Poll - Greatest Living Player

[jayshum]

Here's a poll for greatest living player to go along with the discussion in another thread. I think I included all players mentioned in that thread as well as added a few active players. If you choose Other, please post who your vote would be for.

[Leon]

Lots of good players to choose from. I chose one with no votes yet, of course.

[Eric72]

I choose Leon Luckey.

Among other things, he's capable of juggling three threads (out of the top six) with basically the same name on the main forum.

That takes talent, I tell you...real talent.

[Rhotchkiss]

I went with Nolan Ryan, but was very close to choosing Pete Rose or Cal Ripken. All did things nobody will likely ever do again.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I choose Leon Luckey.

Among other things, he's capable of juggling three threads (out of the top six) with basically the same name on the main forum.

That takes talent, I tell you...real talent.

Thanks. The duplicate one was deleted. Juggling 2 is no big act.
It should be an interesting poll...
Carry on....
.

[z28jd]

I chose Bonds, but I considered Henderson. I had a conversation with a small group of people (no one from this site) about this yesterday and there were only four names that came up as possibilities. Bonds, Henderson, Pujols and Maddux. Only Bonds and Henderson actually got top votes, but both Pujols and Maddux got multiple honorable mentions, or as someone said, they could be convinced that it's either one of them if you had a good argument.

[bmattioli]

Pete Rose. Always have loved the ballplayer..

[JollyElm]

Nothing to see here, folks...

bondssyringe.jpg

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Nothing to see here, folks...

Attachment 625600

+ 341,769,853 - 3 or 4. Thank You!

[obcbobd]

I voted for Pedro. My reasoning below.

The living player who had the best career is Bonds. No question. But I dock him for steroid use. Still he's in the top 5

The player who had the greatest career, whose career was not affected by steroids was Mike Schmidt.

However the greatest player at a certain time of their peak value, was Pedro Martinez, who made his accomplishments pitching to guys who were juiced. I use the same logic as I would in picking the Beatles as the greatest band even though most of their great work was done in a small time frame of 6-7 years.

From 97 to 03 Pedro was the best pitcher ever.

[molenick]

He is not on the ballot, but Clayton Kershaw's stats compare favorably to many of those who are.

He has the fifth highest winning percentage of any pitcher (210-92, .695), and the players above him either have well under 200 wins (120 at most) or compiled their stats in the National Association. His ERA is the lowest (2.48) of any player in the live-ball era except Mariano Rivera (who pitched half the number of innings). He is fourth all-time in adjusted ERA+ (157) with over 1200 more innings than the three players above him, fifth in WHIP, 3rd in hits per inning pitched, has won three Cy Young awards, and an MVP.

His 162-game average is similar (if not better) than other pitchers with votes:
Kershaw 17-7, 2.48 ERA, 236 strikeouts, 157 ERA+.
Martinez 17-8, 2.93 ERA, 242 strikeouts, 154 ERA+
Koufax 16-8, 2.76, 229 strikeouts, 131 ERA+
Johnson 17-9, .3.29, 279 strikeouts, 135 ERA+
Maddux 16-10, 3.16, 154 strikeouts, 132 ERA+
Clemens 17-9, 3.12, 224 strikeouts, 144 ERA+.

It is better than Ryan's 14-13, 3.19, 246 strikeouts, 112 ERA+.

So, what's the problem? He has been an average (or below average) pitcher in the post-season, so much so that it seems to preclude him from any of these discussions, despite regular season statistics that should put him in the argument for greatest living pitcher (if not player).

I am not saying the post-season should be discounted. He has pitched almost the equivalent of a full season with a 13-13 record and a 4.49 ERA. Not being great in the post-season did not hurt Willie Mays or Ted Williams when we discuss all-time greats, but the sample size is not large for those guys.

I just think that if he had been at least pretty good in the post-season, he would be talked about in far different terms.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The post season absolutely has hurt Kershaw's image -- and rightly so IMO.

[G1911]

I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has been hurt more than Kershaw by their post-season performance.

193 IP with a 4.49 ERA, the consistency of his mediocrity is through a pretty large sample size.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has been hurt more than Kershaw by their post-season performance.

193 IP with a 4.49 ERA, the consistency of his mediocrity is through a pretty large sample size.

Agreed. Similarly, Koufax should be elevated due to his fantastic postseason stats: 7 World Series starts, 4 complete games, 2 shutouts, 0.95 ERA, .825 WHIP.

[molenick]

I totally get it as well. Kind of a shame because he really has been great in the regular season. I think if he had just been normal good but not great (say like Verlander 17-12 3.58) it would not be held against him that much.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by molenick

I totally get it as well. Kind of a shame because he really has been great in the regular season. I think if he had just been normal good but not great (say like Verlander 17-12 3.58) it would not be held against him that much.

Made worse IMO by the fact that Roberts never knew when to pull him.

[Jason]

Politics aside Barry Bonds for me. Sandy for pitchers
.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Jason

Politics aside Barry Bonds for me. Sandy for pitchers
.

Barry Bonds juicing himself to the gills with PEDS is not bad politics---it's called cheating. It's called desecrating the integrity of the game's record book. Keep the bum out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Always keep him in the elite hall of shame.

Yes, Barry had a definite HOF career going, just like Joe Jackson. Jackson's misdeeds came in a controversial World Series; how much Joe threw his part of the Series is still argued about back and forth. Bonds's misdeeds came after McGwire and Sosa wowed everybody in 1998, and Barry decided he was going to get some of that stuff, and make everybody forget the former record-holders. What a lousy mess. Furthermore, the juicers influenced young players to use PEDS. I've read of some tragic stories.... --- Brian Powell

[jingram058]

Jackson was banned for participating to some degree in throwing a World Series - he was great, but he's out of the discussion. Great stats, all for nothing.

Rose was banned for gambling. He knew clearly what he was doing, and was banned. Great stats, all for nothing.

Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, et al, all blatantly thumbed their collective noses at the no PEDs rules. They knew what they were doing. They aren't banned, but they aren't going into the HoF anytime soon. Great stats, meaningless, all for nothing. Very wealthy, but that's as far as it goes.

Collectors go all gaga over certain cards, and spout meaningless, subjective or otherwise arguments about their stats and greatness. In the end, it means absolutely nothing.

[brian1961]

Succinctly well-said, James Ingram. -- Brian Powell

[Exhibitman]

The Bonds vote proves the value of an anonymous ballot. Looks to me that a lot more people are voting for Bonds than are willing to risk the opprobrium of others for admitting that they voted for Bonds. I admit it, I voted for him. He was a surefire first-ballot HOFer with three MVPs before the PEDs and the greatest force ever seen while juicing. I can't ignore what he did on the field regardless of what I think of him. I won't support him for the HOF; his punishment for doping is that the only way he gets in is with a ticket. I have a similar view about Joe Jackson. No way can I ignore his accomplishments on the field when discussing great players despite my belief that he knowingly took money to throw the World Series and deserves to be banned forever. It is possible to hold a mixed view. I loved Pete Rose as a player; cruddy human being.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I was just about to compliment you on the use of "contumely" but you changed it lol.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The Bonds vote proves the value of an anonymous ballot. Looks to me that a lot more people are voting for Bonds than are willing to risk the opprobrium of others for admitting that they voted for Bonds. I admit it, I voted for him. He was a surefire first-ballot HOFer with three MVPs before the PEDs and the greatest force ever seen while juicing. I can't ignore what he did on the field regardless of what I think of him. I won't support him for the HOF; his punishment for doping is that the only way he gets in is with a ticket. I have a similar view about Joe Jackson. No way can I ignore his accomplishments on the field when discussing great players despite my belief that he knowingly took money to throw the World Series and deserves to be banned forever. It is possible to hold a mixed view. I loved Pete Rose as a player; cruddy human being.

I appreciate your explanation and reasoning. In reference to the HOF, I have always said that all PED users from that era should be in the HOF. My reasoning is, once they let one in, all should be in. Pudge Rodriguez and others have been voted in, so for me, all get in. Don’t need a positive test or a smoking needle to know if someone used. My only issue with Bonds is that his use took two HR records away from deserving players who didn’t use.

[pcoz]

Bonds for me, and it’s not even close. By the eye test, what he did before he allegedly took roids, and even into his 40’s his season’s were beyond legendary. He’s not in the Hall for a reason, but he was the best I’ve ever seen. Nolan Ryan and Clemens would be next on my list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk