Poll - Greatest Living Player

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

So he had more RBIs before he was 30.

As a player of the game, leadership on his team, and overall effect on the games he is playing in, he is better than Pujols. Yes.



.

He was a huge leader on the Cardinals , won a couple World Series .
You might want to look him up .
It’s Albert Pujols I think you might be confusing him with someone else

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

He was a huge leader on the Cardinals , won a couple World Series .
You might want to look him up .
It’s Albert Pujols I think you might be confusing him with someone else

Judge’s best season and possibly his two best season are better than Pujol’s best and possibly second best. Koufax supporters use that type of argument so Judge supporters can too methinks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's nothing not to like about Judge but given his age I don't see him ending up in the all time great discussion. He doesn't even have 1000 hits at age 32. Still, some mega seasons to be sure.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Judge’s best season and possibly his two best season are better than Pujol’s best and possibly second best. Koufax supporters use that type of argument so Judge supporters can too methinks.

Part of the Koufax mystique is the "might have been" let's imagine a healthy 32 year old Koufax in 1968. Gibson was actually a year older than Koufax which seems weird. Think about picking up a 1975 Topps Sandy Koufax card. It almost gives me goosebumps.

When a guy has 5 seasons all among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher and then after arguably his greatest season has to retire at age 30 when many pitchers are peaking when the perfect combination of physical ability and veteran knowledge often mesh it's hard not to play the what if game. If his physical problems had caused a mediocre final season I think it would drastically alter the perception.

EDIT: I voted for Bench

[G1911]

Judge is about as valid a choice as Koufax. Absolutely ridiculous of course, but not any more still than Koufax. There are multiple living pitchers who were more than twice as valuable as Koufax and also did not use steroids. Maybe there should be a separate poll for favorite player, as that is not the same thing as greatest as many seem to insist upon.


Ryan was not amazing on any given night. He lost almost as much as he won, and posted an ERA 12% over the league average. This is lower than Gary Nolan. Over 300 pitchers in MLB history did a better job of not giving up runs (a pitchers primary job) relative to time and place. Ryan is a highlight reel with some huge strengths (longevity, strikeouts) and some huge weaknesses (walks, walks, walks). It doesn't matter if you strike out half the hitters when you walk in tons of runs. 350 K's is nice, 200 BB's undoes that value.


I would probably pick Berra as the all-time catcher, but Bench has a good argument for it. Schmidt seems pretty clearly the best 3B all time. Bonds is the best LF, Williams for those who pretend the steroid era did not exist. I take Wagner but A-Rod has a claim (or to 3B). I don't think any other living player has a real claim to being the all-time best at their position in a starting 9. Pedro has a case for greatest peak value pitcher ever, but not greatest pitcher.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

When a guy has 5 seasons all among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher

What were those five seasons from Koufax? I'll give you three but five "among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher"? 1962, he was 14-7 with a 2.54 ERA. That's been done roughly 80 million times in the history of baseball. Roughly 1964, you've got a better case but it wasn't a full season.

Koufax was league average outside of Chavez Ravine for his career.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Tabe

What were those five seasons from Koufax? I'll give you three but five "among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher"? 1962, he was 14-7 with a 2.54 ERA. That's been done roughly 80 million times in the history of baseball. Roughly 1964, you've got a better case but it wasn't a full season.

Koufax was league average outside of Chavez Ravine for his career.

His 2.54 ERA that year led the NL. He led all of MLB that year in hits per nine innings and Ks per nine innings. How many times has all that been done in a single year — which was by far the worst of his miraculous five year run?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Tabe

What were those five seasons from Koufax? I'll give you three but five "among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher"? 1962, he was 14-7 with a 2.54 ERA. That's been done roughly 80 million times in the history of baseball. Roughly 1964, you've got a better case but it wasn't a full season.

Koufax was league average outside of Chavez Ravine for his career.

Better at home, no doubt, as is almost every Dodger who pitched in Chavez Ravine, but he was NOT league average away.

Career away numbers: 3.04 ERA .652 winning percentage (Pitching largely for a team that couldn't hit it's way out of a paper bag) 1.167 WHIP, over a strikeout per inning and remember those totals are "poisoned" by his lackluster years. In that 5 year stretch they're pretty damn dominant.

[perezfan]

My biggest take-away from that poll is that Johnny Bench is REALLY underrated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...fewer%20starts.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by perezfan

My biggest take-away from that poll is that Johnny Bench is REALLY underrated.

