Best Position Players of All Time - #22

[leecemark]

--Congratulations to Nap Lajoie for claiming his place amoung the all time greats in poll #1. Elected so far;
1) Babe Ruth
2) Ty Cobb
3) Willie Mays
4) Honus wagner
5) Ted Williams
6) Barry Bonds
7) Tris Speaker
8) Stan Musial
9) Lou Gehrig
10) Hank Aaron
11) Mickey Mantle
12) Rogers Hornsby
13) Eddie Collins
14) Mike Schmidt
15) Oscar Charleston
16) Josh Gibson
17) Joe DiMaggio
18) Frank Robinson
19) Joe Morgan
20) Jimmie Foxx
21) Nap Lajoie
---Please vote for your top 10 remaining candidates, numbered 1-10. The votes wil be counted MVP style in a week or so.l

[leecemark]

1) Johnny Bench - best MLB catcher ever is overdue
2) Rickey Henderson - best leadoff man ever may be also
3) Alex Riodriguez - 5 years from now this will look laughably low
4) Pop Lloyd - best NeL infielder
5) Yogi Berra - #2 MLB catcher
6) Eddie Mathews - #2 all time 3B
7) George Brett - right on Eddie's heels
8) Turkey Stearnes - unrated NeL suoerstar
9) Cap Anson - best player of the 19th century
10) Reggie Jackson - best AL player and slugger of the 1970s
--my second team
C) Piazza
1B) Murray
2B) Gehringer
3B) Boggs
SS) Ripken
LF) Yaz
CF) Griffey
RF) Ott
DH) Thomas
Utl) Rose
10)

[abacab]

1. Mel Ott
2. Johnny Bench
3. Rickey Henderson
4. Pop Lloyd
5. Eddie Mathews
6. Yogi Berra
7. George Brett
8. Ken Griffey Jr.
9. Alex Rodriguez
10. Carl Yastrzemski

[dgarza]

1. Mel Ott
2. Dan Brouthers
3. Cap Anson
4. Ed Delahanty
5. Pete Rose
6. Sam Crawford
7. Harry Heilmann
8. Johnny Mize
9. Alex Rodriguez
10. Paul Waner

[Yankee Legend]

1. Johnny Bench
2. Roberto Clemente
3. Pete Rose
4. George Sisler
5. Joe Jackson
6. Hank Greenberg
7. Ernie Banks
8. Yogi Berra
9. Mel Ott
10. Al Simmons

11. Jackie Robinson
12. Charley Gehringer
13. Buck Leonard
14. Reggie Jackson
15. Tony Gwynn
16. Roy Campanella
17. Rickey Henderson
18. Harry Heilmann
19. George Brett
20. Willie McCovey

[Blackout]

1-Alex Rodriguez
2-Pop Lloyd
3-Frank Thomas
4-Yogi Berra
5-Joe Jackson
6-Ed Delahanty
7-Wade Boggs
8-Cap Anson
9-Tony Gwynn
10-Johnny Bench

[Wee Willie]

1. Mel Ott
2. Rickey Henderson
3. Pop Lloyd
4. Eddie Mathews
5. Arky Vaughan
6. Alex Rodriguez
7. Turkey Stearnes
8. Jeff Bagwell
9. Yogi Berra
10. George Brett

[mac195]

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Johnny Bench
3. Rickey Henderson
4. Yogi Berra
5. Mel Ott
6. Pop Lloyd
7. George Brett
8. Eddie Mathews
9. Ken Griffey Jr.
10. Carl Yastrzemski

[Bench 5]

Johnny Bench - symbol of excellence
Alex Rodriguez - underrated because of big contract
Pop Lloyd - If he's good enough for Hans he's good enough for me
Ernie Banks - best Cub of all time
Cal Ripken - always thought he'd be even better but still great
Harmon Killebrew - HR hitting machine
Ken Griffey Jr - considering he probably wasn't on steroids, his numbers are even more incredible
Eddie Matthews - 2nd best to Schmitty
Roberto Clemente - superb overall player
Mel Ott - Adjusted his game to his park but road splits still awesome

[Cyclone792]

1) Mel Ott
2) Rickey Henderson
3) Eddie Mathews
4) Johnny Bench
5) Pete Rose
6) Arky Vaughan
7) Pop Lloyd
8) Alex Rodriguez
9) Joe Jackson
10) George Brett

[yanks0714]

1) Rickey Henderson
2) Eddie Matthews
3) Ed Delahanty
4) Jackie Robinson
5) Mel Ott
6) Johnny Bench
7) George Brett
8) Hank Greenberg
9) Frank Thomas (usually don't vote for actives but he's about done)
10) Arky Vaughan

[Freakshow]

1.Ott
2.E.Mathews
3.A.Rodriguez
4.R.Henderson
5.Brett
6.Ripken
7.Bench
8.Anson
9.Berra
10.Lloyd

[mac195]

9) Frank Thomas (usually don't vote for actives but he's about done)
Active players are being ranked along with everyone else in this poll. If you are going to participate, I think you need to rank them. Otherwise, you will skew the results.

