's interesting that Roger Clemens has only received 2 votes when his actual math (as you call it) would seem to make him the greatest living pitcher. I'm not sure I understand why Clemens is being treated differently than Bonds - Clemens has received 2 votes out of 53 that were given to pitchers on the list - but clearly there is a difference in how they are being viewed.

While amphetamines may have helped players be more alert and able to focus better, I don't think they had the same body-altering effects that PEDs had on many of the players that used them. You didn't see guys putting on massive amounts of muscles or their heads growing when using amphetamines.

It was just different help. With the amphetamines they can play like they have all the energy in the world. Without them they might have been seriously tired and sore and played a piss poor game. In a long season those games on amphetamines was a insanely great help to those players. If you think they are like drinking a cup of coffee I have a bridge to sell you. OK if the cup held 50 gallons of high test coffee and they downed it in a few minutes it might be comparable.

The speed freaks everyone loves are just as bad as any other PED user.

Fair point. If we take steroid guys out Bonds is my 1 and Clemens is my 2. Not sure third place is all that close. Right or wrong I personally take the steroid guys out.

Greatest
 

Ah, I love revisionist history when that “history” is still on the present page. Don’t recall saying I (or anyone else) “love speed freaks”. Don’t recall mentioning “clean heroes” either. But hey, since facts don’t count, why bother? The original question was a pretty straightforward inquiry that has, as usual, gotten twisted. The guys who thought it was cool to root for the Empire in Star Wars, or Cobra Kai in Karate Kid, dive off the 10 meter board for a clown they know was dirty as hell. Then, they take offense when all kinds of people dare to suggest that an honorific title should go to someone who, I don’t know, possesses a shred of honor? Sound right so far? Awesome. Well done! Good Lord…. Trent King

Yet people romanticize Mays and Mantle etc. and vilify Bonds and ARod. Did one person, ever, question Mays' (rightful IMO) status as greatest living player on account of his taking amphetamines which seems likely?

Can you just try and make a reasonable argument that has anything even vaguely to do with the topic? Yes, I am very strongly against hosting fake fraudulent auctions and selling items you don't have, and never once have denied that or disagreeing with my "internet buddies" (I'm sure it will be news to me these people are my friends!). That has absolutely nothing to do with the obvious fact that Bonds is the greatest living player if we use the numbers. I understand a valid argument to cut out the steroid guys, but it is not very difficult to understand why people are picking Bonds. Just pretend to be an adult and make an actual point about the subject, you don't need to hijack every single thread into being about how much you hate me. Save some mental real estate for another topic, like, perhaps, the topic of the thread if you're going to post in it.

I don't think they are treated different, I think it's just that Bonds is greater among hitters than Roger is among pitchers. The gap between Clemens and Maddux or Johnson is significant, but it's not nearly as big as the gap between Bonds and Rickey Henderson or Pete Rose (who for some reason is okay but the steroids guys are not) or whoever one picks. As great as Clemens' career was, Bonds was even better and so he gets the vast majority of the votes from the people who are relying on provable numbers.

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