Printable View
Min requirements.
Had to play in the modern era
Had to play at least 900 games in left
9. Raines
8. Kiner
7. A. Simmons
6. Yaz
5. Manny R.
4. Rickey Henderson
3. Stan Musial
2. Barry Bonds
1. Ted Williams
My order
Kiner
Simmons
Raines
Manny R
Yastrzemski
Rickey Henderson
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Barry Bonds
First three are interchangeable.
Jason Bay - #1
My top 9 when I did this a year or so ago:
- Ted Williams
- Stan Musial
- Rickey Henderson
- Ed Delahanty
- Carl Yastrzemski
- Tim Raines
- Jesse Burkett
- Al Simmons
- Fred Clarke
Bonds would be first. Manny would be somewhere around Raines/Burkett.
Troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Rickey Henderson is the best leftfielder of all time if Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, and Stan Musial did not exist
David Nied wants a word with all of you.
how far back does this era go???:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Modern Era generally means post-1901Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
thats always been my understanding too. some on HGM's list threw me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by FloydtheBarber
My list was all-time, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
curious where you all rank Shoeless in this discussion. i havne't looked at this closely, but for the life of me i can't see how shoeless would be below raines.
I did my rankings of the Hall of Merit inductees and they have Jackson listed as a right fielder (584 games in left, 145 in center, 559 in right) and I ranked him 13th there:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
- Babe Ruth
- Hank Aaron
- Mel Ott
- Frank Robinson
- Paul Waner
- Pete Rose
- Al Kaline
- Sam Crawford
- Reggie Jackson
- Roberto Clemente
- Tony Gwynn
- King Kelly
- Joe Jackson
Left field has less competition. If I ranked him with the left fielders, I'd put him in the Raines/Manny/Burkett class.
i assume he's getting a rather large deduction due to lack of longevity? I think 13 seasons are enough to merit him along with the others. Are you considering longevity, or performance on average? I can't see how someone like Gwynn for starters would rank higher...unless of course thats merely because he played longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
one could even argue that taking Shoeless's total career and matching it up against Rose's best 12-13 years would be an easy pick of shoeless.
I rank based on a combination of career and peak value.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Jackson didn't really play 13 seasons. He played IN 13 seasons. He played 9 full seasons. In the other 4 seasons, he didn't play more than 20 games in any of them.
I'd rank Jackson above Kelly if I redid this. He's close enough to Gwynn that I wouldn't quibble with anybody that ranked him over Gwynn, but I think having just 9 full seasons, albeit great, keeps him out of the top 10 (of right fielders. Of left fielders, I think he's in the top 10).
By WAR, Jackson has a career 62.9 WAR. The total of Rose's best 13 years is 69.2.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
But since Jackson really only had 9 years, let's redo that, ignoring the 4 seasons where Jackson played less than 20 games and comparing to Rose's top 9 seasons. Jackson's total is 61 and Rose's is 54.1.
I won't dispute that Jackson has a better peak than Rose. He does, but his peak is his entire career, and as I said, I consider a combination of peak and career value.
fair enough. i myself wouldn't look at longevity when determining who the most dominant players were. I honestly havne't given this a ton of thought, but for me there would have to be a threshold the player would have to meet to qualify for consideration and if they did than thats it. What i mean is, one silly dominant season isn't enough, but maybe i'd go with five. If you compiled stats ala-Rose over a monster career, you wouldn't rank as high as a guy who compiled the best statistical seasons during his 5 year career. To me, 5 years is a long enough period to evaluate and the goal is to determine who the most dominant/valuable/whatever you wish to call it player was....and longevity is something I couldn't factor in.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
With Shoeless, i can take his career and will struggle to find many who put together those kind of dominant seasons at all, let alone during what 8-9 full seasons?? Career ops+ of something 170ish silly? Its long enough where it can't be written off as a "small sampling". I don't see how someone compiling stats who was clearly inferior but played longer could be ranked higher. But thats just me. ;)
It depends what you're ranking. If you're ranking peak value, than obviously Jackson's is one of the best ever. If you're ranking career value, Jackson's peak was high and long enough to still put him up among the best, but he drops down. If you're doing an overall ranking, there's more to consider.
To use a pitcher example:
Pedro Martinez had probably the greatest peak of any pitcher in history. If ranking peak value, he's probably #1. Sandy Koufax had a great peak as well, and is certainly near the top.
If ranking career value, well, Pedro falls behind, say, Nolan Ryan, who doesn't have much of a peak but pitched double the innings. Koufax would be behind both of them.
For an overall ranking, I'd rank Pedro over Ryan, but Ryan over Koufax.
As much as it pains me, I've got to agree with Bonds as #1. And while I have a ton of respect for Stan Musial, I don't think he should be ranked ahead of Williams, or even considered interchangable with him. And we might actually be under-rating Ricky Henderson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Also, I'd rank Raines ahead of Manny and Yaz.
I agree with this. I think overall value and peak value are two different lists. The Pedro example is an excellent example. I would like to see some peak value lists. I admit that I am a sucker for lists. Hmmm...I might have the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Career WARQuote:
Originally Posted by dps
1. Bonds 171.4
2. Musial 127.9
3. Williams 125
4. Henderson 113.1
;)
But I sometimes see Bonds as over rated by some fans/writers, while I also see him under rated by others. It's difficult to understand where I believe he really should be sitting. His sabr numbers are greatly benefited by his high power and extremely high obp where he was pitched around so much. In of itself, walking so much is very valuable, of course, but I am not sure it should boost Bonds as much as it does (if that makes any sense). But I also don't have any problems with Bonds being discussed where he is, I just question his validity based on the extreme peak that he had late in his career don't doesn't seem like it's completely even.....I dunno, just not sure where he really should sit.
And of course, Teddy ball game also missed a lot time due to war, and would likely be ahead of Musial had he not missed that time.
Raines 64.9
Yaz 88.5
Ramirez 66.2
Yaz is historically under rated for all that he really accomplished throughout his career IMO, along with his phenomenal defense.
I think you're saying pretty much what I posted back in 2007: "Bonds' OBP has always been good, but it's been boosted in recent years by insane numbers of IBB. I'm not sure exactly how our evaluation of Bonds should be adjusted to account for this (or even if it should be), but it's clear to me that managers have ordered Bonds intentionally walked an excessive and counterproductive number of times, and I'm not entirely comfortable with giving Bonds credit for the lack of strategic sense on the part of a good many of the opposing managers."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
He spent the last part of his career as a DH, with no defensive value.Quote:
Yaz is historically under rated for all that he really accomplished throughout his career IMO, along with his phenomenal defense.
One theory is to delete his intentional walks from the OPS numbers. But he still earned those walks, he earned the respect he got of being intentionally walked so much.....so i dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
After being an outstanding left fielder with 7 gold gloves and a cannon of an arm.Quote:
He spent the last part of his career as a DH, with no defensive value.
Yaz was a great defender. He didn't DH until 74, the first year of the DH, and he still played left field even until his final year, but much less so in his final three years. He was still an everyday left fielder until 78 when he started to play first, DH, and LF.
Williams missed more time to military service than any other player - all of 1943, 1944 and 1945 and nearly all of 1952 and 1953.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
You have to adjust Bonds' numbers more than is reasonable in order to get him anywhere but #1 though. 40+ wins can't be washed away. The only way to really get him there is if you credit Williams with 10 or so wins for his three years lost in the 1940's and 6 or so each for 1952 and 1953, and then adjust Bonds down another 5 or so wins for his high intentional walk rate (which I'm not so sure you should even be doing at all, let alone that big). Without war credit, I don't think it's at all reasonable to place Bonds anywhere else but first.
1. Barry Bonds
2. Ted Williams
3. Stan Musial
4. Rickey Henderson
5. Joe Jackson
6. Ed Delahanty
7. Carl Yastrzemski
8. Fred Clarke
9. Jesse Burkett
Musial's defensive position is where things get dicey for me. 1016 games played at 1B, 934 games in LF, 764 games in RF, and 325 in CF. So...he plays his most games at 1B of the 8 defensive positions, but is a LF? For the purposes of these rankings I'll put him there, but :confused:
Well, how the HoM generally does it is "At what position did this player accumulate the majority of his value?" So, Andre Dawson, for example, is listed as a center fielder despite playing more in right field. With Musial, another way to look at it is that he spent the majority of his time as a outfielder, so it wouldn't be really prudent to rank him as a first basemen, and since he played mostly left field of the three outfield positions, he'd fit best there.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
I generally agree with the HoM's method - list the player where he accumulated the majority of his value. However, within each position, I then rank based on overall value. So, Pete Rose, since he was mentioned before, is ranked relatively high in part because he's not being ranked as a right fielder but rather as an overall player amongst players who contributed most of their value as a right fielder, and his overall value is boosted by spending a good deal of time at second and third base.
Clearly, it's time for you to start a dynasty in 1901 and watch Fred Clarke, Jesse Burkett, and Ed Delahanty deliver a sh!tkicking to the early 20th century pitchers. Or you could look them up on the interwebs. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay