Poll - Greatest Living Player

[G1911]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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.

[jingram058]

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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jingram058

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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

+1, totally agree. And tons of kids are on amphetamines today…dont see a lot of great athletes and home run hitters emerging from the bunch. Ridiculous to equate with steroids.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[Metsfan0507]

I voted rickey, and really I think the only other people that have a strong argument are Schmidt and Maddux. My rules:
1. No steroids guys
2. To be one of the greatest of all time, you have to have had both a great peak and also a long career

Nolan ryan and pete rose had great long careers, but their peaks are lacking. Koufax was the opposite. If I didn't care about steroids then bonds is the obvious choice

[jethrod3]

I give the nod to Ryan who is only, amazingly, 11 years younger than Koufax. Ryan did what he did while often playing with sub-.500 or .500 teams that offered paltry run support. Still got his wins, strikeouts and no-hitters. What he did won't be accomplished again.

[Kidnapped18]

Great list
Bonds was the choice for me…I was able to watch his entire MLB career
He was in Birmingham this week for the MLB game
Rickey is my favorite player of all-time and could have easily chose him but I didn’t let my personal bias get in the way
Can’t find much disagreement with those who chose Ryan or Rose either

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because of math.

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

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexrei...fairly-judged/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So do we vilify Bonds more because he happened to play in a generation which had better drugs available?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Mark17]

I went with Bench because, in my opinion, he's the only guy alive who is probably the greatest player at his position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I went with Bench because, in my opinion, he's the only guy alive who is probably the greatest player at his position.

Schmidt.

[Casey2296]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

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.