[baseballPAP]

1- Rickey Henderson-best leadoff hitter ever, except maybe for #4 below
2- Johnny Bench
3- Alex Rodriguez-moving up yearly
4- Billy Hamilton
5- Ed Delahanty
6- Dan Brouthers
7-Eddie Mathews
8-Pop Lloyd
9-Mel Ott
10-Cap Anson

[RogersMaris]

1 Pop Lloyd
2 Yogi Berra
3 Johnny Bench
4 Jackie Robinson
5 Alex Rodriguez
6 Biz Mackay
7 Eddie Mathews
8 Al Kaline
9 Melvin Ott
10 George Brett

[Edgartohof]

1 Johnny Bench
2. Yogi Berra
3. Alex Rodriguez
4. Wade Boggs
5. Ed Delehanty
6. Ken Griffey Jr.
7. Mel Ott
8. Mickey Cochrane
9. George Brett
10. Jeff Bagwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charlie Gheringer
12. Pop Lloyd
13. Eddie Matthews
14. Jackie Robinson
15. Rickey Henderson

[christian gentleman]

1. joe jackson
2. johnny mize
3. brooks robinson
4. jackie robinson
5. yogi berra
6. hank greenberg
7. roberto clemente
8. ricky henderson
9. barry bonds
10. mel ott

[538280]

1. joe jackson
2. johnny mize
3. brooks robinson
4. jackie robinson
5. yogi berra
6. hank greenberg
7. roberto clemente
8. ricky henderson
9. barry bonds
10. mel ott

Bonds was already elected, and Greenberg, Mize, and Brooks Robinson really have no business on anyone's ballot at this point.

[538280]

1.Rickey Henderson-greatest leadoff man ever, very underrated, as leadoff men often are
2.Pop Lloyd-2nd best SS, 3rd greatest Negro Leaguer
3.Johnny Bench-best ML catcher ever.
4.Arky Vaughan-very underrated, 3rd best SS
5.Frank Thomas-3rd best hitter ever.
6.Christobal Torriente-one of the most complete players ever, all time great glove and very good bat as well. DiMaggio light.
7.Eddie Mathews-first really great hitting 3B
8.Jeff Bagwell-Great hitter and fielder from 1B. He just wasn't as good a hitter as Thomas
9.Alex Rodriguez-looks like he'll be the best player of the 2000s, but Pujols poses a threat
10.Reggie Jackson-my favorite player, I think he's underrated here at BBF. Best AL player of the 1970s.

Next up:
11.Jackie Robinson
12.George Brett
13.Turkey Stearnes
14.Mel Ott
15.Pete Rose
16.Yogi Berra
17.Tony Gwynn
18.Tim Raines
19.Ron Santo
20.Willie McCovey

[yanks0714]

Active players are being ranked along with everyone else in this poll. If you are going to participate, I think you need to rank them. Otherwise, you will skew the results.

So you want to rank active players who have not had their decline phase against players who have?

I seriously can't rank ARod today while he's at his peak against players who have gone through a decline phase, in some cases severe declines. Without being able to judge how he did throughout his entire career, which is incomplete, how can you rank him against Wagner for example {or any other SS}?

If that's the feeling, then I withdraw rather than have someone dictate to me how I should view and vote.

[yanks0714]

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Johnny Bench
3. Rickey Henderson
4. Yogi Berra
5. Mel Ott
6. Pop Lloyd
7. George Brett
8. Eddie Mathews
9. Ken Griffey Jr.
10. Carl Yastrzemski

ARod first? He's played how many years thus far? Seems as if he's lacking quite a bit of longevity to me in comp to some of those other guys, except Junior. Tell me, how has he coped with his decline phase? Was it as bad as, say, Vaughan's?
Where is Frank Thomas? You really honestly think The Big Hurt is behind some of these other guys?
I don't complain when I see someone who does rate the current players. That is their perogative. And my perogative is to not rank them for the most part. Same with the Negro Leaguer players, although the NL players do not have nearly as much data to rank them as do ML players. I don't complain about those who do rank NL players.
Basically, you told me my opinion skews the rankings. Perhaps, I think your list skews the ranking as well....but I didn't complain about it.
Can you honestly tell me my lists that I have submitted are totally off-the-wall? Especially in comp to some other lists?


Active players are being ranked along with everyone else in this poll. If you are going to participate, I think you need to rank them. Otherwise, you will skew the results.


Mac, I notice that you are located in Japan. Near Mt Fuji. I would imagine that you have a good sense of Japanese baseball history. There have been many outstanding players in Japan. Chancellor has made a number of posts on them that I've found to be incredibly interesting.
Have you ranked any of them yet? Just curious.

[538280]

So you want to rank active players who have not had their decline phase against players who have?

I seriously can't rank ARod today while he's at his peak against players who have gone through a decline phase, in some cases severe declines. Without being able to judge how he did throughout his entire career, which is incomplete, how can you rank him against Wagner for example {or any other SS}?

If that's the feeling, then I withdraw rather than have someone dictate to me how I should view and vote.

What I do is just rank active players based on what they've done to this point, and I give their rate stats a bit of a hit in comparison to others who did go through a decline.

Although it is most certainly your right to not include active players if you wish, I agree with Mac that you will skew the results if you don't include.

This is a poll for all position players, which means everyone should be included. If everyone isn't included, then it will unfairly boost some players and unfairly hinder others.

[leecemark]

--There is no requirement to include mid-career players (or 19th century players or Negro Leaguers or whatever). I would like everyone to give consideration to ALL players, regardless of when or where they played. The 10 you list should be those you feel are the 10 best based on whatever criteria you are using. I don't expect any too lists to be the same, nor is any player of type of player required to be included. Some lists I've found extremely puzzling and can't see how any logical system could come up with them, but its just for fun, so what difference does it make.

[mac195]

ARod first? He's played how many years thus far? Seems as if he's lacking quite a bit of longevity to me in comp to some of those other guys, except Junior.
Even if his decline phase turns out to be worse than you would expect, his peak value should give him a top-20 career. Chances are quite slim that he will be so bad from this point on that he ends up not being a top-20 player. Therefore I rank him in the top 20. The chances of him not being a top 32 player after retirement are slimmer still, so I think he is a pretty glaring omission from anyone's list at this point.


