Poll - Greatest Living Player

G1911 · #1 06-23-2024, 09:51 AM

Quote:

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 · #2 06-23-2024, 10:22 AM

Quote:

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 · #3 06-23-2024, 10:49 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 06-23-2024, 12:48 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 06-23-2024, 01:00 PM

Quote:

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.

CobbSpikedMe · #6 06-23-2024, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

"Revolutionary notion"? I don't think it's revolutionary.

I don't see why you're getting so bent out of shape about this. My opinion may not be based on current statistical fact, but comparing a guy's lifetime stats against another guy who still has many years to go in his career is not really possible. It is possible to have an opinion that Judge is the better living player than Pujols was without looking at stats currently available.

You amuse me with your passion on this opinion vs. facts notion. One is not relevant to the other. It's apples and oranges. It's like the Red Sox fans chanting Yankees suck all the time. The Yankees franchise is the best team in baseball history, but their opinion is that they suck. Not based at all on facts or stats. It's just their opinion. And they are welcome to it. Same goes for any fan of any team of any sport who says their team is the best.

.

packs · #7 06-23-2024, 01:41 PM

If you are choosing to weigh stats in favor of your opinion that Bonds is the greatest living player, it's still only your opinion that stats are the determining factor of greatness.

The question wasn't which living player has the best stats; it was who do you think is the greatest. I don't think there's a strict formula for determining greatness.

Carter08 · #8 06-23-2024, 10:28 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 06-23-2024, 10:50 AM

Quote:

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 · #10 06-23-2024, 12:03 PM

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

G1911 · #11 06-23-2024, 12:26 PM

Quote:

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

packs · #12 06-23-2024, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Isn't a poll subjective by nature? It only asks for an answer. It doesn't ask why.

G1911 · #13 06-23-2024, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't a poll subjective by nature? It only asks for an answer. It doesn't ask why.

That's why people are posting what they are picking and why and about that subject, and in the original thread as well this was made to complement. No shit the poll doesn't ask for the argued reasons; we can't fit a pick list for infinite options, nobody is saying otherwise

The conclusion of a subjective matter of analyses, like what the greatest X is, is indeed an opinion. Opinions on such matters are typically rooted in fact and reality. My opinion that the correct answer is Bonds is not a fact; however the argument I make for it and the reasons I can articulate for it are fact-based, using identifiable, discernible information to form a coherent, consistent argument to come to the conclusion. We make fact-based judgements every single day of our lives. If I say that I have an opinion on a matter of analysis, not emotion (like "favorite"), but also say that opinion is not based in any facts, then my opinion is a poor one and worthless. I am entirely within my rights to have the opinion that it is a good idea to not look both ways before crossing the street, but it is pretty stupid of me to have such an opinion that is completely separated from observable facts.

3rd graders know the difference between "my favorite" and "the greatest". I cannot believe this needs to be explained lol.

samosa4u · #14 06-23-2024, 12:34 PM

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 · #15 06-23-2024, 05:35 PM

Quote:

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.

bnorth · #16 06-23-2024, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Yep pretty much unless you played in the "steroid era" you are exempt. My favorite is the one that is linked to a steroid doctor, took amphetamines, and one of his gamers was found to be corked. But he played in a PED free era so he is an all-time great everyone loves.

LEHR · #17 06-23-2024, 06:47 PM

I voted for Barry Bonds, even though I'm not a fan.
Sure, he took PED's, but PED's enhance strength, not talent; and you don't put up the number he did without amazing talent. Would he have the records he has without the PED's? No one really knows the answer to that.

Gorditadogg · #18 06-23-2024, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yep pretty much unless you played in the "steroid era" you are exempt. My favorite is the one that is linked to a steroid doctor, took amphetamines, and one of his gamers was found to be corked. But he played in a PED free era so he is an all-time great everyone loves.

Bonds hit 760 home runs. Without PEDs he might have hit 380. Sosa hit 600, I doubt he would have made 300. The effect on their career numbers was huge.

Conversely, nobody really thinks Mantle's totals were significantly affected by whatever he stuck in his butt. Nobody thinks Rose wouldn't still be the all-time hit leader without greenies.

The levels of difference between steroids and other cheating is night and day. Players always will try to get an advantage. Stealing signs, putting Vaseline on balls, banging trash cans, all kinds of things. But they are not all the same.

In most cases, the MLB monitors cheating and adds rules to eliminate its impact. Unfortunately, in the 90s, Selig and Reinsdorf were worried about the popularity of the game and decided to effectively allow steroids and HGH usage to increase offense. Things got out of hand quickly, and journeymen like Sosa became superstars. It was a big mess, and it is still a mess 30 years later.

Let's stay focused on the things that matter. Sosa having 600 home runs is ridiculous. Mays hitting 660 is not.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Carter08 · #19 06-23-2024, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Yeah, he didn�t skirt MLB testing protocols and knowingly violate established rules as far as I�m aware. The steroid era guys did. Big difference.

bnorth · #20 06-23-2024, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Yeah, he didn�t skirt MLB testing protocols and knowingly violate established rules as far as I�m aware. The steroid era guys did. Big difference.

So it doesn't matter if it is illegal for everyone without a prescription as long as it isn't against MLBs rules, makes sense.

View Poll Results: Who is the greatest living player today?
Ronald Acuna Jr	1	0.24%
Johnny Bench	16	3.85%
Mookie Betts	0	0%
Barry Bonds	116	27.88%
Steve Carlton	0	0%
Roger Clemens	2	0.48%
Ken Griifey Jr	38	9.13%
Rickey Henderson	27	6.49%
Randy Johnson	3	0.72%
Sandy Koufax	52	12.50%
Greg Maddux	7	1.68%
Pedro Martinez	5	1.20%
Shohei Ohtani	18	4.33%
Albert Pujols	16	3.85%
Cal Ripken Jr	5	1.20%
Alex Rodriguez	0	0%
Pete Rose	39	9.38%
Nolan Ryan	34	8.17%
Mike Schmidt	17	4.09%
Ichiro Suzuki	7	1.68%
Mike Trout	1	0.24%
Other	12	2.88%
Voters: 416. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Greatest Living Player...	clydepepper	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	89	06-25-2024 10:18 PM
Greatest Living Players - Top 5	orioles70	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	43	03-28-2019 02:45 PM
Baseball's Greatest Living Player...who is it?	jason.1969	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	167	07-17-2015 08:10 PM
OT: Greatest Living Four	HOF Auto Rookies	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	147	07-17-2015 06:11 PM
Last living player from these sets?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	25	02-08-2009 06:01 PM