Poll - Greatest Living Player

[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