My top 100 players (including pitchers)

[AlecBoy006]

Greatest Position Players of All-Time


1) Babe Ruth

2) Honus Wagner

3) Ty Cobb

4) Mickey Mantle

5) Willie Mays

6) Ted Williams

7) Lou Gehrig

8) Hank Aaron

9) Stan Musial

10) Tris Speaker

11) Eddie Collins

12) Alex Rodriguez

13a) Joe DiMaggio

13b) Rogers Hornsby

14) Joe Morgan

15) Rickey Henderson

16) Nap Lajoie

17a) Jimmie Foxx

17b) Mel Ott

19) Frank Robinson

I agree Ruth at #1. But Chris ain't gonna like A-Rod over Morgan.

[AstrosFan]

It does matter where you place them. That's what many of threads in this section are all about - debating who was greater than whom. If you're giving an opinion, you should 1)expect to get opinions in return, and 2)be prepared to defend your opinion.

The problem with AlecBoy is NOT that he has a lot of opinions that are outside the mainstream. It's that he 1)doesn't back up his opinions with any sort of analysis of the facts, and 2)he runs away when someone asks him to elaborate or provide detail. I'm sure he has the intelligence to do this - but does he have the maturity? Maybe he will one of these days...

I'm not quite sure if I disagree with you here. It doesn't matter where you place certain players as a matter of a factual ranking of them, because there is no such thing. Hornsby over Morgan, for example, is not a fact, it is an opinion.
But the purpose of these rankings is to open up discussion, and if you venture into that, you should be prepared to defend your logic. If that was your point, I agree completely.

[AstrosFan]

I'm not sure what your point is. No one said it his list was illegal and that jail time was warranted. Of course he has a right to place people where he wants. He posted his list on a discussion forum and solicited comments. He's getting comments, mostly critical. He posted his opinion, everyone else is posting their opinions.

I think it's fine to post criticism of his list. But notice Rickey's comment that the list is "insane". Admittedly, that came after my post. But I think criticism should be more about forcing him to defend the logic of his list, which several people have done, rather than simply disagreeing with it, which is boring.

[CTaka]

I think it's fine to post criticism of his list. But notice Rickey's comment that the list is "insane". Admittedly, that came after my post. But I think criticism should be more about forcing him to defend the logic of his list, which several people have done, rather than simply disagreeing with it, which is boring.

I agree. Someone's opinion should not be labeled as "insane" or "rediculous". You may disagree with it and post your reasons for doing so. By the same token, the individual who posted the statement that seems to be in the minority should defend their position.

My objection is that people have taken the time to lay out good arguments as to why they disagree with a position, such as refuting the ranking that had Kaline ahead of Speaker (since reversed), Gehrig, Hornsby, Teddy Ballgame, Mickey Mantle, etc. But despite taking the time to detail a cogent rationale, the response is often a one-liner that doesn't address the issue at all, such as "Kaline had more hits", or "Kaline played longer", or "Kaline had more rbis". It is as if this trumps all the previous arguments that clearly laid out one's position, or the irrelevant one-liner makes it seem as if the responder didn't even read the entire post because they are ignoring 99% of it.

I came to Fever because there are very knowledgeable posters here and I have learned quite a bit. Changed my opinions on a number of players based on the detailed historical knowledgeable that has been presented. These irrelevant one-liners seem particularly aggravating under those conditions. If (hopefully) newbies come to this forum to experience and learn from the depth of knowledge here, how long do you think they'd stay if they saw a statement (which HASN'T actually been posted thankfully ) that said "Campaneris was a better player than Lou Gehrig". Detailed posts followed showing numerous methodologies that have Gehrig as the far superior player, and the original poster responded with "Campaneris was faster." Do you think those folks would stick around and join Fever?

[AlecBoy006]

Well, Campaneris was faster and played a harder position.

[CTaka]

Well, Campaneris was faster and played a harder position.

Would you care to put forth a detailed rationale based on facts and NOT another one liner?

[AlecBoy006]

Hey. I don't think Campaneris is anywhere near Gehrig. But it is factual, isn't it? First Base is the least important position on the field. Shortstop and Catcher are neck and neck for the hardest. Bert stole 649 bases. 7 times in 19 seasons it was over 50. Gehrig stole 102 bases. Gehrig has more triples. But only 16. Is that good enough for you? Or do I have to stand on my hands?

[AlecBoy006]

Actually, I changed my mind. Here are my ten greatest players

1) Koufax
2) Hodges
3) Snider
4) Campanella
5) Babe Herman
6) Jackie Robinson
7) Pee Wee Reese
8) Clem labine
9) Jim Gilliam
10) Adrian Beltre

[RuthMayBond]

Actually, I changed my mind. Here are my ten greatest players

1) Koufax
2) Hodges
3) Snider
4) Campanella
5) Babe Herman
6) Jackie Robinson
7) Pee Wee Reese
8) Clem labine
9) Jim Gilliam
10) Adrian Beltre

Still dodging the truth?
Or in la-la land?

[CTaka]

Hey. I don't think Campaneris is anywhere near Gehrig. But it is factual, isn't it? First Base is the least important position on the field. Shortstop and Catcher are neck and neck for the hardest. Bert stole 649 bases. 7 times in 19 seasons it was over 50. Gehrig stole 102 bases. Gehrig has more triples. But only 16. Is that good enough for you? Or do I have to stand on my hands?

Yes Alec, those are facts. Saying that Campaneris was also hit by a pitch 19 more times than Gehrig is also a fact. But they don't make a case. Nor is it in and of itself a pursuasive argument. But I am glad that you don't actually have Campaneris over Gehrig - almost got worried for a moment.

The point, which I am not sure you are grasping, is that one or two facts don't make an argument. In the case of Kaline versus Mantle, your argument that Kaline was greater was based on a) Kaline had a longer career and b) Mantle won an MVP in 1962 that you don't believe he earned. The longer career is a fact, the MVP award is your opinion. Regardless, I think you see the flaw in basing rankings based on MVP awards. Despite Kaline's longer career, how does that offset the OBP advantage Mantle owns, in both peak and career? Or the slugging percentage advantage Mantle owns, peak and career? Mantle's career OPS+ is 38 points higher. Or Mantle's career WARP-3 of 155.1 compared to Kaline's 129.9. Offensively, there is a world of difference between Mantle and Kaline, that Kaline's longer career doesn't come close to matching. Mantle's offensive winning percentage of .815 dwarfs Kaline's .691.

Defensively, Kaline was a tremendous RF winning 10 gold gloves, compared to one for Mantle. Obviously a GG is just another award like an MVP and I am glad that you no longer base your rankings solely on that, but the fact is that defensive stats show Kaline to be a top notch RF. So how much more value does that add over a good CF like Mantle? Evidently not a lot. Despite the longer career, Kaline has 56.4 defensive WS compared to Mantle's 55.1. That's a whole 1.3 difference. Using defensive WS per 1000 innings, that comes to 3.15 for Mantle and 2.70 for Kaline.

So if you put it all together, Mantle finished his shorter career with 565 total WS, including both offense and defense. Even though Kaline played over 400 more games than Mantle, he finished with 443.

I don't know if you are a proponent of WS or not. I favor it over Total Player Rating, but even using TPR, Mantle finished his "shorter" career with a total of76.1 while Kaline's "longer" career totaled 44.6.

If you want to persuade people, you should lay out a basis for your statement. Don't just throw out a one liner like "Kaline had 592 more hits" and hope that the other posters won't realize that Mantle was far more adept at getting on base than Kaline because the vast majority of posters won't be fooled by those one liners.

And no need to stand on your hands unless you actually type more cogent positions that way....

[Wee Willie]

Hey. I don't think Campaneris is anywhere near Gehrig. But it is factual, isn't it?

Just because you list one or two facts doesn't mean you've made a good attempt to do any analysis or make a good argument.

[AlecBoy006]

Still dodging the truth?
Or in la-la land?

You're just upset no Indian player is in the top ten......


Koufax is the greatest player of all time. look at his clutchness.

[AlecBoy006]

Just because you list one or two facts doesn't mean you've made a good attempt to do any analysis or make a good argument.

Tell me how Gehrig was faster. Just because he had more triples. Campaneris still had more stolen bases (and a lot I might add) Advantage: Campaneris. Campaneris played at SS. Gehrig at first base. All you have to to do at first stand there. Guard the man if there is on. Catch balls. SS: you have to make insane dives. You have to leap in the air to prevent bloopers, If there is a ground ball away from you, you have to run over and make a throw to first. Campaneris did play a harder position. He stole more bases. 649 is alot. And stole plenty more than Gehrig. And even if he was hit by a pitch 19 more times than Gehrig, that still set him up for bases stolen. True, Campaneris didn't have a great batting average. But he was a good singles hitter.

[csh19792001]

You're just upset no Indian player is in the top ten......


Koufax is the greatest player of all time. look at his clutchness.

Forget to sign out and sign in as dodgerfan66 or is this supposed to be funny?

Obligatory 10 characters....

[RuthMayBond]

You're just upset no Indian player is in the top ten......

Speaker whips everyone on your list

<Koufax is the greatest player of all time. look at his clutchness.>

Especially 1955-1960. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Where's Pepper Martin on your list

[AstrosFan]

Actually, I changed my mind. Here are my ten greatest players

1) Koufax
2) Hodges
3) Snider
4) Campanella
5) Babe Herman
6) Jackie Robinson
7) Pee Wee Reese
8) Clem labine
9) Jim Gilliam
10) Adrian Beltre

I can't believe you'd leave off Drysdale, Furillo, Dazzy, and Willie Davis.

[Wee Willie]

Tell me how Gehrig was faster. Just because he had more triples. Campaneris still had more stolen bases (and a lot I might add) Advantage: Campaneris. Campaneris played at SS. Gehrig at first base. All you have to to do at first stand there. Guard the man if there is on. Catch balls. SS: you have to make insane dives. You have to leap in the air to prevent bloopers, If there is a ground ball away from you, you have to run over and make a throw to first. Campaneris did play a harder position. He stole more bases. 649 is alot. And stole plenty more than Gehrig. And even if he was hit by a pitch 19 more times than Gehrig, that still set him up for bases stolen. True, Campaneris didn't have a great batting average. But he was a good singles hitter.

I wasn't talking about that specifically about Gehrig's vs. Campaneris's speed. I'm talking about your overall comparisons of players. You STILL haven't come up with a detailed argument for why Foxx was greater than Gehrig. Are you capable of doing that, or are you going to just run away again?

[AlecBoy006]

Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities. Even if homeruns is a triple crown stat, Foxx had alot more. Foxx was a slightly better fielder, and way better of a power hitter. His 534 homeruns beat Gehrig's 493. Gehrig may have caught up with Foxx if he wasn't dying. Unfortuanetly he did. But Foxx still has more homeruns. Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined, and didn't play everyday. 1995 to 1922. If Foxx played more reguarly, you mean to tell me Gehrig would not have been passed up by him? If Foxx was able to play everyday, he would've surpassed Gehrig in a numerous amount of offensive categories. And even though he was dying, Gehrig didn't have much of a decline. Which could be a possible explanation as to why his numbers look stronger.

[RuthMayBond]

Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities.

No Foxx wasn't, but support why you think Foxx was a better defensive 1B

<Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined>

So we pretend Foxx didn't decline?

[AlecBoy006]

No. Gehrig didn't decline. I understand he has an excuse, but his averages would've went down further, and a chance for Foxx to pass these up.

Well, as far as Foxx being a great defensive first baseman- would you say a .990 fielding percentage is bad? But Foxx could play outfield and third base which could be a difference in that. Foxx was versatile. And I like versatile ball players who can play other positions. Though that may be a factor, Foxx was still a great fielder.

[538280]

Alec, the decline argument doesn't make any sense because even before the decline the difference between Foxx and Gehrig was still essentially the same. Foxx's decline really started at age 32-through age 31 he had a 170 OPS+. Gehrig through the same age had a 184 OPS+. That's a 14 point gap still, Gehrig is still clearly a better hitter and by a solid margin. The decline argument doesn't get you anywhere because even before the decline Gehrig was still better by about the same margin.

[CTaka]

Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities. Even if homeruns is a triple crown stat, Foxx had alot more. Foxx was a slightly better fielder, and way better of a power hitter. His 534 homeruns beat Gehrig's 493. Gehrig may have caught up with Foxx if he wasn't dying. Unfortuanetly he did. But Foxx still has more homeruns. Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined, and didn't play everyday. 1995 to 1922. If Foxx played more reguarly, you mean to tell me Gehrig would not have been passed up by him? If Foxx was able to play everyday, he would've surpassed Gehrig in a numerous amount of offensive categories. And even though he was dying, Gehrig didn't have much of a decline. Which could be a possible explanation as to why his numbers look stronger.

Foxx had 41 more homers than Gehrig based on playing 153 more games. But your statement was that Foxx was a "way better power hitter" than Gehrig. Now I realize you understand that there is more to being a power hitter than that. And that Gehrig's career slugging percentage was 53% higher than league average compared to 44% for Foxx. So given the complete picture, how exactly is Foxx a "way better power hitter" than Gehrig???

And you are considering that Foxx's career OBP was 18% better than league average while Gehrig was 26% higher. Given the importance of getting on base, where did this figure into your comparison?

And when you factor in that Gehrig's offensive winning percentage of .789 is higher than Foxx's .758, where did this figure into your comparison?

I agree that Foxx was the better fielder than Gehrig. I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that he was one of the best in history, but his fielding is generally underrated and he scores higher here than Gehrig.

So how does that offensive advantage for Gehrig compare to the defensive advantage for Foxx? If you add Gehrig's 456.51 offensive WS to his 33.02 defensive WS, that gives him a total of 489.52, combining both offense and defense. If you add Foxx's 46.18 defensive WS to his 386.47 offensive WS, that gives him a combined total of 434.73. And that is despite playing those 153 extra games.

If you prefer TPR to WS, then the tally is 65.7 for Gehrig and 54 for Foxx.

If you read my last post Alec, don't just post one or two facts and feel that tells the complete story. Don't just post home run totals and say that entails your entire argument. Put it all together. If you do, two things become clear: a) Foxx was a great player, and b) Gehrig was greater than Foxx.

[Minstrel]

But I think criticism should be more about forcing him to defend the logic of his list

Well, I think you have to look at this in context. AlecBoy has levied many, many opinions over the last few months and people did ask him to defend his logic, but he rarely does. I suppose that starts to lead to a level of dismissiveness. Because he's not harmlessly rendering opinions...he's pretty aggressive about shoving his opinions down throats, IMO.

[AlecBoy006]

gehrig over foxx is an opinion.

It doesn't make any sense? Gehrig had no decline. If Foxx didn't decline, and Gehrig did, he'd be the better player statistically.

[CTaka]

Well, I think you have to look at this in context. AlecBoy has levied many, many opinions over the last few months and people did ask him to defend his logic, but he rarely does. I suppose that starts to lead to a level of dismissiveness. Because he's not harmlessly rendering opinions...he's pretty aggressive about shoving his opinions down throats, IMO.

And it is also pretty tough for anyone to defend positions that are indefensible, which is why you don't see AlecBoy provide many comprehensive defenses. Its that part about shoving indefensible positions down your throat that becomes tiresome.