Posted By:
Brian LindholmeThe best way to "rate" a player is to look at what he has done, not what could have been.
In the Major Leagues they keep records just for that reason...to show the facts (at least as good as they can when pertaining to the older years)
Take the Herb Scores , Lyman Bostocks, Ken Hubbs (even Kirby Pucketts) and save them for the discussions about hypothetically who was best.
I'd rather look at the numbers, the facts and throw in some era-specific historical context (like rules changes,equipment etc)
Heck, if it weren't for a run of bad luck and poor choices there was a kid in my old neighborhood who could have, should have , might have been a HOFer.
Longevity should definitely mean something to the discussion of "the best evers".
Here's another way of looking at it...the best companies in business are generally based on how much money they have made...not by how much they
MIGHT have made. The companies who peaked for a few years during the DOT COM era then fizzled are not considered.
Joe Jackson was obviouly talented...others have accomplished more.
My nickel's worth
familytoad