Poll - Greatest Living Player

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Sincere question for people who pick Bonds; do you think Bonds was better than Willie Mays too? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't he have been the greatest living player this whole time?

My point is that stats are stats and you can use stats to discuss Bonds, but if you do, then how do you factor Mays ahead of him at all?

Yes, Bonds is currently the greatest living player and already was last week and I guess technically at every point since he was born, but we didn't know it until 20 years ago.

[Touch'EmAll]

Overall, yeah, a lot of you like to point to black & white stats printed on a page, and that's ok. And yes, you do have to consider all of it. But the eye test does indeed count for a lot, at least to me. Nolan Ryan was on any given night was absolutely awesome. Greatness - you just can't deny some of what Ryan did and accomplished is the Greatest we have ever seen from a pitcher, and likely will ever see.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Overall, yeah, a lot of you like to point to black & white stats printed on a page, and that's ok. And yes, you do have to consider all of it. But the eye test does indeed count for a lot, at least to me. Nolan Ryan was on any given night was absolutely awesome. Greatness - you just can't deny some of what Ryan did and accomplished is the Greatest we have ever seen from a pitcher, and likely will ever see.

I don't see that at all, and yes I saw him many times. Seaver was a much better pitcher. I'd probably take Carlton over him. Certainly Clemens, Maddux, R Johnson, and Pedro.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Yes, Bonds is currently the greatest living player and already was last week and I guess technically at every point since he was born, but we didn't know it until 20 years ago.

Is he? Why isn't he in the HoF?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see that at all, and yes I saw him many times. Seaver was a much better pitcher. I'd probably take Carlton over him. Certainly Clemens, Maddux, R Johnson, and Pedro.

You desperately need to get back into reality.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see that at all, and yes I saw him many times. Seaver was a much better pitcher. I'd probably take Carlton over him. Certainly Clemens, Maddux, R Johnson, and Pedro.

I guess I'll never understand such arguments. If they were better, then shouldn't their numbers show it? They each had nearly as long a tenure and all had better players behind them for longer, yet Nolan holds the records. Look how many championship clubs some of those guys played for, just jam-packed with stars and HOFers. Seems like they should have easily all hurled a dozen no-hitters, pitched 6000 Ks and won at least 400 games if the lowly Ryan could do what he did with his mostly piss-poor clubs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I guess I'll never understand such arguments. If they were better, then shouldn't their numbers show it? They each had nearly as long a tenure and all had better players behind them for longer, yet Nolan holds the records. Look how many championship clubs some of those guys played for, just jam-packed with stars and HOFers. Seems like they should have easily all hurled a dozen no-hitters, pitched 6000 Ks and won at least 400 games if the lowly Ryan could do what he did with his mostly piss-poor clubs.

Their numbers DO show it, if you look at the more meaningful numbers, not just counting stats. For example
https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...h_career.shtml

Every pitcher I named is ahead of Ryan.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Is he? Why isn't he in the HoF?

Many of the voters believe that he used PEDs and that the other players on the ballot didn't and think that their beliefs about who used what when should count for more than how well the players played baseball.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Overall, yeah, a lot of you like to point to black & white stats printed on a page, and that's ok. And yes, you do have to consider all of it. But the eye test does indeed count for a lot, at least to me. Nolan Ryan was on any given night was absolutely awesome. Greatness - you just can't deny some of what Ryan did and accomplished is the Greatest we have ever seen from a pitcher, and likely will ever see.

I watched Ryan many times and was impressed by how hard he threw, but I've seen plenty of better pitchers, both by stats and by the eye test. Kobe was one of the best to ever play in the NBA if you ignore every shot he missed, and Ryan was one of the best to ever pitch in MLB if you ignore every walk he issued.

[Touch'EmAll]

Please read my post. I did not say Ryan was the greatest pitcher. What I did say was that on any given night he was absolutely awesome and some of what Ryan did and accomplished is the greatest we have ever seen from a pitcher, and likely will ever see.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

My vote is Aaron Judge. I think, for starters, that he is better than Ohtani.

I also voted other and had Judge as the greatest living player now. I don't care for Ohtani at all to be honest. I feel he is quite overrated currently. He's very good, I just think he's overrated by announcers and baseball groups I follow.



.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You would rank Aaron Judge over, for example, Pujols and Griffey?

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You would rank Aaron Judge over, for example, Pujols and Griffey?

Yes. He still has a lot of time to play, but right now I think he is the best living player and when his career is over, he will be much better that Pujols or Griffey.



.

[Beercan collector]

Aaron Judge is 32 years old - he has a total of two seasons with more than 100 RBIs . Albert Pujols had 10 seasons with more than 100 RBIs by the time he was 30 .

[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.



.

[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 darwinbulldog

I watched Ryan many times and was impressed by how hard he threw, but I've seen plenty of better pitchers, both by stats and by the eye test. Kobe was one of the best to ever play in the NBA if you ignore every shot he missed, and Ryan was one of the best to ever pitch in MLB if you ignore every walk he issued.

I would argue if the first half of Ryan's career was more like the second half he'd have a more impressive claim. While the strikeouts might have dropped from 383 to 301, but the walks dropped from 204 to 87. He was never a top control guy, but he was MUCH better. His K/bb ratio went from roughly 1.5 to 2.5 over that span, that's a HUGE difference

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So I ask again: is it the cheating people object to or the performance enhancement, or some of each? If (hypothetically) a player has a medical exemption to take HGH, are we OK with that?

I object to the cheating. Performance enhancement activities that are not prohibited by the overseers of the game, are in my view, fair play.

And yes, if a player has a medical exemption to take HGH (like Lionel Messi did as a youth player with a hormonal deficiency), I would be fine with it.

[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.

[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.


.

[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 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.

[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.

[packs]

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.

[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 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.

[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

[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.



.

[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.

[CobbSpikedMe]

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]

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.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Ok, I looked at some basic stats and here are the results of Judge's adjusted stats based on at bats to Pujols career stats.

What does this tell us? This is where Judge is headed if he has the same at bats that Pujols has. Pujols only wins in the hits, but Judge still has 3,000+ hits at this pace.

There are a couple of stats/facts for you.



.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

Yes. It is an opinion, for like the fifth time. A fact-based opinion. One can use facts other than stats.

An analysis or opinion that ignores facts is a lesser opinion than one that uses facts to shape a coherent argument. It is obviously preferable to base and shape analyses, opinions and beliefs with facts. An opinion that presents itself as ignoring is just meaningless. This is very, very, very basic stuff.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Ok, I looked at some basic stats and here are the results of Judge's adjusted stats based on at bats to Pujols career stats.

What does this tell us? This is where Judge is headed if he has the same at bats that Pujols has. Pujols only wins in the hits, but Judge still has 3,000+ hits at this pace.

There are a couple of stats/facts for you.



.

Obviously I think Pujols is better, but I'm not even arguing the stats. I'm arguing that an opinion that openly states it is not being fact-based, about an issue for which we can easily pull thousands of facts, is completely illogical and silly.

Why would you hold an opinion that is not fact based, when you could instead let facts shape opinion, and use reason?

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Obviously I think Pujols is better, but I'm not even arguing the stats. I'm arguing that an opinion that openly states it is not being fact-based, about an issue for which we can easily pull thousands of facts, is completely illogical and silly.

Why would you hold an opinion that is not fact based, when you could instead let facts shape opinion, and use reason?

I just gave you facts that show Judge is better than Pujols and now you still argue that my opinion is not fact/stat based. I can't win apparently with you. And you can't win with me. Stalemate.


.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I just gave you facts that show Judge is better than Pujols and now you still argue that my opinion is not fact/stat based. I can't win apparently with you. And you can't win with me. Stalemate.


.

Yes, because it is not fact-based. You are the one who said that your opinion was not based in fact, which is what I have disagreed with. Here:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's an opinion, not a stats fact-based opinion.

.

If you would like to now use stats or other kinds of facts to form an opinion, we now agree.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by G1911

If you would like to now use stats or other kinds of facts to form an opinion, we now agree.

So, while my opinion has not changed, I just showed you some stats/facts, you now agree with me? Cool. I now state my choice for greatest living player is Aaron Judge (based on stats/facts).

I enjoyed our back and forth a lot. Good to chat with you.


.