2016 MLB thread. THE CUBS HAVE BROKEN THE CURSE! Chicago Cubs are your 2016 World Series champions

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Come on, mot********er" 
roll.gif
 
To add onto what @JJs07  just posted, here is their top 10 of all time....
Let's start here: If I did this list again tomorrow, I'd likely change my mind. The easy thing to do would be to just go to the Baseball-Reference all-time WAR leaderboard, plug in the top 10 names and call it a day.

The problem with doing that is we get this: 1914, 1890, 1907, 1986, 1951, 1905, 1954, 1984, 1907, 1897. (And if we extended the list to the top 15, we'd get 1915, 1907 and 1911.)

Those are the dates each of the players began their major league careers, meaning nine of the top 15 players started before the United States even joined World War I -- more than 100 years ago. Yes, I have a problem with that. Does it make sense that the majority of the elite players in the game's long history didn't play against black players, wore baggy wool uniforms and used gloves that look like something you use to take a turkey out of the oven with?

Of course not. So my top 10 list includes players from all across the baseball timeline.

10. Mike Schmidt

He hit just .267 in his career? As Bill James once said, if he'd hit for a higher average, he'd be the greatest player to play the game. Schmidt led the National League eight times in home runs and was first or second nine times in WAR among NL position players. He drew walks, won nine Gold Gloves and played on a lot of good teams. And, yes, this could have been Honus Wagner or Stan Musial or Lou Gehrig or Rickey Henderson or Mantle or Roger Hornsby. This wasn't easy! But none of them had the best cry ever.

9. Greg Maddux

This spot was between Walter Johnson and Maddux (although I was tempted to put Pedro Martinez here because of his unbelievable peak level of performance, the greatest attained by a pitcher), but I went with the recent guy. For his career, Johnson averaged 6.4 WAR per 250 innings; Maddux averaged 5.2. But if you remove Maddux's terrible rookie season and the final two seasons when he was sort of just hanging on, he averaged 5.8 per 250 innings. That's pretty close, and adjusting for the more difficult era Maddux pitched in, I'm taking him over the guy who pitched 100 years ago and basically used one pitch for much of his career.

8. Ty Cobb

Yes, he's an old-timer -- but one whose game would have translated to all eras. He won 12 batting titles in the dead ball era and is one of the greatest base stealers to play the game. Cobb was also a big enough guy -- 6-foot-1 -- that I believe that if he'd come up in modern baseball, he'd have added power to his game. So you have a center fielder who would hit for average, power and steal 50 bases a year. I'd take Mickey Mantle and maybe even Ken Griffey Jr. at their peaks over Cobb, but Cobb had the longevity those two lacked.

7. Alex Rodriguez

Am I comfortable with him in my top 10? No. But this isn't a list of the most beloved player, and the man does have 695 home runs, more than 2,000 RBIs and 2,000 runs, more than 300 stolen bases and 3 MVP Awards -- and Juan Gonzalez stole the award from him in 1996, when A-Rod hit .358 with 36 home runs as a 20-year-old and we all dreamed of what his future would be like.

6. Roger Clemens

He won his first Cy Young Award at 23 and his seventh one at 41. And, no, he wasn't the only old pitcher to be great in his 40s -- see Warren Spahn and Nolan Ryan, for example. He led his league seven times in ERA and a bunch of times in a bunch of other things. If there's a knock against him -- well, other than his Vitamin B-12 shots -- it's that he isn't the first pitcher you'd choose for a big game. His postseason record wasn't as terrible as many have suggested -- 12-8, 3.75 ERA in 34 starts -- but he also wasn't exactly Curt Schilling or John Smoltz.

5. Ted Williams

He's 14th on the all-time WAR list even though he missed nearly five full seasons while serving in World War II and then Korea. He was great enough to hit .388/.526/.731 at age 38. He was also indifferent in the field and on the basepaths and, like Bonds, a general pain in the butt. He also benefited from Fenway -- he hit .361 there, .328 on the road, although with more home runs on the road -- but you can argue that he, and not Babe Ruth, was the game's greatest hitter.

