Who are your Inner Circle Hall of Famers?

[molenick]

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by molenick;2p193040

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

Did they say what they used as criteria, specifically peak vs career. For any five year span I think Pedro was the best pitcher ever. But if you are looking at a full career he would not be as high.

Would be interesting if they did the 100 best seasons by a player.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Did they say what they used as criteria, specifically peak vs career. For any five year span I think Pedro was the best pitcher ever. But if you are looking at a full career he would not be as high.

Would be interesting if they did the 100 best seasons by a player.

"The Methodology
Based on career WAR, Hall of Fame status, peak performance and overall contributions to the game, we selected an initial pool of more than 200 players from both the major leagues and Negro Leagues, dating back to the late 19th century, plus a few of today's biggest stars.

From there, we asked dozens of ESPN editors and writers to contribute to a balloting system that pits players from the list against each other in head-to-head voting. The question we posed: "Based on a combination of career value and peak performance, which player would you rank higher?"

Would you choose Barry Bonds or Ted Williams? Mike Trout or Joe DiMaggio? Walter Johnson or Roger Clemens?

Our participants voted more than 20,000 times. Based on those votes, the players were ranked by the percentage of the time they were chosen over any competing player. Our No. 1 overall player, for example, was chosen 99% of the time. Our No. 100 player? He was taken 31% of the time. Despite that seemingly large range, the competition was fierce -- a single percentage point could raise or lower a player's ranking significantly."

[molenick]

Here is a link to the methodology https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lb-players-all

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by molenick

Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).

He's obviously getting a ton of credit for peak versus longevity. However, it would be tough to argue that his peak isn't worth that credit. No one - no one - has ever dominated their league like Pedro did in 1999 & 2000. In 2000, he put up a 1.74 ERA in a steroid-fueled era where the league average ERA was 4.91. He was 3.17 runs better than the league average - in a high-scoring era. That's insane. In 1999, he had a 2.07 ERA in a league with an average ERA of 4.86. In 2000, he gave up 0.737 WHIP. Among pitchers throwing at least 200 innings, the next closest is Walter Johnson's 0.7803. All-time.

He had more great seasons than Sandy Koufax and his peak reached higher than anybody's ever did. Is #11 too high? Maybe. I think Roger Clemens was better thanks to his longevity. But I certainly understand how they put him there.

[Fred]

Sooooo.... how many players are considered "inner circle"? All I know is Babe Ruth is #1 and there is no convincing me otherwise.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Fred

Sooooo.... how many players are considered "inner circle"? All I know is Babe Ruth is #1 and there is no convincing me otherwise.

I think inner circle should be 5-10%

And I agree about Babe Ruth. He showed everyone the possibilities.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

No doubt Ruth is number 1 and it applies to everything Ruth. I guess that’s the key. The inner circle probably includes Honus and Cy Young and a few others because all of their issues are pretty desirable and now expensive. A guy like Bob Gibson, on the other hand, may not be in the inner circle but his rookie will always be hot (awesome pink too!). So the inner circle might be rarer pre-war big names but post-war biggish names and especially their rookies are also close.

[Fred]

340 HOF members
10, 22, 40 (Umpire, manager, executive)
Total = 268 players
10% is about 27 players.

Ok, that sounds easy to pick 27 top players but I'm going to guess by the time you get to #27 there's going to be a lot of second guessing yourself.

[bnorth]

These are the best I have seen play in person. Pujols isn't in the hall yet and Roger is in my humble opinion the best to ever take the mound.

Wade Boggs
Ken Griffey Jr
Derek Jeter
Alex Rodriguez
Albert Pujols

Roger Clemens
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Fred

340 HOF members

10, 22, 40 (Umpire, manager, executive)

Total = 268 players

10% is about 27 players.



Ok, that sounds easy to pick 27 top players but I'm going to guess by the time you get to #27 there's going to be a lot of second guessing yourself.

In that 27 I think the purpose should be to form a complete team. You could have 2 at each position, 2 DH, and 9 pitchers, or just carry 3 at each position without DH. I don't know enough about deadball to make any assessment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk