Why is ranking players the dominant theme on the history forum?

[Jackaroo Dave]

This is an honest question, not a challenge.

It seems to me that at the end of the day, when all is said and done, it's important to decide whether, for example, Aaron or Mantle is the better player. But it also seems to me that there are many other historical issues of interest, some of them necessary preliminaries to ultimate questions of value.

Today (7/24/11) about 2/3 of the the threads concern some kind of ranking or ultimate greatness theme. I guess some arise from projects designed to get a consensus, which attract and give rise to others. But still . . . that seems like a lot.

For me, the value of these threads is real but oblique:

1. Each ranking carries with it an implicit theory of value, usually a theory of how games are won and lost, unless the writer is unusually candid about subjective preferences.

(For example, if I did rank players, I'd prefer Kaline to Yaz, though Yaz had a higher peak and more career value--because Kaline had a higher ratio of "good" or "very good" years. It's more an aesthetic judgment than anything else.)

2. The similarities and contrasts of compared players often highlight aspects of their play that might not otherwise attract notice.

3. In arguing for or against a player, the writer may bring up little-known or long-forgotten characteristics.

These are all good reasons for reading or writing, but the ranking genre isn't intrinsic to them.

What's the payoff for you in ranking players and reading others' rankings?

[fenrir]

Ranking players is fun, but I'm starting to do it less and less because I'm realizing that comparing players from completely different era's is hard to do. Stats do not tell the whole story, they need to be taken into context. For instance, Nobody truly knows who is the better player between Gehrig or Pujols. Nobody knows whether Walter Johnson was truly better than Greg Maddux. It's fun to debate, but in the end it's extremely subjective.

[EnterSandman]

It's just for fun, as are all forums and baseball discussion generally. I like having statistical discussions.

<<< Stat Nerd

[9RoyHobbsRF]

i noticed that too

everything has to be a ranking or a vote

who cares what others think

i im interetsed in history not your personal biases and rankings

i brought the same subject up a few years ago

[EnterSandman]

i noticed that too

everything has to be a ranking or a vote

who cares what others think

i im interetsed in history not your personal biases and rankings

i brought the same subject up a few years ago

I typically learn about players and history in the process. I'm not just looking to criticize everyone that disagrees with me.

It's also fun to just discuss this stuff. I'm not going to hate you for your personal opinions; I may question them, but isn't that just in the good spirit of the forum?

[9RoyHobbsRF]

PS i think the nice mod for this forum encourages "debate" to stir up activity and my response would be you can have good debates without having to always have a ranking

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Ranking players is fun, but I'm starting to do it less and less because I'm realizing that comparing players from completely different era's is hard to do. Stats do not tell the whole story, they need to be taken into context. For instance, Nobody truly knows who is the better player between Gehrig or Pujols. Nobody knows whether Walter Johnson was truly better than Greg Maddux. It's fun to debate, but in the end it's extremely subjective.

perfectly said

and nobody knows over a 700 PA season if someones 35 home runs were actually more meaningful than someones 31 home runs, it depends on the game situation, the opponent, the pitcher etc,
I have only seen the lame "things tend to even out" reply

and when I see so and so had a 3 point higher WAR I want to gag

[westsidegrounds]

, it's important to decide whether, for example, Aaron or Mantle is the better player.

It isn't, really. Besides, "better" is situational and changes with every pitch.

[EdTarbusz]

It shouldn't be since it really isn't history.

[JR Hart]

Ranking players is fun and we learn a lot. I like all the historical threads like the Oliva and Ruth thread, where we just talk about players. Baseball history is great.

[leewileyfan]

I believe it is both history - and fun. I participate because some threads remind me that one is nevr too old to learn something new. For example, these recent exchanges [on best right-handed hitter thread] have awakened in me an entire new perspective on the relative greatness of Henry Aaron.

Personally, I believe that MLB, like most human beings, leave behind a legacy of some sort. I see it as the entirety of their legacy, their player "biography" that they leave behind, that makes the comps literally a part of baseball history.

I generally prefer this "legacy" approach to peak or whatever career slice others may care to take; but that's just fodder for discussion and debate. Because of this thread, I'm going to tackle the top 15 RHB mentioned a best [more, if mentioned; but I'll cap it at 20-25], using RC/PA, career, but with a wrinkle: It may take a bit of time; but I'll tailor-make it for each player with season-by-season comps to League averages for each season.

Like I said, it's fun, sort of.

[Blackout]

ranking players is fun


except when people try to tell me Hanley Ramirez at his finest isn't better than Honus Wagner

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Yeah I like ranking em too. The Tyruss thread with alltime players at each position is always interesting. I dont know how it couldn't be entertaining.

[Jackaroo Dave]

It isn't, really. Besides, "better" is situational and changes with every pitch.

Certainly stripped of the original context, it isn't. "After all is said and done . . . " is a long ways off. It was actually a diplomatic concession.

[brett]

I think that player rankings and comparisons used to be a vehicle for the more historically knowledgeable to educate us. We'd compare Cobb and Wagner and get lots of discussion about their historical playing careers. We'd rank our top 25 one at a time and get historical arguments about Cobb's baserunning, Ruth's post season performances, their esteem in the eyes of contemporaries, even specific games like Cobb hitting 4 or 5 home runs in 2 games. We'd talk about how Ruth was not an out of shape fat man for most of his career and that he was probably an excellent fielder etc .