Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard
EDIT: I'm not ranking by OPS+ at all. I'm ranking by everything other than counting stats and the amount of XBH's in contrast to how many at bats it took to get there. Also SLG, On Base, etc. The quality of AB's heavily favors Brouthers, most likely due to the late career decline of Anson which was not kind to his numbers outside of his counting stats.
All-time is a much different argument and I would say that none of the 19th century guys make the cut, despite my love for the era.
I would pick Ruth 7 times out of 10, Willie 2 times, and Williams once. All 3 have compelling stories and arguments, but Ruth is king.
The argument gets much more interesting when you divide the game up into eras. Then split pitching and hitting.
If I were to pick the greatest from each of these eras (the eras themselves are up for debate as well), I would probably go...
19th Century (1871-1899) - Dan Brouthers/Kid Nichols *Cy Young 2nd
The Dead Ball Era (1900-1919) - Ty Cobb/Walter Johnson *Cy Young 2nd
The Live Ball Era (1920-1941) - Babe Ruth/Lefty Grove
The Integration Era (1942-1960) - Ted Williams/Warren Spahn
The Expansion Era (1961-1976) - Hank Aaron/Tom Seaver
The Free Agency Era (1977-1993) - George Brett (Gwynn, Schmidt, Boggs also)/Nolan Ryan
The Steroid Era (1994-Present) - Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens
|
I would say slugging and on base are pretty much the same as OPS+. I like OPS+ a lot for comparing sluggers across era; but I don't like it's favoring of slugging over on base, which doesn't really matter for comparing these two much. Quality per at bat = Brouthers, overall value = Anson, I think.
I do not think the greatest of all time is one of the 19th century players, but whoever one thinks is the top probably belongs in the debate. Personally, I think the debate is over who is #2, not #1. Ruth just annihilated his era, Bonds is the closest comparison I can think of and that was less than honest.
Era cuts are hard, because it really hurts some of the best. Assuming that we are counting ONLY their value within the exact years specified, I would pick:
19th Century (1871-1899) - Cap Anson/Kid Nichols
The Dead Ball Era (1900-1919) - Honus Wagner/Walter Johnson
The Live Ball Era (1920-1941) - Babe Ruth/Lefty Grove
The Integration Era (1942-1960) - Ted Williams/Warren Spahn
The Expansion Era (1961-1976) - Aaron-Mays/Bob Gibson
The Free Agency Era (1977-1993) - Mike Schmidt/Nolan Ryan
The Steroid Era (1994-Present) - Barry Bonds/Randy Johnson
If we expanded 19th century, Creighton was probably the most dominating player in baseball history except for maybe Ruth. That he died before professionalism and at such a young age precludes him, but I think he deserves an honorable mention. By figuring out how to throw hard within the rules on delivery, he almost single handedly changed the game from hitter vs. fielders to hitter vs. pitcher, which has remained the core of the game ever since.
Cy Young really gets cheated by the era cutoff. The GOAT is a toss up between Young, Johnson and Grove, I think, depending on how one values peak vs. longevity. Young's career split in half means he wins neither period independently.
Honus Wagner over Cobb, only because of the era cutoff. Cobb did not produce value until 1906, and kept producing a lot of value every year pretty much until he retired. I don't Cobb 1905-1919 beats Wagner 1900-1917. Even with an era cutoff that heavily favors Honus, Cobb isn't far behind. I do give Honus a significant defense bonus as a great fielding SS, though I think Sabrmetrics of defense from this period are mostly fantasy.
I think Seaver did not pitch enough between 1961 and 1976 to earn it. If it was 1961-1993 as one period, I would take Seaver. Seaver is really hurt by the cutoff, as are several other pitchers.
1961-1976, I had to check and compare. Aaron vs. Mays is tight, Aaron has a 157 OPS+, Mays a 154 in this period. Aaron got in some extra playing time, Mays was a better player at everything except the bat, where they are close. Mays' raw is hurt by Candlestick and Aaron's is aided by playing much of that period in a launching pad designed for him. Tough call.
Free Agency Era pitching is bad. Most of the stars in this period lose a ton of pitching time to the cutoff, on both ends. I think Ryan is probably the most overrated pitcher in baseball history (112 ERA+; he walked in so many runs that he eliminated much of the value of his difficulty to hit). But I'm not sure anyone is really better if you cut them to only 1977-1993 exactly. By far the weakest pick on the whole list.
Johnson over Clemens; because of the era cutoffs. Taking away Clemens first decade is a lot of value; while Randy really only started producing value much over the league average in 1993, so almost all of his productive career is counted. If it was total career, Roger blows him out.
This is a really fun exercise to do.