OleMissCub
-
Posts
38,741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by OleMissCub
-
Inevitable ranking? I seriously doubted someone of his stature in the game would fall out of the top 5, much less the top 15. It's like having Wilt Chamberlain not ranked in the top 15 in a greatest basketball players ever poll. This whole exercise is geared to open a discussion about baseball history, player rankings, etc. It's fun stuff.
-
You already went. The "rules" are that you have to wait 20 turns...otherwise I would have had Cobb in at 4th. fixed. sorry. lol at your "fix" :-)
-
SLIDE!!!
-
You already went. The "rules" are that you have to wait 20 turns...otherwise I would have had Cobb in at 4th.
-
No, it was a crime when I stabbed that guy with a pocketknife. I wasn't aware character had anything to do with historical rankings. If so, we shouldn't have a violent, drunken, and adulterous man at no.1 and you don't think 17th place is low for a guy who is 2nd in hits all time, 2nd in runs scored, 4th in doubles, 2nd in triples, 6th in RBI, 4th in SB's, and 1st in career BA?
-
Looks like we had a train wreck folks...gotta fix it: 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Barry Bonds 4. Honus Wagner 5. Willie Mays 6. Hank Aaron 7. Josh Gibson 8. Cy Young 9. Lou Gehrig 10. Joe DiMaggio 11. Rickey Henderson 12. Roger "The Rocket" Clemens 13. Alex Rodriguez 14. Sandy Koufax 15. Jimmie Foxx 16. Pedro Martinez 17. Ty Cobb 18. Mel Ott
-
Definitely agree there. Statistician Bill Burgess has his most impressive pitching peaks listed as: Pedro Martinez 1997-2003, 215 ERA+ Walter Johnson 1910-1914, 204 ERA+ Roger Clemens 1986-1992, 164 ERA+ Sandy Koufax 1961-1966, 161 ERA+ Ed Walsh 1907-1912, 160 ERA+
-
Because that isn't as much fun. It's more interesting this way. I'm not bitching as much as it seems, as I agree with just about everyone named so far at least being in the top 20....just don't see how you can not have a guy listed yet who is 2nd in hits all time, 2nd in runs scored, 4th in doubles, 2nd in triples, 6th in RBI, 4th in SB's, and 1st in career BA.
-
For all the arguments stating that the level of competition has increased by so much, most people tend to forget the argument that these historic athletes would have access to newer methods of strength training, conditioning, and all these fancy new diets... not to mention that they'd have incentive to actually use them, considering the money being thrown around. At the same time the historical pitchers would not have been able to pitch every 2nd or 3rd day and be forced to pitch complete games and many of their stats would not be as inflated as they are. But those "legend" type pitchers for the old era deserve the credit for having the arm stamina in longevity to do that. If you look at "team stats" from those days you'll see that they went through A LOT of pitchers who just burned out. It seems like the average pitcher back then only pitched 2 or 3 years.
-
For all the arguments stating that the level of competition has increased by so much, most people tend to forget the argument that these historic athletes would have access to newer methods of strength training, conditioning, and all these fancy new diets... not to mention that they'd have incentive to actually use them, considering the money being thrown around. I'm well aware of that, I just don't think it makes nearly as much difference as the talent pool expansion. But to not have someone like Cobb in the top 13 is adjusting way too much.
-
For all the arguments stating that the level of competition has increased by so much, most people tend to forget the argument that these historic athletes would have access to newer methods of strength training, conditioning, and all these fancy new diets... not to mention that they'd have incentive to actually use them, considering the money being thrown around. Exactly. It works both ways. Who is to say that a modern all-star could hack it in 1915? Would they have the fortitude to stand up there without a helmet and without umpires holding their hand against head hunting pitchers, etc? There are constant stories about batters breaking bones, breaking skulls, hell even one guy was killed at bat!
-
Rickey is great and all, but to put him above guys with career lines of .331/.417/.559, 159 OPS+, .366/.433/.512, 167 OPS+, and .358/.434/.577, 175 OPS+? They wouldn't hack it in Rickey's MLB. One of those guys is still alive. But you're right, if a guy didn't play in your lifetime, he doesn't count. Can't ignore progress. So you don't think half the guys that are ranked should be there?
-
Rickey is great and all, but to put him above guys with career lines of .331/.417/.559, 159 OPS+, .366/.433/.512, 167 OPS+, and .358/.434/.577, 175 OPS+? They wouldn't hack it in Rickey's MLB. One of those guys is still alive.
-
Rickey is great and all, but to put him above guys with career lines of .331/.417/.559, 159 OPS+, .366/.433/.512, 167 OPS+, and .358/.434/.577, 175 OPS+? Rickey's is .279/.401/.419, 127 OPS+
-
Good top 10 all around. Certainly missing some of the usual suspects normally listed in top 10's: Johnson, Musial, Cobb, Hornsby, and Matthewson.
-
They are.
-
Do fielding stats factor into that at all? Seems like a shortstop would obviously have more assists, etc, than an outfielder.
-
No, I definitely understand why someone would rank him that high. Your point about shortstop is definitely true. From all accounts he was an incredible shortstop. I think John McGraw's famous quote about Wagner summed it up: It is interesting to note that McGraw rarely, if ever, saw Cobb play, given that his Giants were in the National League and they didn't have available video in those days. Contrarily, you have Connie Mack, a lifelong American League manager (someone who never saw Wagner) saying this about Cobb in 1950:
-
*homer disclaimer* All great rankings so far, although I must confess that I disagree with Wagner being ranked above Cobb. If people want to place the more modern players like Bonds, Aaron, or Mays above someone like Cobb, I have no problem with that because many people certainly put more value in modern players, which is their prerogative. However, both Wagner and Cobb played in the same era, yet look at their career average stats: Wagner: .327/.391/.466, 150 OPS+, Eqa .316 Cobb: .366/.433/.512, 167 OPS+, Eqa .333
-
3. Barry Bonds Just a note, if you are getting the list via quoting from the person posting in front of you, remove the quotes. For example, the next person's list should read: 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Barry Bonds 4. whomever
-
Your disagreement is duly noted.
-
Just wanted to add that Negro leaguers are able to be ranked
-
What a knee slapper!!
-
Saw some guys do this on another baseball forum and it looked fun. Basically, we just rank the best players of all time, but you can only post another player after 20 turns have passed. You copy the list as it is in the post above yours and just add your choice... I'll start out: 1. Babe Ruth the next person to post should post: 1. Babe Ruth 2. their choice third person should post it like: 1. Babe Ruth 2. previous choice 3. their choice
-
They really need to move that team to the MS Gulf Coast. It seems like everyone I know from LA is a Cowboys fan and everyone in MS are Saints fans.