Always thought he was a tad overrated. Yogi is criminally underrated and my man Gary Carter could stand to be rated a bit higher generally when it comes to catchers.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Better at home, no doubt, as is almost every Dodger who pitched in Chavez Ravine, but he was NOT league average away.

Career away numbers: 3.04 ERA .652 winning percentage (Pitching largely for a team that couldn't hit it's way out of a paper bag) 1.167 WHIP, over a strikeout per inning and remember those totals are "poisoned" by his lackluster years. In that 5 year stretch they're pretty damn dominant.

He had a career 3.38 ERA outside of Dodger Stadium, which is what I said, NOT "on the road". League Average is perhaps overstating it a bit but "very normal" certainly isn't.

And, no, a 2.54 ERA is not an all-time elite season. Period.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He had a career 3.38 ERA outside of Dodger Stadium, which is what I said, NOT "on the road". League Average is perhaps overstating it a bit but "very normal" certainly isn't.

And, no, a 2.54 ERA is not an all-time elite season. Period.

Yes his career home ERA at the Coliseum wasn't great, not sure about his numbers at Ebbets. But EVERYONE'S numbers were awful at the Coliseum.

People also seem to lose track of the fact that Koufax put it all together as a starter around 23 years old and became elite at 24. Perfectly normal ages for a pitcher to "get there" Do we really penalize him for the Dodgers not being able to send him to the minors because of the bonus baby rules?

If he had been able to develop normally maybe his greatness comes out even earlier, who knows. At the very least he doesn't have those first 4 or 5 years weighing down his career numbers because they're in the minors.

Hell there are a number of elite pitchers who don't even start getting their first cups of coffee until about the time he started to put it all together. I just don't see the sense in "punishing" him for career totals that are deflated by those years that should've been spent in the minors.

Also, those years that everyone loves to hate were actually right about league average, not some dumpster fire. So you get a guy who was average from age 19 to age 23-24. I did the work in another thread somewhere but there are tons of HOF pitchers who weren't very good until that 23 -24 year old range, and they NEVER had a 6 year stretch like Koufax's peak. IF you're going to argue against Koufax the better argument is him being done at 30, rather than criticism of his learning years that should've been spent in the minors.


And again I didn't vote for him as the greatest living player.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

He was a huge leader on the Cardinals , won a couple World Series .
You might want to look him up .
It’s Albert Pujols I think you might be confusing him with someone else

It's an opinion, not a stats fact-based opinion. My opinion is that Judge is a greater player than Pujols. You are free to have a different opinion of course, but mine is Judge.

He should be able to win a couple World Series before his career is over. He's a better leader on his team and has a bigger impact on the game that he is playing in. He has a less than a third at bats than Pujols had so far so he has a long way to go still, and I believe when he's done, he will be better overall. Again, this is an opinion. No need to argue about it. I'm not putting Pujols down or anything, but when it comes to who is a great ballplayer, I choose Judge.



.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's an opinion, not a stats fact-based opinion. My opinion is that Judge is a greater player than Pujols. You are free to have a different opinion of course, but mine is Judge.

.

If your opinion is not fact based, doesn’t that make it a rather bad opinion? Why would it be better to hold an opinion one knows is contrary to facts than to adjust their opinion to what they know to be factually reasonable?

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by G1911

If your opinion is not fact based, doesn’t that make it a rather bad opinion? Why would it be better to hold an opinion one knows is contrary to facts than to adjust their opinion to what they know to be factually reasonable?

This entire question of who is the greatest living player is opinion based. If it were entirely fact based we should all come to the same conclusion and there wouldn't be any other choices. We could just compare all the stats and mathematically determine the answer and that's it. But everyone is stating opinions. Mine is Judge. Sorry if you don't agree.


.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

This entire question of who is the greatest living player is opinion based. If it were entirely fact based we should all come to the same conclusion and there wouldn't be any other choices. We could just compare all the stats and mathematically determine the answer and that's it. But everyone is stating opinions. Mine is Judge. Sorry if you don't agree.


.

Yes it is an opinion. But should not a reasonable opinion be based in fact? If one says there opinion is divorced from facts, how is that in any way reasonable? I can believe elephants are pink all I want of course, but that doesn’t make it a good opinion.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes it is an opinion. But should not a reasonable opinion be based in fact? If one says there opinion is divorced from facts, how is that in any way reasonable? I can believe elephants are pink all I want of course, but that doesn’t make it a good opinion.

My opinion is Judge is better than Pujols. That's not going to change. Sorry if you don't like it.