You really honestly think The Big Hurt is behind some of these other guys?
I sure do. He is behind all of those guys and a couple more.


I don't complain when I see someone who does rate the current players. That is their perogative. And my perogative is to not rank them for the most part. Same with the Negro Leaguer players...
This is a poll to rank all players. We could have a poll to rank all players who are already retired, and did not play in the Negro Leagues. That would be a different poll.


Can you honestly tell me my lists that I have submitted are totally off-the-wall? Especially in comp to some other lists?
No, not at all. Your lists are quite reasonable, except for the fact that you refuse to rank active players and Negro Leaguers.


Mac, I notice that you are located in Japan. Near Mt Fuji. I would imagine that you have a good sense of Japanese baseball history. There have been many outstanding players in Japan. Chancellor has made a number of posts on them that I've found to be incredibly interesting.
Have you ranked any of them yet? Just curious.
I don't think any of them have deserved to make my list yet. But I will be including Oh fairly soon.

[538280]

I sure do. He is behind all of those guys and a couple more.


Why? You ask Yanks for his own justification, and yet provide none of your own.

[538280]

Chris, who specifically from my list do you want compared to Frank Thomas?

How about Yaz?

[mac195]

Well, I like Yaz's career a liittle more than Thomas'. It's close. I'm giving Yaz credit for playing in a very difficult era, for having excellent longevity, for being good defensively, and for putting up some really excellent hitting years. He wasn't as good a hitter as Thomas, but he did lead the league in OPS+ 4 times, which is even more than Thomas did.

[leecemark]

--I would agree Thomas is one of the top 10, perhaps even top 5, hitters of all time. The problem with him is he hurts his team everywhere except the batters box. He was a horrible fielder at a low value defensive position and gave up even that minimal effort by mid career. He was never a good baserunner and by mid-career had turned into one of the worst base cloggers in the game. He has never been a positive presence in the clubhouse. He has spent nearly as much time in the trainers room as on the field in the second half of his career as he has on the field and may well be finished at a relatively young age.
--Yaz was almost as good a hitter at his peak, although he dropped off to merely pretty good in his 30s (Thomas has remained a great hitter when he has been able to play). He was an outstanding defensive player and a pretty good baserunner. Probably what puts him ahead, well ahead even, of Thomas is simply that he was in the lineup everyday making a contribution to his team for so much longer. Longevity is Yaz's main advantage over Thomas, but many other players have huge advantages in defense and baserunning (as well as longevity).

[Matthew C.]

1. Johnny Bench
2. Cap Anson
3. Rickey Henderson
4. Nap Lajoie
5. Dan Brouthers
6. Joe Jackson
7. Ed Delehanty
8. Yogi Berra
9. Alex Rodriguez
10. Pop Lloyd

11. Ken Griffey Jr.
12. George Brett
13. Al Simmons
14. Charlie Gehringer
15. Carl Yastremzki

[ElHalo]

1. Joe Jackson
2. George Sisler
3. Yogi Berra
4. Johnny Bench
5. Ed Delahanty
6. Rickey Henderson
7. Cool Papa Bell
8. Mel Ott
9. Charlie Gehringer
10. Mickey Cochrane

11. Alex Rodriguez
12. Ken Griffey, Jr.
13. Frank Thomas
14. Paul Waner
15. Johnny Mize
16. Ralph Kiner
17. Sam Crawford
18. Al Simmons
19. Al Kaline
20. Harry Heilmann


--I would agree Thomas is one of the top 10, perhaps even top 5, hitters of all time. The problem with him is he hurts his team everywhere except the batters box. He was a horrible fielder at a low value defensive position and gave up even that minimal effort by mid career. He was never a good baserunner and by mid-career had turned into one of the worst base cloggers in the game. He has never been a positive presence in the clubhouse. He has spent nearly as much time in the trainers room as on the field in the second half of his career as he has on the field and may well be finished at a relatively young age.

Health is, of course, a good point. You know that you and I differ as to his intangibles, but it's not a huge deal either way. He's really not a baserunner.

But the defense thing I think you're seriously misstating. If he was really that horrible of a defender (which I'm honestly not arguing, he was very bad), isn't his team better off with him at DH? And, as such, doesn't that make him more valuable after he shifts over?

Think about it. You've got two guys on a team (let's say Jason Giambi and David Ortiz) who are both poor defensive 1Bmen. One's going to play 1B, and one's going to DH. You're essentially equally poorly off with either one at 1B, so it really doesn't matter who goes where (though in this case, I'd certainly rather have Giambi in the field, but assume that they're equals). In such a case, how can you honestly say that one guy has more defensive value than the other guy? Just because he stands up in the field? The team is no better off with either one there, so it essentially makes no difference which one's in the field... so I think it's horrifically unfair to give one guy a hit in defensive value just because his coach flipped a coin and put the other guy out there. Even if you've got a reasonably good defensive 1Bman, I still don't think you should hit your DH any more than you would hit a poor defensive 1Bman. This isn't elementary school; you shouldn't get credit just for showing up.

[leecemark]

--His team is probably better off with Thomas not playing the field, but that is not a credit to him. In his case, he actually was the driving force behind his move to DH. He made it very clear that he prefered not to play the field, which limited his teams options. I don't give alot fo credit merely for showing up, but being available to play and having a team willing to play you does have some value - even if you are a poor fielder. Thomas playing time would probably have been reduced even further had the DH not existed in the second half of his career and that needs to be considered when comparing him to players from the pre-DH era (in other words, most of baseball history).

[csh19792001]

But the defense thing I think you're seriously misstating. If he was really that horrible of a defender (which I'm honestly not arguing, he was very bad), isn't his team better off with him at DH? And, as such, doesn't that make him more valuable after he shifts over?


You've stated this argument over and over, and it still doesn't hold up. We're talking about INDIVIDUAL player value- a guy who is godawful in the field and a liability to his team (as a result) doesn't have more individual value simply because he had the great fortune to play in the AL post 1973. The DH is an artifice.

A massive skill defecit doesn't somehow make a player more valuable/greater, EH. That's completely backwards logic. Because Frank Thomas was a total liability and is lucky enough to be able to sit on the bench half the game isn't something which he should be given more credit for; it's an obvious detraction from his individual value as a player.

[ElHalo]

A massive skill defecit doesn't somehow make a player more valuable/greater, EH. That's completely backwards logic. Because Frank Thomas was a total liability and is lucky enough to be able to sit on the bench half the game isn't something which he should be given more credit for; it's an obvious detraction from his individual value as a player.

I don't see how.

You know I hate defensive statistical metrics, but let's just say for a second that I'm relying upon them.

We've got a first baseman (let's call him David Ortiz) who's worth -50 runs per season on defense. A replacement level defensive 1Bman is worth -10 runs, and let's assume (I don't think it's a totally bad assumption) that any defensive player from any other position can come in and play 1B well enough to cover that replacement level.

Ok, now this player at -50 runs per year all of the sudden gets worse, to the point where he's at -60 runs per year. At this point, the team says enough is enough, switches him to DH, and puts the former DH in the field, where the guy plays replacement level defense.

Obviously, Ortiz' terrible defense isn't going to give him an advantage over a guy who can actually play replacement level defense. However... isn't Ortiz more valuable to his team at -60 runs (where the team took him off the field) than at -50 runs (where the team kept him on the field despite having better options)? Isn't his team better off that way? Of course they are. As his team is better off without him in the field, he should be given more credit as a DH than he was getting as a 1Bman (though still less credit than that guy who can play replacement level defense). Not hurting your team = good.

This is a pretty easy concept that a lot of otherwise intelligent people have a really hard time accepting. If there's somebody out there who your team can easily pick up to do a better job than the guy you've currently got in the field, then your guy is hurting the team by being there, and would be more valuable if he wasn't playing. Think of Mike Lowell and his 150 games at 3B for the 2005 Florida Marlins. The Marlins could have easily gone down to their AAA club and picked somebody up who would have done a better job at 3B than Lowell; however, due to his reputation and the undying belief that he would somehow "pull out of it," they kept him in the lineup all season... and kept getting killed by him.

Since he was playing worse than replacement level (despite his inexplicable GG), Lowell was hurting his team just by showing up every day... as such, his team would have been better off if he'd injured himself in spring training and missed the entire season. Since his team would have been better off if he'd just missed the season, the fact that he actually played made him lose value relative to what he would have had if he hadn't played. As such, he was (or would have been) more valuable on the bench than he was in the field. I don't see why this is such a hard concept.


I don't give alot fo credit merely for showing up, but being available to play and having a team willing to play you does have some value - even if you are a poor fielder.

Except that it really doesn't. Can have negative value.

Think of David Cone for the 2000 Yankees. In 2000, the Yanks kept trotting Cone out there every 5 days despite the fact that it was OBVIOUS that he was just terrible... based on his reputation, name, and the fact that they figured that sooner or later he'd "pull out of it." The Yanks would have been much better served to trot Ramiro Mendoza out every fifth day... but they didn't, because they mistakenly believed that they were better off with Cone.

As such, if Cone had been run over by a bus during spring training in 2000, the Yanks would have been BETTER OFF, and as such, Cone would have had more personal value... because the mere fact that he played gave him negative value, and took away from the value he'd accrued earlier in his career.

Similarly, when Thomas was in the field, he was having negative impact, and hurting his team... taking away from the value he added with his bat, and making his total value lower. When he stopped playing the field, he stopped having that negative value, and just kept on right where his offensive value was.

[csh19792001]

You keep saying team, team, team. We're talking about individual player value/skill/greatness.

Frank Thomas is and always was godawful in the field. Explain how this made/makes him a greater and/or more valuable baseball player, as an individual.

[538280]

You keep saying team, team, team. We're talking about individual player value/skill/greatness.

If value isn't value to the team then what is it? "Individual value" means value contributed by that individual player to the team. What else can value be contributed to? It is undoubtedly true that Thomas was more valuable to his team by being a DH. ElHalo is right on this one.


Frank Thomas is and always was godawful in the field. Explain how this made/makes him a greater and/or more valuable baseball player, as an individual.

If you want to rate players on individual greatness, knock yourself out. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to do it is to assess the player's effect on the standings, or value to his team.

[ElHalo]

Frank Thomas is and always was godawful in the field. Explain how this made/makes him a greater and/or more valuable baseball player, as an individual.

I thought I did.

Assume for one second statistical models are accurate, and you can get an accurate measure of a player's value based on them.

Let's say Frank is, at his peak, 100 runs above replacement on offense, and fifty runs below replacement on defense, giving him an agregate of +50 runs. Then, let's say he stops playing defense, so he stops giving up those 50 runs. All the sudden, his aggregate value is +100 runs. He got more valuable, as an individual player, by not playing defense.

You don't gain value over somebody else by becoming a worse defender. Alfonso Soriano doesn't gain in value because he's a poor fielder. However, if you're a bad enough fielder that you're hurting your team just by being there, and then you stop being there... well, you've just increased your individual value relative to what it was before. Not relative to somebody who actually plays good defense, of course... but relative to where you were before, hurting your team? Absolutely.

Or if you want a better example...

