Choose your all-time HOF team

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

They played 8 seasons (1893-1900) in the 19th Century with the pitcher's mound at 60ft. We're in the middle of the 123rd season since then with a massive increase in the number of people actually playing in the majors. It would be shocking if somebody from the 19th Century actually deserved to make the list.

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

If anything, I see a nostalgia bias on most peoples teams. Very stacked in favor of prewar and dead ball era players.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If anything, I see a nostalgia bias on most peoples teams. Very stacked in favor of prewar and dead ball era players.

Yes that is one of the preferred periods in such teams. Nowhere did I argue or imply the bias is to the most modern period. The method proposed by the poster quoted is an argument of recency, which is not what most teams given constitute though. They love the classic post-war and the deadball period.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

I picked 1893 since the game fundamentally changed that year. Ok to disagree with that if you like.

If you don't like the concept of more players = better players, fine. Then go with population. More people to draw from = better players.

It's simply silly to think that players haven't improved significantly over the last 125 years. Relative domination is am interesting way to judge things. Doing that overly rewards outliers who played in era of less skill.

Baseball fans are the only fans who think a player from 130 years ago could possibly be one of the 10 or 12 best ever. Football, basketball, and hockey fans all know better.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I picked 1893 since the game fundamentally changed that year. Ok to disagree with that if you like.

If you don't like the concept of more players = better players, fine. Then go with population. More people to draw from = better players.

It's simply silly to think that players haven't improved significantly over the last 125 years. Relative domination is am interesting way to judge things. Doing that overly rewards outliers who played in era of less skill.

Baseball fans are the only fans who think a player from 130 years ago could possibly be one of the 10 or 12 best ever. Football, basketball, and hockey fans all know better.

It may be that players today are better due to modern drug regimens, the amount of personal development they get, because they may build upon the knowledge that came before, and/or because people today are inherently better than our predecessors.

But if the task is an All-Time Team, and we insist that we only include modernity, then it is very, very obviously not an "All-Time" Team, it is the team since X cutoff that you like. An All-Time Team requires a pound-for-pound type approach.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

It may be that players today are better due to modern drug regimens, the amount of personal development they get, because they may build upon the knowledge that came before, and/or because people today are inherently better than our predecessors.

But if the task is an All-Time Team, and we insist that we only include modernity, then it is very, very obviously not an "All-Time" Team, it is the team since X cutoff that you like. An All-Time Team requires a pound-for-pound type approach.

Your own list includes no one who debuted in the last 50 years. Is that more or less absurd than having no one from the 1800s?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Your own list includes no one who debuted in the last 50 years. Is that more or less absurd than having no one from the 1800s?

The HOF limitation, chosen by the OP and not myself, obviously heavily restricts the modernity, an affect multiplied for this particular generation as the very best of the most recent generation to begin entering the HOF cheated and have been kept out. Players in the middle of their career are unlikely to make an all-time team for reasons I should really not have to explain.

Bonds would be here without the OP's stipulation, and the odds are decent a player active will manage to make it by the end of their career. If I included a reliever, it would be Mariano.

Can we just apply some basic common sense before trying to do a gotcha? It might help your success rate.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

The HOF limitation, chosen by the OP and not myself, obviously heavily restricts the modernity, an affect multiplied for this particular generation as the very best of the most recent generation to begin entering the HOF cheated and have been kept out. Players in the middle of their career are unlikely to make an all-time team for reasons I should really not have to explain.

Bonds would be here without the OP's stipulation, and the odds are decent a player active will manage to make it by the end of their career. If I included a reliever, it would be Mariano.

Can we just apply some basic common sense before trying to do a gotcha? It might help your success rate.

OK, fine. Your list includes ONE player who debuted after 1951. HALF your list debuted in 1925 or earlier with an average debut of 1930. C'mon.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

OK, fine. Your list includes ONE player who debuted after 1951. HALF your list debuted in 1925 or earlier with an average debut of 1930. C'mon.

Yes. Debuts from the 80’s to today are effectively limited by the OP’s stipulations, as the most dominant players of that period are soft banned from the Hall or are still active and we don’t really have a career to work with. The significant gaps bother me, the largest being the 19th century. I get this board never lets reason interfere with bitching, but this is really, really simple.

[ClementeFanOh]

Interesting topic, especially for those who are having fun. Here's my shot:

C- Johnny Bench
P- Bob Gibson
1B- Lou Gehrig
2B- Rod Carew
SS- Honus Wagner
3B- Jim Thome (he started as a 3B and his offensive stat line is outstanding)
OF- Hank Aaron
OF- Ted Williams
OF- Roberto Clemente
DH- Babe Ruth
Relief- Sandy Koufax (just to get him in there after 8 innings of the Hoot)

Manager- doesn't really matter, since he can't screw up this lineup
Hard to leave out- Rickey Henderson, Mantle (runner up DH)

Trent King

[perezfan]

Probably lots of redundancy here, but here goes...

C- Johnny Bench
P- Walter Johnson
1B- Lou Gehrig
2B- Rogers Hornsby
SS- Honus Wagner
3B- Mike Schmidt
OF- Hank Aaron
OF- Ted Williams
OF- Willie Mays
DH- Babe Ruth
Relief- Bob Gibson

Manager- Sparky Angerson

Cannot leave them out...
PH- Stan Musial
PR- Roberto Clemente

[AndrewJerome]

C: Mike Piazza
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Jackie Robinson
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner
LF: Hank Aaron
RF: Babe Ruth
CF: Willie Mays
DH: Rickey Henderson

SP: Randy Johnson
RP: Satchel Paige
CL: Mariano Rivera

Lineup:
1 Rickey
2 Wagner
3 Mays
4 Ruth
5 Gehrig
6 Aaron
7 Piazza
8 Schmidt
9 Jackie

Good luck beating that team

On the bubble: Cobb, Mantle, Williams, Joe Morgan, Oscar Charleston