Also, since there are no pink elephants by the way, there is no opinions on what color it is. There is only fact. When choosing what color elephant is the greatest color, there is only one choice, gray, so there is no opinion to be made. Bad analogy.


.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

My opinion is Judge is better than Pujols. That's not going to change. Sorry if you don't like it.

Also, since there are no pink elephants by the way, there is no opinions on what color it is. There is only fact. When choosing what color elephant is the greatest color, there is only one choice, gray, so there is no opinion to be made. Bad analogy.


.

I'm sure it won't, nor do I need to like it. I'm just fascinated by this revolutionary notion that opinion should not be fact based. I suppose that to hold an opinion that cannot be argued on any objective grounds, one must throw out objectivity and facts entirely to still insist upon it, but it is rare to see it done so directly.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

If your opinion is not fact based, doesn’t that make it a rather bad opinion? Why would it be better to hold an opinion one knows is contrary to facts than to adjust their opinion to what they know to be factually reasonable?

I think the issue is there can be a valid difference in opinions about what the word greatest means in this context. Counting stats over a long career versus a few years of utter dominance can lead one to different results with no right or wrong answer.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think the issue is there can be a valid difference in opinions about what the word greatest means in this context. Counting stats over a long career versus a few years of utter dominance can lead one to different results with no right or wrong answer.

An argument for either of those evaluations would be fact based though, the end opinion is an opinion but that opinion is connected to facts and reality.

[packs]

What kind of metrics are necessary to answer a question like: what's your favorite movie?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What kind of metrics are necessary to answer a question like: what's your favorite movie?

None. A baseball players' performance can be evaluated; your personal favorite of something has no objective element at all. It's a little sad how many times the difference between "the greatest at X" and "my favorite X" are completely different things. I know this board absolutely hates using words correctly, but god damn lol

[samosa4u]

I'm surprised with the results, but it just goes to show you that a lot of Americans don't care about who cheated or not.

If we want to starting looking at things from this perspective, then it's going to complicate things big-time. How do we know who used what and when, and for how long?

Let's take Mickey Mantle, for example. This guy turned the hobby into what it is today. I think he is the GOAT of collectibles. People spend millions on his stuff, even though he did things that would probably get you banned today.

Jane Leavy wrote about how, at one point in his career, he was getting a cocktail of drugs injected into his ass. One day it got badly infected and required surgery. The hole in his ass was so bad, Mantle himself was telling people how you could "put your hand in there." So, what exactly was he getting injected into him and for how long? Also, was everybody else getting these injections? Maybe only some?

So again, a lot of folks are just gonna' look at your numbers, entertainment value, etc., and block out the rest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I'm surprised with the results, but it just goes to show you that a lot of Americans don't care about who cheated or not.

If we want to starting looking at things from this perspective, then it's going to complicate things big-time. How do we know who used what and when, and for how long?

Let's take Mickey Mantle, for example. This guy turned the hobby into what it is today. I think he is the GOAT of collectibles. People spend millions on his stuff, even though he did things that would probably get you banned today.

Jane Leavy wrote about how, at one point in his career, he was getting a cocktail of drugs injected into his ass. One day it got badly infected and required surgery. The hole in his ass was so bad, Mantle himself was telling people how you could "put your hand in there." So, what exactly was he getting injected into him and for how long? Also, was everybody else getting these injections? Maybe only some?

So again, a lot of folks are just gonna' look at your numbers, entertainment value, etc., and block out the rest.

Mantle is exempt. Mays is exempt. Aaron is exempt. Anyone for whom we have nostalgia is exempt. They were all clean. Or if they did anything it didn't affect their performance.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's an opinion, not a stats fact-based opinion. My opinion is that Judge is a greater player than Pujols. You are free to have a different opinion of course, but mine is Judge.

He should be able to win a couple World Series before his career is over. He's a better leader on his team and has a bigger impact on the game that he is playing in. He has a less than a third at bats than Pujols had so far so he has a long way to go still, and I believe when he's done, he will be better overall. Again, this is an opinion. No need to argue about it. I'm not putting Pujols down or anything, but when it comes to who is a great ballplayer, I choose Judge.



.

I wasn’t arguing I truly believed you were confused ,
Sorry about that

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

I wasn’t arguing I truly believed you were confused ,
Sorry about that

No worries Eric. I wasn't trying to argue either. I just like the conversation really. Some folks seem to be getting really annoyed at some folks opinions though.



.