Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check all of the following players which you feel were great.

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

  • Colorado Express
    replied
    Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
    How 'tight' is your interpretation of great? Top 10 players? Top 50? HoF worthy?

    All of the players with more than 50% votes are easily top 100 players all-time, and I'd put 5 of them in the top 50 of all-time.
    5 votes for Al Oliver as "great"???

    15 votes for Roger Maris as "great"??? Heck, Roger Maris is a hometown hero for me and I don't even consider him an all-time great!

    Leave a comment:


  • Minstrel
    replied
    Well, I'm not sure how "new" I am, but I've never voted in this poll before, so this was my slate:

    Joe Jackson
    Roberto Clemente
    Mark McGwire
    George Brett
    Robin Yount
    Wade Boggs

    Leave a comment:


  • Appling
    replied
    By my count I voted "yes" on 17 players who drew more than 30% votes.
    I also made 4 "mistakes" -- voting for 4 players who did not get 30% of total votes.

    My "mistakes" were:
    * Rabbit Maranville
    * George Davis
    * Roger Maris
    * Frank Chance (only member of the famous double-play combination who gets my vote -- more for his LEADERSHIP than anything else.)

    If I voted again I would probably not vote for Maris, but I liked him as a player.

    The only player over 30% that didn't get my vote was Sam Crawford.
    Last edited by Appling; 11-19-2006, 01:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Okay, I see where he was quoting me now. Well, seeing that every statistical metric out there sees Morgan being one of the top 25 plaeyrs of all time AT LEAST, I don't think I'll even be thinking he isn't a great player. Hornsby is a great player too, of course. No question.

    Leave a comment:


  • AstrosFan
    replied
    If Chris ever said Rogers Hornsby wasn't great, I'd be first in line to laugh at him. Just like I'd laugh at anyone who said Joe Morgan wasn't great.

    Leave a comment:


  • EvanAparra
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    That Jim Rice is great? Don't bank on it. I think he's overrated and doesn't belong near the HOF. I live here in MA and I see the media "Jim Rice for HOF!" machine all the time, their case is basically "Look at all those pretty numbers and do as best you can to NOT get a real understanding of statistical value!!!!"
    Look at where JRB quoted you again, chris.

    Leave a comment:


  • AstrosFan
    replied
    .277/.330/.459

    That's what Jim Rice's percentages look like away from Fenway. Anyone want a .789 OPS guy in the Hall who wasn't a great fielder? Anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by JRB
    Chris. I predict that's what you'll be saying in a few years.
    That Jim Rice is great? Don't bank on it. I think he's overrated and doesn't belong near the HOF. I live here in MA and I see the media "Jim Rice for HOF!" machine all the time, their case is basically "Look at all those pretty numbers and do as best you can to NOT get a real understanding of statistical value!!!!"

    Leave a comment:


  • JRB
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    I can't believe who I voted for on this poll! If I voted today I would vote completely differently.

    Did I really ever think Joe Morgan was a great player and Rogers Hornsby wasn't? Yuck.
    Chris. I predict that's what you'll be saying in a few years.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    I can't believe who I voted for on this poll! If I voted today I would vote completely differently.

    Did I really ever think Jim Rice was a great player and Robin Yount wasn't? Yuck.

    Leave a comment:


  • mwiggins
    replied
    Originally posted by Colorado Express
    It looks like there are some pretty "loose" interpretations of "great" out there.

    How 'tight' is your interpretation of great? Top 10 players? Top 50? HoF worthy?

    All of the players with more than 50% votes are easily top 100 players all-time, and I'd put 5 of them in the top 50 of all-time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Colorado Express
    replied
    It looks like there are some pretty "loose" interpretations of "great" out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlecBoy006
    replied
    I said yes to Alan, Pee Wee, Shoeless, Scooter, Appling, Winfield, Murray, Brooks, Maris, Molitor, Brett, Yount, and last, but far from least, my favorite baseball player of all time- Wade Boggs!


    EDIT: And Clemente
    Last edited by AlecBoy006; 11-11-2006, 08:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    A much as I would prefer Brett to Clemente, Clemente is a legend. Mere greats do not outpoll legends. Brett was, in my opinion, the better offensive weapon, but Clemente was the better defender.

    Leave a comment:


  • BaseballHistoryNut
    replied
    Could someone explain to me, PLEASE, how Roberto Clemente--the modern-day, but inferior, version of George Sisler, with flashy batting averages but mediocre OBP's (.359 for his CAREER) because he was too much of a man to walk--plus a mediocre SB%, a very mediocre HR% which is not entirely the fault of Forbes Filed, and a TON of throwing errors.... Please tell me how THAT guy gets more votes for "great" than GEORGE F. BRETT?

    Defense? Not clear Clemente has the edge, given all those errors, but so what, anyway? He was a corner OF and Brett was a 3Bman. Brett hit for nearly the same average in nearly as tough a home park, and hit the hell out of the ball. No comparison. Brett has a .10 edge in one of those categories, a .12 edge in the other, with 77 more HR's (despite cavernous Royals Stadium), 290 more RBI's and 167 more runs scored. And which one had Stargell batting behind him? McRae or Otis was a feared hitter, but no comparison rationally can be made between him and Otis/McReae.

    While CLemente's career fielding % was 12% BELOW average for an OF of his time, Brett's was 4% below the average 3Bman of his time, and he had hugely superior "range factors" for 3Bmen. Both carried their teams to a world title, but I see no rational case, at least in the stats, for rating Clemente over Brett/.

    BHN

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X