HELP!!! -- The greatest players of all-time

You forgot Nolan Ryan.

How the hell does Jeff Bagwell make the honorable mentions and Ryan's nowhere?

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 11:53 AM PST reply actions

Nevermind. I just got it.

You put A-Rod above Babe Ruth on your list. This is obviously a joke.

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 11:56 AM PST up reply actions

The list is in Alphabetical order

DarkAngel hath spoken....

by darkangel01 on Dec 18, 2006 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, you're right.

I didn't notice that. Despite that, there are still some glaring omissions...

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

such as?

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

I think any one of these guys could be put ahead of Eddie Collins, Mel Ott, Cal Ripken Jr., A-rod, or Arky Vaughan. But I think what you have is a pretty good list, although I think it gives a little too much credence to active players, i.e. A-Rod. Not to say that A-Rod isn't a great player but what if his career ended tomorrow? Would he make the list? No way.

Sorry I didn't initially read thoroughly enough to realize that your were making a separate list for pitchers. That creates kind of a problem too though. What about Babe Ruth? Also, would you have a separate list for DHs? Just some thoughts.

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 1:28 PM PST up reply actions

The list is straight by the numbers

no projection, whatsoever. If A-Rod hung them up today, he would rank as the 14th best player ever under this method. He has the third highest WARP3/154 games of any player ever, behind only Bonds and Ruth. The only way he falls off this list is if his performance declines markedly and he plays several more years, dragging down his average significantly. It's hard to see him not finish his career in a way that leaves him among the top 5 by this method.

DiMaggio makes the list if we project for the seasons he missed during WWII, Bench and Rose would both make a slightly expanded HM list. Rose lacked peak and average value, Bench fell just short across the board.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 2:18 PM PST up reply actions

I'm an Angels fan.

I have no idea what WARP3 is. But interestingly it does seem to favor a few former Athletics (wink, wink).

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

nudge, nudge, know what i mean?

by cupie on Dec 18, 2006 3:12 PM PST up reply actions

I'd try to work some Angels in there ...

but I don't know of any system that could get Tim Salmon into it's top 21.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

thems fightin' woids!

He ranks in the top 10 of PHIL

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

panther

by yeswecan on Dec 19, 2006 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

And....

It is only position players - he is going to do pitchers at a later date.

Jimmuscomp

Haloville- Land of the Angels
Homepage

by jimmuscomp on Dec 18, 2006 12:26 PM PST reply actions

ONE OF THE IRONIES OF STATS

is that Babe Ruth SAVED baseball after the blacksox scandal by introducing a power that the gamblers could not control and personifying a quest for glory that did not succumb to the temptations of lowlife game-fixers

...

YOU CANNOT QUNATIFY THAT AS STAT

Without Babe Ruth's breathroughs - as well as Jackie Robinson ... there iare no two players nearly as important.

Flush your stats and look at the game as a social institution not a fucking computer program.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 20, 2006 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

oh but good luck with your list

I will be interested to read it and comment on it.

Shoeless Joe better be on it.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 20, 2006 8:53 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not following your logic

and I just don't get the irony ... which is sad, because I love irony.

I agree that Babe Ruth helped baseball find its way back to full respectability quicker than it otherwise would have, so did Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.

I actually could show it statistically, but I don't feel any need to. No one in the stat-minded feels the need to exclusively rely on stats. My study/ranking is based on a combination of stats, fan opinion and 'intangibles'. Statistical analysis is simply another tool to add to our knowledge of the game. It's not intended to replace subjective analysis.

Baseball is a social institution and a great part of America. But there are about 2500 games played every season and, sadly, there are only 8,760 hours in a year and watching every ball game would take up over 6,000 of them. Given that I want about 3,000 for sleep, we already have a problem, before getting into the demands of my employer and my girlfriend. If we only rely on what we actually witness happening, we're going to end up with a pretty incomplete picture.

