Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multi-Subject Poll:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • philkid3
    replied
    I ranked third basemen a while ago, but never wrote it down. I had Traynor around 6-8 I believe.

    I currently have Honus Wagner 6th among all players, behind Mantle, Mays, Williams, Bonds and Ruth. I can easily put him ahead of Mantle on a good day, though.

    Pitcher rankings are hard for me, but I don't have Mathewson top five.

    I put Reggie Jackson MUCH lower than most people. Right now I have him between 60 and 65, and the only reason I have him that high is because of how much a lot of people here respect him.

    I have Pete Rose around 50, on the lower side of things, but still not top 40.

    I go back and forth on my top two secondbasemen, but Morgan is one of them. He's definitely top three.

    I didn't vote on the Negro League players as I don't know what to do with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Can anyone find it in themselves to vote on this? Please?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    I'd like more voters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by LouGehrig
    Dear Bill,

    I am simple and try to keep things simple.

    The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:
    Thanks, Lou! So much. I like that you're a traditionalist, like me. So few of us left! Old school LIVES.

    Bill Burgess

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by LouGehrig
    Dear Bill,

    I am simple and try to keep things simple.

    The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:

    2B Hornsby
    Lajoie
    Mr. Robinson
    A top 3 without Collins or Morgan

    <3B Schmidt
    Robinson (not MR. Robinson, simply Brooksie)
    Traynor>

    A top 3 without Mathews or Brett

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by Pghfan987
    As far as I am concerned, the two had virtually identical careers in terms of length. While in the Negro Leagues, it is not like Jackie was a car salesman- he was still playing baseball. And if EVER someone deserved points beyond what is visible on the stat sheet, it is Jackie, IMO.

    My top 2Bman:

    1) Rogers Hornsby
    2) Eddie Collins
    3) Napoleon Lajoie
    4) Jackie Robinson
    5) Joe Morgan
    6) Charlie Gehringer

    Mark
    I believe Jackie only played one season of Negro League basball in 1945 and it was only about 50 games.

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    replied
    Dear Bill,

    I am simple and try to keep things simple.

    The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:

    1B Gehrig
    Sisler
    Foxx

    2B Hornsby
    Lajoie
    Mr. Robinson

    3B Schmidt
    Robinson (not MR. Robinson, simply Brooksie)
    Traynor

    SS Wagner
    Rodriguez
    Banks

    OF Ruth, Speaker, and Cobb
    Jackson ("Okay kid, it ain't so"), DiMaggio, and Williams
    Musial, Mays, and Robinson (Skipper Frank)

    C Dickey, Berra, Bench

    P Johnson (not the one who should retire)
    Mathewson
    Koufax
    Grove
    Alexander

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Several of these selections are right about where I pick these guys. Morgan's 3rd or 4th, Reggie Jackson is 49-51, Charleston's right around 10, Lloyd might be top 30, but I choose to be conservative, Mathewson's 5th or 6th.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by Mattingly
    I've just voted based upon what little I may know about those players.

    How do we tell who has voted for which players, since this is a public poll?
    Thanks, Brad. Simply click onto the numbers on the right side. It will then reveal the names of the offenders.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    I've just voted based upon what little I may know about those players.

    How do we tell who has voted for which players, since this is a public poll?

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    I suspect he very well may be, but I have nothing to go by that would warrant an absolute spot. It's unfortunate I know. My heart knows he belongs, but my head won't let me. I was looking for a third option regarding Negro Leaguers that would express that viewpoint, but there wasn't. So I just chose the "no" option.
    This is the same as my line of thinking. If one leads with the heart or emotion Josh could very well be top 3. If logic rules I see no way he can be given an exact or near exact position all time. It never happened, through no fault of his own he never played MLB. He belongs on the list exactly where I do not know. How do we know, how do we judge when it never happened. How do we measure his worth, his position, word of mouth, reputation is not enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Would anyone like to discuss how John Lloyd got so low-ranked? I don't bring his name up too often, because it seems that not too many feel comfortable discussing Negro League players.

    But I really feel disappointed in his continued low profile on Fever. I tried to build up his name recognition a couple of years ago, but stopped due to a nebulous feeling of resistance.

    Is the resistance waning somehow, over time? Do you think it ever will?

    Not trying to be argumentative or 'difficult'. Just curious.

    Bill Burgess

    Leave a comment:


  • The Big C
    replied
    I just now did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Has everyone voted?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    I must compliment you, though, if you were indeed calculating relative stats in 1965, before anyone really even knew what they were and before the first real comprehensive Baseball Encyclopedia (1969). And you say you're not a stat person!

    Still, though, I would like it if you tried to revise your chart, adding in more modern seasons post 1965. From just the first few years after you made your chart, here are some great seasons that come to mind that really should be on your chart:

    F.Robinson '66
    Yastrzemski '68
    McCovey '69
    R.Jackson '69
    Bench '70
    Allen '72
    Stargell '73

    That's just a starting point.
    Chris,

    Time to fess up. In 1965, I had chosen all the years I thought were really fantastic. Selected them was not hard.

    Started with BA, then hits over 220/season, and most of them were famous. I went through lists, looking for seasons where someone led his league in a lot of categories.

    Also, I didn't know about relative stats until I got my interest back in baseball sometime in the mid 80's. I didn't follow baseball from 1966-mid-80's. When I read Bill James books, I learned about relative stats, and how to compare eras. So I did the relative stats in the 80's, but when I found Fever in 2003, I used baseball-reference to check my relative numbers.

    Because, if I'm not mistaken, baseball-reference used league numbers which are indexed for home parks. So they are not "pure".

    I do have Yaz's 1967 season. Do you think his '68 season is better.

    I have an idea, Chris. I am right now busy doing my photos thing. Why don't you look up all the post-1966 seasons and add them to my chart. How's that?

    I am NOT a statman. I use TRADITIONAL stats. I now consider relative stats traditional, just like SA, Onbase ave. I'm now absorbing OPS+ as one of my traditional stats. Doesn't require a formula. Know what I mean.

    And for pitchers, ERA+ and relative onbase ave. are my new "traditional stats".

    I don't think that makes me a stat guy. But you must understand, Chris. Every single traditional historian/researcher type, MUST use stats, whether they like it or not.

    We call this the History Forum, but have you noticed that every single one of us use numbers profusely. Some just use more than others, and some use high-powered formulas. Some folks are just naturally comfortable with math skills. Are not intimidated. I, regrettably, am not a member of this group.

    I think we are nicely positioned between the statmen and the non-statmen. And I sometimes have a challenge keeping the two camps from throwing rocks at each other, and lobbing verbal hand grenades at the other camps trenches. I have made a commitment to this site. We will have peace. We will get along. And both sides have a place here, and we do not coerce the statmen to stay in the Stats Forum. We realize it's more fun to argue in the History Forum. And we like that and can accommodate lively exchanges, and even fierce lobbying of one's opinions. We simply do not let anyone insult anyone else, regardless.

    Oh, and BTW - you're still wrong about Babe Herman. See how many modern seasons you can find that match his stat line of relative stats. Bet there won't be too many. Some yes, but not lots.

    Bill Burgess
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-19-2006, 03:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X