4. Babe Ruth

Blasphemy? Perhaps. No doubt, based strictly on value compared to peers, Ruth is easily No. 1 (plus he pitched!). Here's my issue: How would Ruth's game translate to modern baseball? For example, in 1920 he hit .376/.532/.847 with 54 home runs while striking out 80 times. That's not a lot of strikeouts by today's standards, but in 1920 the AL averaged just 3.0 K's per nine innings. In 2016, that's up to 7.9 K's per nine, an increase of more than 250 percent. If Ruth struck out at the same rate compared to his peers in 2016 as he did in 1920, we'd be looking at 200 strikeouts. He's not hitting .376 striking out 200 times a season. Maybe he'd still be Babe Ruth, but maybe he'd be Adam Dunn.

3. Barry Bonds

People forget that he was on track to become a top-10 all-time player before his alleged performance-enhancing drug use began sometime after the 1998 season. From 1989 to 1998, he averaged 8.4 WAR per season (which included two strike-shortened seasons). He was the best position player in the NL seven times -- through 1998. Then, from 2001 to 2004, he exploded off the charts, putting up numbers we'd never seen before. Considering Bonds' defensive value and speed, however, I can't rate Williams (at No. 5) ahead of him.

2. Hank Aaron

His career numbers at the plate are nearly identical to Willie Mays -- .941 OPS for Mays, .928 for Aaron -- and, like Mays, he was amazingly durable and consistent, aging well into his late 30s. Aaron was a very good right fielder (and certainly would have been a capable center fielder), but Mays was a great center fielder, so ...

1. Willie Mays

... Willie is the easy choice to rank ahead of Aaron. Mays hit for power, average, was maybe the best defensive center fielder in MLB history and one of the game's best baserunners: In 1971, at age 40, he led the National League in baserunning runs added. He was durable, playing 150-plus games for 13 consecutive seasons. So he won just two MVP Awards? Well, he probably should have won eight or nine, as he led the NL in WAR nine times.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone else watch highlights from the early 1900s and think to themselves that modern day hitters would absolutely destroy the pitching that is around during that time?  
 
dland24 said:
Does anyone else watch highlights from the early 1900s and think to themselves that modern day hitters would absolutely destroy the pitching that is around during that time?  
Click to expand...


Looking at it from a nominal POV instead of a real POV which is the wrong way IMO
 
There's no way for me to judge the olden days of baseball. (despite all the lame old jokes)

Best I've seen are Bonds, A-Rod, Griffey Jr, Maddux, and Pedro.

Pujols, Vlad, Randy, and a spot reserved for Trout is probably the next group I'd name. Pujols might even be in the top 5 if I really dug into it.
 
dland24 said:
Does anyone else watch highlights from the early 1900s and think to themselves that modern day hitters would absolutely destroy the pitching that is around during that time?  
Click to expand...

I think the all time great are always great in any era.

it's the depth of talent that is difference.




Technology means we can take a a very good athlete and make him better or more efficient.

back in the early 1900's things were more static I think; it was just the best natural athletes dominating.
 
dmxfury said:
dland24 said:
Does anyone else watch highlights from the early 1900s and think to themselves that modern day hitters would absolutely destroy the pitching that is around during that time?  
Click to expand...

Looking at it from a nominal POV instead of a real POV which is the wrong way IMO
Click to expand...
Stop me if I am putting words in your mouth.....but are you are saying that if we had modern day views of pitching rather than the only view we have from that era, the pitching would appear better to me than it currently does?
 
CP1708 said:
There's no way for me to judge the olden days of baseball. (despite all the lame old jokes)

Best I've seen are Bonds, A-Rod, Griffey Jr, Maddux, and Pedro.

Pujols, Vlad, Randy, and a spot reserved for Trout is probably the next group I'd name. Pujols might even be in the top 5 if I really dug into it.
Click to expand...
you talking about guys at their ultimate peak moments or like career wise "best"
 
perfect example of this is Bobby Orr.