I can tell you right now, Babe Ruth will make the top 10. Jackie Robinson and Shoeless Joe won't. Robinson and perhaps Joe too would certainly make a list of the most important players in history -- but that's not what this list is.

I made the decision that for the first round I would only consider MLB performance, as it happened on the field. I'm sure that will ultimately be the source of some controversy. DiMaggio and Robinson both would have been on the borderline of making the first cut, if I had accounted for the years they missed.

Jackson would not have come close to making the cut. He had some great years, but he also had a number of less productive ones (1914,15,18), which cut down on his career total and average. He turned 31 in the middle of his last season, so it's unlikely he had too many high end seasons left in him. I do believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame -- but he's not one of the top ten players of all-time.

by devo on Dec 21, 2006 3:18 PM PST up reply actions

What about Roberto Clemente?

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 18, 2006 2:47 PM PST reply actions

Yep.

That was my first thought too. Any list of all-time greats that doesn't have room for a Clemente, is a list for others to discuss. Count me out.

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 3:10 PM PST up reply actions

His Warp 3

is probably to slow. and I doubt he could he could beat a Level 20 cleric

GMJ step number one in a plan for continued dominance, or step number one in a plan for severe weight loss through explosive vomiting?

by hauldog on Dec 18, 2006 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

Who knows...

with enough hit points and a low enough armor class...

by Higz on Dec 18, 2006 3:37 PM PST up reply actions

you guys seem awfully conversant in geek ...

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

We weren't the ones

coming to another site and talking about WARP 3 and other rating systems. You of Fremont folks able to form an opinion on anything that does not have a number attached to it? I can decipher between two objects without the assistance of a mathematical equation can you?

GMJ step number one in a plan for continued dominance, or step number one in a plan for severe weight loss through explosive vomiting?

by hauldog on Dec 18, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

Yup ...

are you able to construct complex thoughts or is your knowledge limited to physical objects that you can see in front of you?

BTW, are you old enough to have watched Ruth, DiMaggio, Mays, Aaron and Clemente play? Then if you're not using stats, what are you using?

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 4:05 PM PST up reply actions

The ability to read and study

what every single person in the world had to say about them and how feared they were? And yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are old enough to have seen Clemente play.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions

I said and, not or ...

Perhaps a number of folks have first hand knowledge of Clemente -- but that is not going to do them much good when comparing him to Ruth.

Folks tend to write about the most popular and most interesting players. There is some correlation with performance but it really does not tell us much in differentiating the greats.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 4:26 PM PST up reply actions

When you hear biographical accounts

written by people with first hand experience of the game, it counts for a lot more than your whining and bullshit use of obscure stats to justify claims. the more obscure the stat you use to justify one of your stances, the less likely it is that he's deserving of whatever crap you're trying to bestow upon him. all obscure stats tell someone is "it takes ridiculous amounts of research and data to accumulate a justification for person 'x', when there is a very obvious and apparent reason for the justification of person 'y'."

so take your WARP (and yes, I DO know what it is) and your joke of a list and leave.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2006 4:35 PM PST up reply actions

less obscure stats ...

HR
Belle 381
Clemente 240
2b
Belle
389
Clemente
440
Total Bases
3300
Clemente
4492

Clemente clearly has Belle in career counting stats.

Of course, that is because he came to the plate nearly 1000 more times than Belle.

What happens when we divide those total bases by their career at bats?

We get a nifty stat called slugging percentage.
Belle
.564
Clemente
.475

You seem like a relatively bright guy and I don't just mean compared to other Angel fans (I mean it) so I'll do my best to avoid being too much of a patronizing smart ass.

Another important stat:
Walks
Belle
683
Clemente
621

On Base Percentage
Belle
.369
Clemente
.359

RBIs and Runs
Belle
1239 / 974
Clemente
1305 / 1416

per 162 games
Belle
130.4 / 102.5
Clemente
86.9 / 94.3

Stolen Bases
Belle
88/129
Clemente
83/129

Errors
Belle
66 (6.9 per 162 games)
Clemente
142 (9.5 per 162 games)

BTW, I'm certainly not saying that Clemente was not the vastly superior defensive player.

What I am saying is that it doesn't take complicated stats to show that Belle was the clearly superior offensive player.

Clemente was also the clearly superior defensive player. I do not believe that this was enough to balance out Belle's offensive contributions, but I would not say it was unreasonable if you did.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 8:59 PM PST up reply actions

I never said Belle was worse

I simply said that obscure stats are generally obscure for a reason. I won't get into debates on this specific topic because I don't feel strongly obligated to swing one way or the other.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2006 9:42 PM PST up reply actions

my mistake ...

confused you with stirrups there for a second ...

WARP3 is only obscure to fans who don't bother to look farther than batting average and RBIs.

Regardless, when compared to a player who I'm sure you would not suggest is among the top 20 of all-time, using only traditional stats, Clemente comes up short.

But if you're in the mood to just kind of swing both ways now, that's cool. I have no problem with it.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 11:39 PM PST up reply actions

There's a statistical middle ground

RBIs and Home Runs (while overrated by the masses) are not completely worthless either. OPS (and more specifically OPS+) serve very much the same purposes as WARP. If we could revert non-stat geeks over to OPS+, it's enough. I personally think that WARP3 is a little ridiculously analytical and spends too much time observing the work's of ones peers, rather than dissecting the capabilities of the individual themselves. It also doesn't account much for situational hitting (ie, you can bat .340 and have a great WARP3, but it won't show that you hit .190 with RISP, or went 0 for 11 in a potentially division clinching series). Every stat has its shortcomings. WARP3 is not an exception.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2006 11:45 PM PST up reply actions

Old enough

To see Mays, Aaron and Clemente

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 21, 2006 10:33 AM PST up reply actions

Whoosh

I confess that this one went right over my head. (Google to the rescue).

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 4:01 PM PST up reply actions

Making fun of stat geek

GMJ step number one in a plan for continued dominance, or step number one in a plan for severe weight loss through explosive vomiting?

by hauldog on Dec 18, 2006 4:02 PM PST up reply actions

He was tied with

Carl Yastrzemski, Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire and Albert Belle.

There are a lot of great players who didn't make it.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 3:34 PM PST up reply actions

You equate Clemente with Belle???????

Good lord.

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 3:45 PM PST up reply actions

statistically, yes ...

though Albert Belle was clearly the more talented player -- had his career not been cut short, he would likely have finished as an inner-circle HOFer.

He's an ass and Clemente was a great man, but that's why I go beyond the stats. But we have to start somewhere.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 4:03 PM PST up reply actions

Oh. "Satistically". My bad.

I thought we were talking baseball.

Seriously. Albert Belle couldn't field his way out of a wet paper bag. In the rain. Meanwhile, Roberto Clemente was one of THE dominant defensive players of his, or any, era. For chrissake, the dude had 266 career assists AS AN OUTFIELDER!!

In the days when Gold Glove voting and All-Star membership were held in far more esteem, Clemente grossly overshadowed his peerage by reigning in 12 GG's and 12 AS appearances.
Only 3 other baseball PLAYERS - IN HISTORY - had a career average over .300 AND at least 10 GG's.

Albert Belle could swing a baseball bat. So could Roberto Clemente, only better. Albert Belle could run real fast. So could Clemente, only better (166 career triples). Albert Belle did not know what to do with that oversized leather thing that kept his hand warm between at bats. Clemente was among the finest defenders ever to play baseball.

Albert Belle had only 6 fewer seasons than did Clemente. He wasn't going to get any better. Meanwhile, Clemente posted his superior offensive contribution in the dead ball era.

Albert Belle isn't even worthy of being on the same field as Clemente. Whatever statistical model you are using that ended up placing Clemente at or above Belle just failed what should be the simplest of all litmus tests. You may take your fingerpaints and go home now.

(And, for the record, yes, I saw both of them play. In person.)

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 5:50 PM PST up reply actions

Whoa...

Check this pic of Stirrups and devo I just found.

by Bilko 420 on Dec 18, 2006 5:59 PM PST up reply actions

Ha!

Greates national political debate moment of the last 40 years. (Well, except for Dubya getting caught carrying that portable wireless prompting system under his coat...)

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 6:08 PM PST up reply actions

Clemente was the clearly superior

defensive player.

I believe that Belle was the clearly superior offensive player (see above). You disagree.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

Take two players

and normalize thier numbers for differences in era, and call me in the morning.

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 18, 2006 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

WARP3 does exactly that ...

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 11:35 PM PST up reply actions

And clearly it fails.

If you mean that it uses the Bill James time line adjustment methodology based on year of birth, this is (in my opinion) a grossly under-valued component. By sabremetrics' own admission, this is the smallest adjustement in James' WARP system. And WARP-3 only mkaes another slight adjustment for the change to 162 game seasons.

Just compare the NL offensive stats in Clemente's best year (1966) versus those of the AL in Belle's great year of 1994. The total AB's of the NL were less than 200 more than the AL, yet the AL realized:

1700 more runs scored
800 more hits
900 more doubles
400 more home runs
1500 more walks
20 points higher batting average
30 points higher on base percentage
therefore 50 points higher slugging percentage
nearly 400 more stolen bases

These leageues in these eras were gargantuanly different. And the NL in the 60's was void of steroids, I might add (was Belle?)

Further, I would argue that James' method for rationalizing Win Shares into WARP in the first place (total win shares divided by 10 compared to the number 25 in find the mean) results in too small of a difference between Belle and Clemente for defensive contributions.

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 19, 2006 8:11 AM PST up reply actions

Ok, if you don't like WARP3

How about OPS+?

Belle 143
Clemente 130

OPS+, as I'm sure you know is essentially a ratio of their performances compared to league average in the year in question.

by devo on Dec 19, 2006 10:23 AM PST up reply actions

Actually, I find all basebal stats fun, but

not reliable enough to base any religion upon them. My basic premise is that Belle was swimming in a league and era where offense was being chummed over the side and into the open water. Clemente was not, yet still excelled at a rate worthy of all-time consideration.

Further, by definition, OPS+ excludes defense and you are looking for the best PLAYERS, not the best hitters. Just because it is easier to calculate offensive stats does not mean that defensive contributions are without merit. You cannot toss aside a player's ability to prevent the opposition from scoring runs when determining his caliber of play.

Anyway, take a look at the team OPS+ numbers from the NL in '67 (Clemente's best OPS+ year) and the AL in 1994 (Belle's best OPS+ year). It is very clear that there was some drag in effect in the NL in (and around) 1967, which kept all teams fairly close to the "average" of 100. Call it defense. Call it a higher pitching mound. Call it a dead baseball. Whatever. Clearly it was NOT in effect in the AL as of the '90s.

It's also easy to see a jump in OPS+ during expansion years. This doesn't jibe if OPS+ is truly "normalized" year to year. It's more likely that the average pitching staff was diluted, and hitters took advantage. Clemente played about 40% of his career against an 8-team league, then another 40% against a 10 team league, and the remaining 20% against a 12 team league. That's the top 40 starting pitchers, then the top 50, and only being able to get down to pitchers 51 through 60 at the end of his playing days. (AL expansion only adds to this effect.)

Bottom line: I'm not going to go for any "magic stat" which can fairly square players from all eras. Especially once I start reading the way the formulas are compiled and the assumptions are made (as in James' dividing Win Shares by 10 to figure out WARP-1, because this makes the math easier to look at.)

Check yer daily ' toons here!

by Stirrups on Dec 19, 2006 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

This shows the limitations of WARP3

If you are going to go this route, you'd be better served by getting a JAWS score.

Fire Mickey Hatcher. An entire generation of Angels offense depends upon it.

by scareduck on Dec 18, 2006 5:57 PM PST up reply actions

do we vote on the AN blog?

this would mean I would have to join....blechh

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 18, 2006 2:52 PM PST reply actions

you can vote here ...

doesn't make a difference to me.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

OK...here's my vote

(although both Joltin Joe and Roberto would've made the list)

1    Babe Ruth
2    Barry Bonds
3    Lou Gehrig
4    Ted Williams
5    Willie Mays
6    Mickey Mantle
7    Rickey Henderson
8    Rogers Hornsby
9    Ty Cobb
10    Stan Musial

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 18, 2006 3:43 PM PST up reply actions

thank you much

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 4:06 PM PST up reply actions

If it shuts you up

Willie Mays
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Ted Williams
Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gehrig
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Stan Musial

10 Tris Speaker

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2006 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

thanks -- appreciate it.

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 8:39 PM PST up reply actions

In no order

josh gibson
rob clemente
hank aaron
mickey mantle
babe ruth
ted williams
derek jeter
willie mayes
reggie jackson
bo jackson

by cupie on Dec 18, 2006 5:22 PM PST up reply actions

Yous guys are way off

Tim Salmon
Jim Fregosi
Bobby Knoop
Aurelio Rodriguez
Jay Johnstone
Sandy Alomar
Vic Davillio
Rick Reichardt
Don Baylor
Babe Ruth

It doesn't really matter the players you choose, as long at the top nine are angels.

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

by chosen1 @ Halos Heaven on Dec 18, 2006 4:16 PM PST reply actions

And...

There's no Greg Luzinski?

by Bilko 420 on Dec 18, 2006 5:39 PM PST reply actions

AN?

I think I just figured out that AN Stands for Athletics Nation? Help me out here I'm new to this stuff.

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

by chosen1 @ Halos Heaven on Dec 18, 2006 6:32 PM PST reply actions

that is correct

by devo on Dec 18, 2006 8:39 PM PST up reply actions

It's just suprising

When I figured out What AN meant I then thought I may be mistaken. An A's fan on an Angels blog and nobody is making jokes about his sister? A mighty civilized group, these angels fans.

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

by chosen1 @ Halos Heaven on Dec 18, 2006 8:51 PM PST up reply actions

I would make fun of his sister, but

that would mean making fun of the mother of his children and I, for one, will not stoop that low.

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 19, 2006 3:55 AM PST up reply actions

Haha...

Good One.

by HeyLegacy on Dec 19, 2006 11:22 AM PST up reply actions

Ha

You should have been here during the season. It was on.

by Higz on Dec 19, 2006 10:33 AM PST up reply actions

it's the offseason

and it's just too stereotypical for an A's fan to determine the greatest ballplayers solely by punching some numbers into a computer.

by yeswecan on Dec 19, 2006 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

Thats better

Nice to see that there is no blog etiquette preventing the hosing of opponent-guests.

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

by chosen1 @ Halos Heaven on Dec 19, 2006 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

absolutely not

fire away!

by yeswecan on Dec 20, 2006 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

Seperate query

But along the same lines... pick one guy living, one guy dead who you would pay good money to see play.

Mine:
Alive - Roger Clemens
Dead - Satchel Paige

Stephen Colbert: "Kids who look up to athletes become athletes themselves."
The Word: Or bitter sports journalists.

by jlaff @ Halos Heaven on Dec 19, 2006 9:38 PM PST reply actions

I have seen Rocket pitch ...

I will pick Sandy Koufax as my living player.

Dead? How could anyone pass up the opportunity to see the Babe?

by devo on Dec 19, 2006 9:57 PM PST up reply actions

I'm a huge fan of pitchers

Which is why I'm not very active in your greatest players of all-time stuff ;-). While I would love to see the Babe, I've long been interested in the fact/myth stuff of Paige.

Stephen Colbert: "Kids who look up to athletes become athletes themselves."
The Word: Or bitter sports journalists.

by jlaff @ Halos Heaven on Dec 19, 2006 10:07 PM PST up reply actions