Greatest Players by Position: Round 6

[dgarza]

Amazing how over rated Rose.

They can't all be Lonnie Smith.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The fact that Delahanty was possibly the MVP and likely the best hitter in the AL in 1902 gives me more confidence that his prior play translates OK. I actually think that league competitiveness was lower for Ruth in 1920-23 than for Delahanty in 1902 because Ruth played with a live ball in a league full of deadball hitters and pitchers. (I may catch flack for that from someone.

Nope. Like the majority of posts on this site, I roll my eyes and move on. You are a smart man and I have faith you know better. The liveball (let's not forget there was one in 1911 and one in the NL in 1930 because they were trying to "create" the next Ruth) helped everyone in all areas. Ruth was able to take advantage of it to such a degree, in power without sacrificing BA, and that is a not a knock on his era, but a tip of the cap to him. The dozens upon dozens of game conditions today are far more beneficial than any live-ball could ever be. To each their own though; paint a broad stroke all you please, but once you've studied Ruth, you'll realize how much he was unlike any other. Call it as you want; Jenkinson dubs it "The Babe Ruth Factor" based on his tiresome, exhaustive, research which proves Ruth faced situations and conditions unlike any player. Or the broad sweeping generalizations and unwarranted inclusion can continue on. It really doesn't matter. The Hollywood John Goodman movie would be right at home on this site sometimes

[brett]

Nope. Like the majority of posts on this site, I roll my eyes and move on. You are a smart man and I have faith you know better. The liveball (let's not forget there was one in 1911 and one in the NL in 1930 because they were trying to "create" the next Ruth) helped everyone in all areas. Ruth was able to take advantage of it to such a degree, in power without sacrificing BA, and that is a not a knock on his era, but a tip of the cap to him. The dozens upon dozens of game conditions today are far more beneficial than any live-ball could ever be. To each their own though; paint a broad stroke all you please, but once you've studied Ruth, you'll realize how much he was unlike any other. Call it as you want; Jenkinson dubs it "The Babe Ruth Factor" based on his tiresome, exhaustive, research which proves Ruth faced situations and conditions unlike any player. Or the broad sweeping generalizations and unwarranted inclusion can continue on. It really doesn't matter. The Hollywood John Goodman movie would be right at home on this site sometimes

Is there something inherently wrong with thinking that 1902 had deeper competitive balance than 1920 though? I am not talking about league offensive rates by the way. Offense can go up because of an imbalance that hurts pitchers and reduces the competitive balance of half of the game. The live ball helped all hitters, but it also threw pitching into turmoil. There were very few dominant pitchers from 1920 to 1940. How many pitchers started before 1920 and were dominant in the 20s and 30s. And its not that the pitchers were hurt by the live ball on an absolute basis, but that they were particularly hurt by the fact that they had deadball mentalities, and deadball stuff in a live ball league.

Offense today helps hitters, but the pitchers are the guys who are best able to deal (not guys who came up dealing with a different game).

My basic premise has nothing to do with Ruth. It has to do with the idea that any time a game changes, for the period shortly after the change, those who are best suited to the change are going to dominate, and those who were more suited to the prior conditions are not going to take AS MUCH of an advantage. It would be like the first guys throwing forward passes in football. On a relative basis they would dominate but they still don't compare to the top passers in a passing league. The only difference is that Ruth does compare to the top hitters in a later league. If Ruth had not taken particular advantage in '20, '21, '23, then why could he not match those seasons in ops+ in '26-'32? Because the other hitters had caught up some.

[Herr28]

They can't all be Lonnie Smith.

I thought this was hilarious! I remember Lonnie making everyone cringe while in LF trying to track down balls, in his St. Louis days. He was a heck of a hitter and base stealer back then, before the coke-induced decline. I was real happy to see him come back with Atlanta, and we caught a Braves v Cardinals game in 1991 with Lonnie back in LF. Made a bad run at a ball and the Cardinals fans all around us gave him a hard time about never being able to make plays out there in left. Maybe all that wasn't really true, and maybe he was a decent LF, and my memory of him is skewed by those first hand stories. Either way, I still like Lonnie Smith, but wouldn't be adding his name for a long time to my list of best LF.

[BigRon]

I thought this was hilarious! I remember Lonnie making everyone cringe while in LF trying to track down balls, in his St. Louis days. He was a heck of a hitter and base stealer back then, before the coke-induced decline. I was real happy to see him come back with Atlanta, and we caught a Braves v Cardinals game in 1991 with Lonnie back in LF. Made a bad run at a ball and the Cardinals fans all around us gave him a hard time about never being able to make plays out there in left. Maybe all that wasn't really true, and maybe he was a decent LF, and my memory of him is skewed by those first hand stories. Either way, I still like Lonnie Smith, but wouldn't be adding his name for a long time to my list of best LF.

He had worse first reactions and ran more bad routes than any ML outfielder I've ever seen in nearly 60 years of following the game. Amazingly, his speed usually allowed him to make some miraculous final correction and catch the ball, often while sliding or falling down.

[drstrangelove]

	G	PA	RBAT	RBASE	RDP	RFIELD	RPOS	RAA	RREP	RAR	WAR
Smith	1613	5952	154	35	5	24	-62	156	179	335	36.3
Rose	3562	15890	368	13	5	-54	-91	241	492	733	76.7


	G	PA	RBAT	RBASE	RDP	RFIELD	RPOS	RAA	RREP	RAR	WAR
Smith	3562	15890	411	93	13	69	-166	421	478	899	97.4
Rose	3562	15890	368	13	5	-54	-91	241	492	733	76.7
										123%

This is Smith versus Rose. I'm not arguing that Smith should be top 10. Just noting that Rose is perennially top 10 and Smith isn't anywhere.

After actually adjusteing for plate appearances and innings played, you'll see that Smith had 43 more batting runs created, 80 more base runing runs created, 8 more DP runs created, 123 more fielding runs created, offset by -75 adjustment for fielding runs. Ultimately, Smith had 23% more runs created per PA.


But thanks to playing a lot more, Rose is considered top 10 and Smith is an after thought. Playing a lot more is obviously more important than being 23% better.

Robin Roberts played twice as much as Koufax and Koufax was about 23% better. Can't wait for that.

[Herr28]

He had worse first reactions and ran more bad routes than any ML outfielder I've ever seen in nearly 60 years of following the game. Amazingly, his speed usually allowed him to make some miraculous final correction and catch the ball, often while sliding or falling down.

Yeah, I was pretty young when he was with the Redbirds, so I didn't realize this as much then. All the old time Cards fans would tell me how ridiculous he looked out there at times, and then there was that series at Busch in '91 when I was able to witness his defense in action. Still liked him as a player though.

[Herr28]

	G	PA	RBAT	RBASE	RDP	RFIELD	RPOS	RAA	RREP	RAR	WAR
Smith	1613	5952	154	35	5	24	-62	156	179	335	36.3
Rose	3562	15890	368	13	5	-54	-91	241	492	733	76.7


	G	PA	RBAT	RBASE	RDP	RFIELD	RPOS	RAA	RREP	RAR	WAR
Smith	3562	15890	411	93	13	64	-166	416	478	894	96.9
Rose	3562	15890	368	13	5	-54	-91	241	492	733	76.7
										122%

What's even more hilarious is that when you actually adjust for plate appearances and innings played, that Smith had 43 more batting runs created, 80 more base runing runs created, 8 more DP runs created, 118 more fielding runs created, offset by -75 adjustment for fielding runs. Ultimately, Smith had 22% more runs created per PA.

But thanks to playing a lot more, Rose is considered top 10 and Smith is considered a joke. Playing a lot more is obviously more important than being 22% better.

Robin Roberts plated twice as much as Koufax and Koufax was about 22% better. I guess Roberts is top 10 and Koufax is a joke!

I thought the other guy's post was hilarious, not your selection of Smith in honorable mention or where ever.

I said above that I always liked him, and he was a darn fine hitter and base stealer. His 1982 season was amazing, and I truly believe he had the talent to keep playing near that level if it hadn't been for the coke problems that ruined a few talented careers in the 1980s. I am on your side with Lonnie being a valuable member of a team, but I do remember him as not being so great a fielder in LF. And like I admitted, most of that came from anecdotal evidence in my childhood, and only 1 series in the summer of 1991 when he made some bad reads on balls hit his way.

Calling Koufax a joke, or trying to make it seem that I would call him a joke based on your pick of Lonnie Smith v Pete Rose (which I couldn't care less about, even if you picked Vince Coleman) is just plain ridiculous. Please don't behave like some of these guys around here that get all upset, it really isn't worth it there Doc. Go call a Lonnie hater's picks a joke, or just remain calm and everything will be OK.

[drstrangelove]

I thought the other guy's post was hilarious, not your selection of Smith in honorable mention or where ever.

I said above that I always liked him, and he was a darn fine hitter and base stealer. His 1982 season was amazing, and I truly believe he had the talent to keep playing near that level if it hadn't been for the coke problems that ruined a few talented careers in the 1980s. I am on your side with Lonnie being a valuable member of a team, but I do remember him as not being so great a fielder in LF. And like I admitted, most of that came from anecdotal evidence in my childhood, and only 1 series in the summer of 1991 when he made some bad reads on balls hit his way.

Calling Koufax a joke, or trying to make it seem that I would call him a joke based on your pick of Lonnie Smith v Pete Rose (which I couldn't care less about, even if you picked Vince Coleman) is just plain ridiculous. Please don't behave like some of these guys around here that get all upset, it really isn't worth it there Doc. Go call a Lonnie hater's picks a joke, or just remain calm and everything will be OK.

Well I must have misunderstood your post. I'm sorry for that. I just edited my post, fwiw. Thanks for replying so I could correct my post.

I'm not angry. And I didn't look at you rankings. My original comment was about Rose being repeatedly top 10 on the forum.

For sake of argument, Rose isn't even top 30 unless you give him a massive LQ adjustment, but if one does that Raines is top 5 (which he clearly isn't being listed as.)

[Herr28]

Well I must have misunderstood your post. I'm sorry for that. I just edited my post, fwiw. Thanks for replying so I could correct my post.

I'm not angry. And I didn't look at you rankings. My original comment was about Rose being repeatedly top 10 on the forum.

For sake of argument, Rose isn't even top 30 unless you give him a massive LQ adjustment, but if one does that Raines is top 5 (which he clearly isn't being listed as.)

No problems! Hey, I like it when guys put players in these top 10s that most people don't! I like to talk about different guys rather than the same old discussions on inner circle Hall of Famers. That has its place too, but I guess I like the underdogs a bit more! Heck, I'd love to place Tom Herr in somewhere at 2B, but that would REALLY bring the dogs out! Thanks for clarifying to keep this a productive discussion! It does get old when some users just start arguing with each other, and I refuse to do that!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If Ruth had not taken particular advantage in '20, '21, '23, then why could he not match those seasons in ops+ in '26-'32? Because the other hitters had caught up some.

Well he did put up a 200 or better OPS+ six times after 1925. Well over 200 in fact (225, 225, 218, 211, 206), while he was declining naturally. We've been swarmed with ballooned up should-be decline seasons in this era thanks to PED's, I think we've lost a little perspective.

So while declining and walking less, the league was walking more, (1920 PA/BB, 12.56 - 1932 PA/BB, 11.05) and yes, I agree that more hitters were taking a Ruthian approach later on. Make no mistake though, the new rule changes helped everyone (1920 AB/HR - 113.77 - 1922 AB/HR - 80.56) not just Ruth. He was playing a liveball game back in 1918 and 1919 which is a testament to him. He didn't need the help. The frenzy he created, which is what the owners wanted to capitalize on, and the changes it helped bring about, were for the rest of the league.

[westfield]

Bonds(10)
Williams(9)
Musial(8)
Henderson(7)
Yaz(6)
Rose(5)
Joe Jackson(4)
Billy Williams(3)
Tim Raines(2)
Delahanty(1)

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I'll probably have to come back and edit this (though the last two times I said that I didn't)
1. Williams- 10
2. Bonds- 9
3. Musial- 8
4. Yaz- 7
5. Henderson- 6
6. Delahanty- 5
7. Delahanty- 4
8. Rose- 3
9. Joe Jackson-2
10. Willie Stargell- 1

[Toledo Inquisition]

1. Ted Williams (10)
2. Musial (9)
3. Henderson (8)
4. Simmons (7)
5. Yaz (6)
6. Rose (5)
7. Goslin (4)
8. Delahanty (3)
9. Joe Jackson(2)
10. Billy Williams (1)

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I'm gonna close this round. Next one will be up later tonight