Let's say that, starting this season, the Red Sox look at their roster and say... you know what? Alex Cora isn't giving us enough offense at the SS position. Let's put David Ortiz there.

And so Ortiz goes out and plays 150 games at SS.

Would this increase his value as a player? Ortiz is going to be costing them five runs a game; they're NEVER going to win ballgames with him out there playing SS. He's so terrible in field, that it would entirely negate any positive impact he might have with his bat.

As such... wouldn't he be a less valuable player by playing SS? Doesn't that inherently make sense to you? If he's out there giving up runs by the handful, he's making his team worse, and he's having a net negative impact by showing up. Doesn't it make sense that he would be more valuable if he didn't do that?

[538280]

Or if you want a better example...

Let's say that, starting this season, the Red Sox look at their roster and say... you know what? Alex Cora isn't giving us enough offense at the SS position. Let's put David Ortiz there.

And so Ortiz goes out and plays 150 games at SS.

Would this increase his value as a player? Ortiz is going to be costing them five runs a game; they're NEVER going to win ballgames with him out there playing SS. He's so terrible in field, that it would entirely negate any positive impact he might have with his bat.

As such... wouldn't he be a less valuable player by playing SS? Doesn't that inherently make sense to you? If he's out there giving up runs by the handful, he's making his team worse, and he's having a net negative impact by showing up. Doesn't it make sense that he would be more valuable if he didn't do that?

EH, I see your point and actually agree with you. But, would you please stop using these extreme arguments? You use these type arguments so often that no one even cares anymore. They would probably work if you are in a courtroom arguing with another lawyer, because it makes them look bad if they can't reply to your argument and just say "well, that's an extreme", but in this setting they're just sickening after a while. This is the sort of thing that makes you lose credibility with many other members.

[csh19792001]

As such... wouldn't he be a less valuable player by playing SS? Doesn't that inherently make sense to you? If he's out there giving up runs by the handful, he's making his team worse, and he's having a net negative impact by showing up. Doesn't it make sense that he would be more valuable if he didn't do that?

Ok, well, at least for me, all along I've been ranking players in terms of greatness and skill, not strict statistical value. I was under the impression that you were as well, but you can't make a point here without using the concept of "replacement value", so perhaps not..

The fact that Ortiz can't even play the weakest defensive position on the field servicably, let alone ever dream of playing a full season at SS doesn't make him a greater baseball player. It just evidences that he's a one dimensional slug who is exploiting the DH rule.

If the DH had existed in the National League for the past 130 years, or the AL for its first 73, the record books would look one hell of a lot different. Hundreds of great hitters never had the chance to augment their rate stats and pad their career totals.

The DH is almost always a position where you put the guy with some glaring weakness. It isn't something admirable to be a full time DH who can't be trusted not to lose games by actually fielding like the rest of his team.

[ElHalo]

The DH is almost always a position where you put the guy with some glaring weakness. It isn't something admirable to be a full time DH who can't be trusted not to lose games by actually fielding like the rest of his team.

And I'm not saying it's admirable. I'm just saying it's better than having the guy actually out there on the field hurting his team.


EH, I see your point and actually agree with you. But, would you please stop using these extreme arguments? You use these type arguments so often that no one even cares anymore. They would probably work if you are in a courtroom arguing with another lawyer, because it makes them look bad if they can't reply to your argument and just say "well, that's an extreme", but in this setting they're just sickening after a while. This is the sort of thing that makes you lose credibility with many other members.

Chris,

I've had other people tell me this as well, but I quite honestly just don't see what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with my credibility... it's a type of logical argument that's used almost every day to make points. It would be like me saying "don't ever mention statistics, because that just hurts your credibility"... uh, it's a perfectly reasonable way of making an argument, how am I not supposed to use it?

Maybe it is a lawyer thing. In the law, you have to use this kind of reasoning quite literally all the time... 90% of the time, laws are based on applied hypotheticals that have little to nothing to do with the way things actually happen in reality, but that are applied to make sense of a particular set of facts.

Maybe it's just because I'm a lawyer, but this is the type of reasoning that's always used in the law, and so it just makes natural sense for me to use it in other walks of life.

And in this context, it makes perfect sense. Everybody can grasp the concept that Ortiz would be less valuable if he played SS full time... it's just inherently logical that, as an atrocious defensive player, he'd give up more runs than he saved, and would hurt his team more by playing SS than he would by not playing at all. Since that's an easy concept to grasp, I give that example, and then just transfer it to 1B... you take the extreme, where the concept makes perfect sense to everybody, and then apply it to the actual set of facts, where all the same principles hold true, just to a lesser extent. Since everybody could understand the logic of the extreme example, where the answer is clear cut, using it helps to clarify the actual example, where the thought process is the same, but the answer might not be quite as obvious. It's a very sound logical technique, and I don't understand why people have a hard time with it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Chris,

I've had other people tell me this as well, but I quite honestly just don't see what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with my credibility... it's a type of logical argument that's used almost every day to make points. It would be like me saying "don't ever mention statistics, because that just hurts your credibility"... uh, it's a perfectly reasonable way of making an argument, how am I not supposed to use it?
I have to admit ElHalo is right on this one. I have an example from my work. For several years I work for a major aerospace company that manufactured geosynchronous telecommunications satellites. There was a senior engineer who was well versed in all aspects of satellite design, test, and assembly. This guy knew his stuff. Whenever I had a question, I would ask him. However, he had a sardonic abrasive personality. He was condenscending and rude most of the time. Then they made him a supervisor. This was a wrong decision my upper mangement. He alienated and turned off all of his subordinates. They guy just couldn't manage. Though he had more responsibility he was accomplihing less for the company. Eventually he was returned to his prior position when he could do the most good for the company. Though he had less responsibility he was accomplishing more for the company. And that is how I see Frank Thomas.

[ElHalo]

EH, I see your point and actually agree with you. But, would you please stop using these extreme arguments? You use these type arguments so often that no one even cares anymore. They would probably work if you are in a courtroom arguing with another lawyer, because it makes them look bad if they can't reply to your argument and just say "well, that's an extreme", but in this setting they're just sickening after a while. This is the sort of thing that makes you lose credibility with many other members.

I think I have finally figured out the problem here. The problem is that I think like a lawyer, and since nobody else here is a lawyer, you guys don't.

Law is all about hypotheticals and maybes and situations that could never arise in reality. I'll give you a real quick example that a first year law student might run into.

There's a stupid rule in property law called "The Rule Against Perpetuities." It states that an instrument conveying property (a will, a deed of sale, a gift, anything like that) is invalid unless every interest it creates must necessarily vest within 21 years of the end of a life in being at the time of transfer.

That sounds overly complicated, and it is, but in simplest terms, as it applies to a will: Unless everybody who's entitled to get something under my will gets it within 21 years of the death of the last person alive when I die and the will goes into effect, the whole will is invalid.

The example of this I got on my property exam in law school was: I set up a trust fund that generates income. In my will, I say that all the income is to go to my son Dave (my only child) until he dies; then the rest of the trust is to be split equally between my nieces and nephews. Simple enough.

At the time of my death, I have one brother (Joe) and one sister (Joan), who each has one kid, and I have a 90 year old mother. My will is completely invalid as a violation of the rule against perpetuities. How come?

Imagine this possibility: A week after my death, my 90 year old mother gets pregnant (not physically possible, probably, but under the law you have to consider it as a legal possibility... if your mind just refuses to accept this, then imagine the possibility that my 90 year old mother gets lonely and adopts a one day old infant). Lets call this kid Richard. Immediately thereafter, my brother, sister, and both of their children die in a plane crash, along with my son Dave.

For the purposes of the rule against perpetuities, Joe, Joan, and Dave are the "lives in being." Richard, since he wasn't alive at the time of my death, is not a life in being for the purposes of the rule.

Now, my will says that, after Dave's death, the trust is supposed to go to all of my nieces and nephews. However, in this case, Richard's children are included in my nieces and nephews... and Richard's children can't be legally determined until he's dead, which could be a hundred years down the road, but will probably at least be more than 21 years down the road. Since Richard's children would have an interest in the trust, and Richard's children wouldn't be discernable until, in this hypothetical, a period of more than 21 years after the end of a life in being, my will violates the rule against perpetuities, and is void.

Now, mind you... it's not that my will is void because all of this stuff happens. In order for it to be invalidated, none of this stuff actually has to happen. The will is invalid merely because of the remote possibility that any of this stuff could happen.

That's the way the law works, and that's the kind of logic that's been pounded into my skull for years and years... so it makes perfect sense to me to use it in any kind of argument, legal or not. I guess that the rest of you, not having been subject to the same kind of intellectual travesties as me, just aren't as used to it.

[digglahhh]

Chris and EH,

You guys are two of my favorites here. Let me try to reconcile this chasm.

Logically, EH is correct in his assertion. I have made the same assertion. And let me also state that it is unfair, IMO, to give a guy who plays DH an extra penalty after looking at his stated value, especially when using WIn Shares, etc, for being a poor fielder because he is already "penalized" by not being able to accrue defensive value. We don't want to punish him twice. I have made this same argument in regards to David Ortiz before.

With that said, I don't know if EH's point is particularly germane to essence of this poll. The opportunity to DH does/did not exist for most players. By the same token, we can nullify Ted Williams' bad defense based on the hypothetical that if we just DHed him it would be a non-issue.

Frank Thomas was able to take advantage of the DH and, in truth, boost his actual value in the process, by mere circumstance. However, the boost in his value was not due to his actual abilities to play, it was in fact, due to his inability to do certain things. Being bad in the field and then being a DH, two negatives don't make a positive.

Value and greatness are not the same thing. Frank Thomas's boost to his overall value is real, but because it was not a function of his own skills, I don't think it is fair to give him credit for it, in this type of poll. If it helps his WARP or whatever, that's fine by me, as you have to understand the texture of those numbers anyway.

Regarding extreme hypotheticals, EH:

With all due respect, the paradigm of argument that relies upon extreme hypothetical is characteristic of lawyers. Those arguments are also often the apotheosis of the problems with lawyers, and the law. Extremes are supposed to strain the underlying premises, and truisms that drive them. Extremist argument is a clever way of subverting the real issues involved. In terms of the law, it leads to focusing on cracks in semantics to create loopholes, and overturning statutes based upon rhetorical considerations that are often in opposition to the vastly more important "spirit of the law."

I believe a true rhetoritician is like a poker player, the cards (or case) don't matter. When at his best a speaker/author can convince somebody of an argument they don't agree with or want to believe. The extremist argument is like the "all-in" or the big bluff, its an effective tool against the plebians, but the pros see right through it.

[csh19792001]

Frank Thomas was able to take advantage of the DH and, in truth, boost his actual value in the process, by mere circumstance. However, the boost in his value was not due to his actual abilities to play, it was in fact, due to his inability to do certain things. Being bad in the field and then being a DH, two negatives don't make a positive.

Value and greatness are not the same thing. Frank Thomas's boost to his overall value is real, but because it was not a function of his own skills, I don't think it is fair to give him credit for it, in this type of poll. If it helps his WARP or whatever, that's fine by me, as you have to understand the texture of those numbers anyway.


Thank you for articulating the essence of my argument.

People here want to turn a massive skill defecit into something that somehow makes someone a greater baseball player. That's specious.

[538280]

Thank you for articulating the essence of my argument.

People here want to turn a massive skill defecit into something that somehow makes someone a greater baseball player. That's specious.

No, you're being specious. Value is value is value. If Frank Thomas was having a better effect on the standings by serving as his team's DH (he was), then he deserves his due credit for that.

Rating players on greatness will only get you caught up on what actually defines greatness. Rating them on value is the much better way.

[leecemark]

--If a player is more valuable not playing the field that can only be a negative. I can't see any reasonable way to spin that lack of abilty into a plus in evaluating the player.

[BoSox Rule]

It doesn't make him more valuable than other players, it just doesn't make him less valuable than he would be if he was worth -20 runs. It doesn't hurt him compared to what he would actually do, but it doesn't make him better than a similiar hitter with average defense.

[abacab]

We're all rational people here. We have our own rules for ranking players, and we're free to break our own rules if something doesn't make sense. If I try to rank players on value instead of ability, and even if I accept the premise that Thomas was more valuable because he could DH (which I don't completely accept, but anyway), I think I have the liberty to make a subjective adjustment there. To say that Thomas being horrible in the field made him somewhat more valuable might be true, but it shouldn't allow him to rank higher - that's just nonsensical.

[ElHalo]

Rating players on greatness will only get you caught up on what actually defines greatness. Rating them on value is the much better way.

This is kind of the whole point... of COURSE you want to argue about what actually defines greatness. Who wants to only argue about things when everyone agrees about the terms of the argument, and everyone agrees about how you go about implementing those terms... it kind of becomes less of an "argument" and more of a "listing," and that's no fun.


--If a player is more valuable not playing the field that can only be a negative. I can't see any reasonable way to spin that lack of abilty into a plus in evaluating the player.

Easiest way I can think of putting it:

The Red Sox have both Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz on their team. They're both TERRIBLE fielders, who absolutely KILL their teams in the field. However, there's only one DH spot, so one of them has to play the field.

If you had Manny Ramirez on your team, wouldn't you be happier having him at DH than at LF? I know I would. I know that he would do more harm than good in the field, and if I got him (which I'd want, because of his bat) I'd want him to stay away from the field at all costs.

In such a circumstance (where I clearly want the guy on my team, but just as clearly would rather have him playing the DH than in the field), doesn't it just by definition make sense that the guy has more value as a DH than as a LF? If I'd rather have him there, isn't he by definition more valuable there?

[csh19792001]

No, you're being specious. Value is value is value. If Frank Thomas was having a better effect on the standings by serving as his team's DH (he was), then he deserves his due credit for that.

Rating players on greatness will only get you caught up on what actually defines greatness. Rating them on value is the much better way.

You still don't get this?

What if he was drafted as a National Leaguer (or had to play in the NL during his prime).

Then his "value" wouldn't be so hot, because he sucked in the field. Period. That makes him worse, not better.

As Mark says, no amount of spin you two can put on this can make it a valid argument. Give it up and more on to your next lost cause.

[538280]

In such a circumstance (where I clearly want the guy on my team, but just as clearly would rather have him playing the DH than in the field), doesn't it just by definition make sense that the guy has more value as a DH than as a LF? If I'd rather have him there, isn't he by definition more valuable there?

That's what I think. But, the counter argument that a negative skill should never be a positive when evalutating player makes sense as well.

Changing the subject a bit, but this is a post I made on Manny recently:

Manny I think gets a worse defensive rep than he deserves as well. I get to watch him frequently and I think he has decent natural defensive skills including a very good arm. His bad rep actually gives him more assists because runners think he's no good out there when in reality he'll throw you out.

His range isn't necessarily the greatest and he does sometimes appear to get bad jumps on balls, probably because he is absent minded. But, his natural defensive skills are pretty good and the humorous image of him as a horrible fielder who has no idea what he is doing is largely exaggerated. He has had by far the best outfield arm for the Red Sox over the past few years.

[ElHalo]

You still don't get this?

What if he was drafted as a National Leaguer (or had to play in the NL during his prime).

Then his "value" wouldn't be so hot, because he sucked in the field. Period. That makes him worse, not better.

You just specifically, 100%, no question, laid out my argument. Like, in its exact terms. The point that I'm making is the point that you just made, in the words you just used.

Read what you just said... "What if he was drafted as a National Leaguer... then his 'value' wouldn't be so hot, because he sucked in the field. Period. That makes him worse, not better."

That's exactly my point. Yes, being a terrible fielder makes him worse as a player. If he was a National Leaguer, his value wouldn't be as high. Just exactly what you just said. I mean, you just very explicitly reiterated to me what my point was.

If a player is bad enough that his terrible fielding hurts his overall value, then it's better off if he doesn't play the field, and if he's stuck in the NL where he has to play the field, his value won't be as high. That's the argument. And you just repeated it to me. So I don't see what we're disagreeing on.

[leecemark]

--Manny has (or had anyway) above average speed and a plus arm. He makes some nice plays on occassion. What gets him (deservedly) a bad rap defensively is that he doesn't always pay attention out there. He gets lousy jumps and doesn't always (or even almost always) make the correct throw. Same thing on the basepaths. He isn't nearly as slow as some other guys and will get you an extra base sometimes, but he will pull some boneheaded plays and make outs for you too. With regards to having he and Ortiz, I give Manny, for all his flaws, a bonus over Ortiz because his team prefers to play him in the field and sit Ortiz.

[ElHalo]

With regards to having he and Ortiz, I give Manny, for all his flaws, a bonus over Ortiz because his team prefers to play him in the field and sit Ortiz.

Boost over Ortiz? Absolutely; he's a better defender and baserunner than Ortiz is (hence his actually playing in the field). However, if he was on my team, I'd rather have him at DH than in LF... and since I'd rather have him at DH than in the field, it logically follows that he'd have more value at DH than in the field. Don't see why this is such a hard concept.

[leecemark]

--We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I give 1B/LF a 10 point boost (to their OPS+ as a positional adjustment), without regard to the quality of their defense (which I rate separately). That is less than any other position, but beats the zero points alloted to a DH.

[ElHalo]

I guess I could best explain it this way... ok, Manny gets the +10 boost to his OPS+ for playing LF. Then you factor in the quality of his defense... which would probably give him something like a -12.

[digglahhh]

Rating players on greatness will only get you caught up on what actually defines greatness. Rating them on value is the much better way.

Right, so that Manny Ramirez can get credit as a quality defender because of his assist totals, when they were really a function of the Jason Phllipses of the world being willing to try to take an extra base on him.

BTW, I don't think Manny is a bad as his rep, but he still plays the easiest left field in the game and if you are not at least average there you are bad. I do agree that Manny's deficiency in the field is due more to his mental inattentiveness and not his physical abilities, he seems competetent when he cares.

[Blackout]

Boost over Ortiz? Absolutely; he's a better defender and baserunner than Ortiz is (hence his actually playing in the field). However, if he was on my team, I'd rather have him at DH than in LF... and since I'd rather have him at DH than in the field, it logically follows that he'd have more value at DH than in the field. Don't see why this is such a hard concept.

then what would you do with Ortizzle?

[mac195]

BTW, I don't think Manny is a bad as his rep, but he still plays the easiest left field in the game and if you are not at least average there you are bad.

Isn't it more, not less difficult to put up good fielding stats as a left fielder in Fenway? The small area means fewer chances, and the wall is a cause of errors.

[digglahhh]

It has the least ground to cover.

I don't care how the lack of chances might influence defensive metrics or anything. I am talking about things that are way simpler.

[mac195]

I am talking about things that are way simpler.

Such as...?

[pretorius]

1) Mel Ott......Great power/average combo. Great longevity. Elite pure hitter
2) Rickey Henderson.....Joe Morgan type of offensive player in a better offensive era.
3) Turkey Stearns...I think the 3rd greatest non-pitching Negro League player
4) Johnny Bench.....greatest white catcher of all-time.
5) Ed Delahanty......Tris Speaker about a decade before Tris Speaker.
6) George Brett....Did not possess a flaw. Great offensive player.
7) Yogi Berra......Lou Gehrig has nothing on Berra in regards to durability
8) Arky Vaughan.....Underrated beyond belief
9) Pop Lloyd......Greatest Negro League infielder ever.
10) Cal Ripken Jr....Eddie Murray at a more important position

11) A. Rod.....is going to eventually crack the top ten probably
12) Ed Mathews.... I may have him undervalued. Overshadowed by teamates
13) Eddie Murray.... A B+ player for about 2 decades
14) Ken Griffey Jr....always overrated. 3rd or 4rth best player of 1990's. Great defensive player.
15) Mule Suttles.....If I had to guess in between Mize and Foxx as a slitter (slugger/hitter)
16) Ivan Rodriguez....Berra jr.
17) Charlie Gehringer.....An elite name. Possessed no weaknesses
18) Cristobal Torriente....I suspect he was alot like Ken Griffey Jr.
19) Joe Jackson....Shortened but outstanding career.
20) Craig Biggio.....Joe Morgan jr.
21) Cool Papa Bell.....Rickey Henderson Jr
22) Roy Campanella...had like a decade of play in N. leagues before having HOF MLB career
23) Wade Boggs.....Had like 6 phenom years. George Brett kinda without pop.
24) Duke Snider....Power overrated. The Manny Ramirez of his day but better within his time
25) Frank Thomas....Offensive juggernaut. As impossible as it seems he probably has had a rougher 2000's then Griffey has.
26) Jackie Robinson...much more then simply a pioneer. Elite second baseman.
27) Hank Greenberg...lost 3 prime years to WWII....kept him from stat milestones.
28) Jeff Bagwell...alot like Greenberg but without war credit.
29) Billy Hamilton....Cool Papa Bell jr
30) Buck Ewing....Considered by many to be the best of 19th century baseball.

[csh19792001]

Read what you just said... "What if he was drafted as a National Leaguer... then his 'value' wouldn't be so hot, because he sucked in the field. Period. That makes him worse, not better."

That's exactly my point. Yes, being a terrible fielder makes him worse as a player.


Maybe we do agree, who knows...in a totally circumlocutious way. :o

So as I see it (and as you lay it out, actually), is that Frank Thomas' value is largely a function of the designated hitter rule, but not his individual greatness, then?

I don't look at someone's greatness as a function of their team or a loophole like the DH; neither would be fair or approaching objective and you have to extricate individual skill/value from team/rule dynamics.

How Thomas would perform in any league, on any team, not just an AL team of the past 30 years.


--We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I give 1B/LF a 10 point boost (to their OPS+ as a positional adjustment), without regard to the quality of their defense (which I rate separately). That is less than any other position, but beats the zero points alloted to a DH.

Which is the only fair way I can see to do it- most comprehensive player measures do it the same way; if you're a Harold Baines and only help your team on one end, you only get only the credit you deserve.

[leecemark]

--Johnny Bench won this one with surprising ease. The top10;
1) Bench 138
2) Henderson 108
3) Ott 98
4) A-Rod 90
5) Lloyd 84
6) Berra 71
7) Mathews 62
8) Jackson 38
9) Brett 33
10) Anson 26
--New one up soon