I think Bobby Orr would be the best athlete on the ice in any era, it's just that in the modern era the gap between the 1st line guy and the 3rd line guys athleticism is smaller than ever.



but in the 70's Bobby Orr might as well have been superman compared to a 2nd or 3rd liner. :lol:
 
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
perfect example of this is Bobby Orr.

I think Bobby Orr would be the best athlete on the ice in any era, it's just that in the modern era the gap between the 1st line guy and the 3rd line guys athleticism is smaller than ever.



but in the 70's Bobby Orr might as well have been superman compared to a 2nd or 3rd liner.
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
Not a hockey guy, but I can get down with this logic.

I am curious to hear what your thoughts are on what was written about Babe Ruth in the article.  Kind of goes against your "all time greats are all time greats, regardless of era" argument. 
 
4. Babe Ruth

Blasphemy? Perhaps. No doubt, based strictly on value compared to peers, Ruth is easily No. 1 (plus he pitched!). Here's my issue: How would Ruth's game translate to modern baseball? For example, in 1920 he hit .376/.532/.847 with 54 home runs while striking out 80 times. That's not a lot of strikeouts by today's standards, but in 1920 the AL averaged just 3.0 K's per nine innings. In 2016, that's up to 7.9 K's per nine, an increase of more than 250 percent. If Ruth struck out at the same rate compared to his peers in 2016 as he did in 1920, we'd be looking at 200 strikeouts. He's not hitting .376 striking out 200 times a season. Maybe he'd still be Babe Ruth, but maybe he'd be Adam Dunn.
Click to expand...
This Darren Rovell level of math and logic makes my head want to explode 
roll.gif
mean.gif
 
I feel like Ruth gotta be 1 because they said he was a dominant pitcher as well.

Most of them were before my time and I just read about them. Barry and Alex gotta be top 5 on every list.

I think those older players would still hit the ball today and be stars. They were talented as hell. Not striking out all the time and going for bombs. Would be crazy to watch Ruth today or Mantle.
 
Jewbacca2 said:
4. Babe Ruth
Blasphemy? Perhaps. No doubt, based strictly on value compared to peers, Ruth is easily No. 1 (plus he pitched!). Here's my issue: How would Ruth's game translate to modern baseball? For example, in 1920 he hit .376/.532/.847 with 54 home runs while striking out 80 times. That's not a lot of strikeouts by today's standards, but in 1920 the AL averaged just 3.0 K's per nine innings. In 2016, that's up to 7.9 K's per nine, an increase of more than 250 percent. If Ruth struck out at the same rate compared to his peers in 2016 as he did in 1920, we'd be looking at 200 strikeouts. He's not hitting .376 striking out 200 times a season. Maybe he'd still be Babe Ruth, but maybe he'd be Adam Dunn.
Click to expand...

This Darren Rovell level of math and logic makes my head want to explode :rofl: :smh:
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn't get that logic either :lol:
 
I think its a fair point about Ruth, regardless if you guys do or not.  He was striking out at a very high rate at a time where players werent striking out much at all.  I think it is only logical to assume that if he played in the modern era, his strikeout numbers would be even higher.

Not saying I think he does or doesnt deserve to be #4 on the list.  Just think the logic isnt as dumb as you guys are thinking it is.
 
That's probably some of it but I'm saying we watch video from athletes in (for example) 1960 and compare them to athletes in 2016. That's an impossible comparison. It's like looking at prices from 1960 and compare today without taking inflation into account. It's wrong. A 1.40 gallon of gas in 1960 is way more 'expensive' than a 3.50 gallon of gas today. Even though on a nominal scams 1.40 is less than 3.50


I use the same principle with athletes. Either a 1960s athlete benefits for the genetic increases and science advances that today's athlete has or we need to reduce the generic increases/scientific development of today's athlete and transport them back to 1960. When I look at athletes and ranks that's why I compare them to their era, compare another athlete to their era; then formulate an opinion based on how they did versus their peers. Using the hypothetical arguments of player X in today's world doesn't work unless we give them those advances that the athletes of today enjoy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom