Multi-Subject Poll:

[KCGHOST]

I am a big fan of the Negro Leagues, but rarely vote on how their players rate, so I passed on the last three players.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not sure why we must. Will you resolve with Sultan that Babe was the best ever?

Don't hold your breath for that one

[Bill Burgess]

I'm not sure why we must. Will you resolve with Sultan that Babe was the best ever?

There will always be exceptions. As a community, Fever has already resolved that Babe was the greatest player ever.

So we have already resolved that particular issue. And all my efforts to overturn that decision have fallen WAY short. And even the best friends/allies give each other the right/freedom to disagree on even the most essential issues. Like you/ElHalo & I have decided to agree to disagree.

All happy, snuggly again, Jeff. Instigator!! El Instigating Provocateur Supremo!!

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Both are hopelessly overrated, and I've been over them both a number of times. Here are some links to old posts of mine:

Thanks Chris.

Hey, not to change topics, but I read on here before about the black ink test and how it's basically meaningless. It doesn't apply proper weight to certain stats, or worse yet, applies way too much to meaningless things such as AB or PA. Has anyone tried to come up with a better black ink test?

It still wouldn't really mean anything in the end, but would be a better gauge to compare players, right. For instance, I was trying to figure out how many black ink points Ruth took away from Gehrig in their careers but the way things are now, I don't know where to begin.

[538280]

No one that I know of has tried to create a better ink test. If I could do it, I'd probably have a weighted ink, where if a player finished first in the league that's 10 points, 2nd 9, 3rd 8 and so on. The only problem is that it's hard to give different categories weights if you do that. I'm not quite sure how to do it, but I'm sure if I really sat down to try to solve the problem I'd be able to do it and satisfy myself.

Anyway, the methology for black ink right now is this:

Batting Statistics
Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
One Point for games, at bats or triples

Pitching Statistics
Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts

Obviously very flawed. Triple crown stats are NOT king, and OBP really should be in there somewhere. You should be able to find out how much black ink Ruth "stole" from Gehrig though. Simply find all categories when Gehrig finished second to Ruth, and add their point total to Gehrig's black ink.

[Bill Burgess]

No one that I know of has tried to create a better ink test. If I could do it, I'd probably have a weighted ink, where if a player finished first in the league that's 10 points, 2nd 9, 3rd 8 and so on. The only problem is that it's hard to give different categories weights if you do that. I'm not quite sure how to do it, but I'm sure if I really sat down to try to solve the problem I'd be able to do it and satisfy myself.

Agreed that a much better method would combine a combo of both black/grey, and be graduated on a progressive slope. Simply must be weighted, as you suggest. A scale of 10 for 1st, etc. sounds very reasonable.

Why don't you take a stab at it and see what you can come up with. Suggestion: replace RBIs with OPS+, and Runs with Relative SLG. Ave.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Batting Statistics
Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
One Point for games, at bats or triples

So in the current form, a player needs to lead his league in order to get the points for that category, right? Or is it top 3?

[Bill Burgess]

So in the current form, a player needs to lead his league in order to get the points for that category, right? Or is it top 3?

Leading your league is black ink. 2nd through 10th is grey ink.

[yanks0714]

Very good poll, Bill. Keeping them altogether like this makes it easier on us posters as well as yourself.

I pretty much selected each as I went through them quickly:

Pie Traynor: Still Top 10, lower half....but I'm wavering thanks to Chris on the Heinie Groh/Pie Traynor thread.

Honus Wagner: Top 5, no question. Fine, he played in a weak league. I don't care. All the others had the same opportunity in that league and didn't come close to matching his feats.

Christy Mathewson: Second half of Top 10. I've dropped him over the years from 3rd to about 7th. He played all his years in deadball without a change in style such as Young and later Johnson/Alexander who did well in 'live' ball; he played for a great team with plenty of offensive and defensive support; he lost more than a few 'big' games, particularly to the Cubs.

Reggie Jackson: Top 50 but in the 40s. Arguably the 2nd best RF'er in American League history. The 'straw that stirred the drink' in both Oakland and New York.

Pete Rose: Above 50th. His lack of a true position I think hurts him. Moved around waaaaay too much. An excellent hitter but lacked power to be a great hitter. That lack of power + his spotty defense hold him back in my book. Forget the headfirst slides..he was never particularly fast.

Joe Morgan: Arguably 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th best 2B ever. I personally rank him 4th but will not argue the point if someone has him any of the 3 spots above. Was a complete ballplayer although I think his D is a bit overrated and his HR power was not great although for a 2B it was very good.

Joe Jackson: Exonerate him and make him eligible for the HOF. I think he took the money willingly...but for the wrong reasons....he wasn't the brightest buld around and was easily misled.

Without certifiable NeL statistics I cannot rank Charleston, Gibson, and Lloyd. fairly. I'd like to but just can't.
If I were forced to give my opinion I would say:
Josh Gibson: Without a doubt Top 5...make that Top 3.
Oscar Charleston: Not Top 10 but would probably be in the Top 20, 11-15.
Pops Lloyd: Probably Top 30, maybe low 40s.

[Ubiquitous]

Thanks Chris.

Hey, not to change topics, but I read on here before about the black ink test and how it's basically meaningless. It doesn't apply proper weight to certain stats, or worse yet, applies way too much to meaningless things such as AB or PA. Has anyone tried to come up with a better black ink test?

It still wouldn't really mean anything in the end, but would be a better gauge to compare players, right. For instance, I was trying to figure out how many black ink points Ruth took away from Gehrig in their careers but the way things are now, I don't know where to begin.

Death to ink tests!!!

Ink tests basically measures conventional sluggers versus conventional sluggers that played at the same time and in the same league and in similar fielding positions. Its completely meaningless when comparing players from different timeframes or different leagues or playing a non slugging firstbasemen like role such as catcher, lead-off SS or #2 second basemen, or even say a high OBP #3 hitter like Alomar or Gwynn.

If you want to compare Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth and see who dominated their league more its okay. IF you want to compare Lou Gehrig and Rickey Henderson and see who dominated their league more its meaningless.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Death to ink tests!!!

Ink tests basically measures conventional sluggers versus conventional sluggers that played at the same time and in the same league and in similar fielding positions. Its completely meaningless when comparing players from different timeframes or different leagues or playing a non slugging firstbasemen like role such as catcher, lead-off SS or #2 second basemen, or even say a high OBP #3 hitter like Alomar or Gwynn.

If you want to compare Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth and see who dominated their league more its okay. IF you want to compare Lou Gehrig and Rickey Henderson and see who dominated their league more its meaningless.

WHOA little buddy!!! Give me more credit than that. I never said you could compare players with the current ink test. I understand it's rather meaningless, even if were done "the right way." Still though, something about the idea of it intrigues me; that's why I wanted something that didn't include bogus weights on meaningless stats like AB, or triples being worth the same as an RBI, or whatever.

I know it's not for comparing players, and I wasn't comparing Gehrig and Ruth using it. As sort of a trivial exercise, I was just curious to see how much black ink Gehrig would have had if Ruth weren't around. And in trying to do so, I realized how jacked up the current black ink test was. No offense taken Ubi, I understand your position on black ink and I agree with it.

[Ubiquitous]

I never said you didn't understand what ink tests are. We all have our pet-peeves, you have Babe Ruth's corked bat. I have ink tests and people thinking Frick-Spinks award winners are HoF'ers.

As for ink tests you probably were not here when they first became really big part of the conversation around here. It was ink test this, ink test that therefore A is better then B yada yada yada. Bleck

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I never said you didn't understand what ink tests are. We all have our pet-peeves, you have Babe Ruth's corked bat. I have ink tests and people thinking Frick-Spinks award winners are HoF'ers.

As for ink tests you probably were not here when they first became really big part of the conversation around here. It was ink test this, ink test that therefore A is better then B yada yada yada. Bleck

Ok, now I understand your reaction upon the first sight of the words..BLACK INK

Now I know one of YOUR buttons; lookout !!!

[Cyclone792]

Thanks for the poll, Bill.

I'll post my responses so people can gripe accordingly

• I rank Traynor exactly 20th at third base.
• I rank Wagner 3rd all-time.
• I rank Mathewson 6th all-time, though I'm highly contemplating dropping him to 8th behind Maddux and Seaver.
• I rank Reggie approximately 38th all-time. My list starts getting shaky once I get past the top 30 or so (haven't looked at them much in-depth past that point).
• I rank Pete 27th all-time.
• I rank Morgan 3rd at second base.
• I support reinstating Jackson and banning Comiskey.
• I rank Gibson as the greatest catcher of all-time.
• I rank Charleston 16th all-time.
• Yikes, I voted wrong on Pop Lloyd I rank him 29th all-time, but voted that he was outside my top 30. Bill, if you're able to make edits to poll results, feel free to make that change.

[538280]

So in the current form, a player needs to lead his league in order to get the points for that category, right? Or is it top 3?

To accumulate black ink, they need to lead the league. There is also the gray ink test, which is measured the same way as black ink but to get points you finish top 10 in the categories rather than just first.

Personally I don't care for either of them, don't use them in my rankings. I certainly would reccommend you do the same.