- Thread starter
- #1
sportscardtheory
Active member
Who is the most OVERALL EFFECTIVE offensive player of all-time? Please pick your TOP-TWO.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Who is the most effective offensive player of all-time
- Thread starter sportscardtheory
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
bigpapiMA32
New member
In baseball, the objective of offense is to score runs. The top two in runs created all-time are Bonds and Ruth, so that is who I voted for.
ChasHawk
New member
Ruth & Aaron got my votes.
Bonds can suck it
Bonds can suck it
Pete Rose.
The thing is that the baseball diamond is a virtual counter-clockwise wheel and Pete kept himself and his teammates moving from station to station more often than anyone else.
The thing is that the baseball diamond is a virtual counter-clockwise wheel and Pete kept himself and his teammates moving from station to station more often than anyone else.
- Thread starter
- #5
sportscardtheory
Active member
sheetskout said:
Maybe "more times", but not "more often". A lot of players average more hits per-162 games than Rose.
gvsu96
Active member
Should add Rickey Henderson to the list for giggles.
- Thread starter
- #8
sportscardtheory
Active member
hofautos said:
Although I certainly used WAR to HELP create my list, I feel it isn't an end-all to performance discussion because it takes longevity into consideration by accumulating a higher WAR through years-played. Players like Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Roberto Clemente and anyone else who's career was cut-short are unfairly hurt by WAR rankings.
scotty21690
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 16,150
- 0
CAREER WAR is a crap stat to use, considering it is dependent on years played.hofautos said:
scotty21690 said:
Why do people keep discounting years played in this argument? It is very relevant here. Otherwise? Give me a guy with 5 career AB's and four hits and a walk.
ChasHawk
New member
because some players career were unfairly cut short.sheetskout said:
should we penalize Clemente because he died?
- Thread starter
- #12
sportscardtheory
Active member
sheetskout said:
It's not being discounted, it's being seen for what it is. Who is better between a guy who played for 20 years and had 3,000 hits and a guy who played for 10 years and had 2,500 hits. Easy answer.
scotty21690 said:CAREER WAR is a crap stat to use, considering it is dependent on years played.hofautos said:
I agree that it is CRAP to use CAREER WAR to identify someone's true talent, but the question wasn't who is most talented...the question is - Who was most effective of ALL-TIME.
Given two equal players, one with a 20 year career and one with a 10 year career, it's obvious the player with a 20 year career was the most effective "ALL-TIME".
If you want to say who was more talented, i would only pick the PRIME YEARS, and the answer would be the same, Ruth.
Your statement reinforces my argument that it is stupid to look at career numbers to define who was greatest.
chashawk said:
Discount Clemente, NO... but because his career was short, he didn't put up nearly as many effective "ALL-TIME" numbers, as players that were blessed with a long career.
The question is, "who is the most effective offensive player of ALL-TIME'. Because of Clemente's short career, his ALL-TIME numbers won't put him in the running.
Should we penalize everyone else that had longer careers?
If you want to know who was best in their prime, use their prime numbers to calculate their true talent.
If you want to know who had the most "all-time" numbers, use their career numbers.
Of you could do as I propose, and take one's career numbers and add them to their prime numbers, giving their prime numbers substantially more weight, in defining who was greatest.
sportscardtheory said:
That's not the question here. The question is who is more "effective". The guy with the career longevity had impact in many, many more ballgames. Where are we talking about the "best" offensive player of all time here?
sheetskout said:
It really depends on what the author meant by "ALL-TIME"...did he mean over the course of their career, or did he mean who was most effective during the history of the sport.
1. If he meant most effective in their career, I would suggest whoever was responsible for the most total wins, which is best measured in career winshares.
2. If he meant who was best in their prime years in the history of the sport, I would calculate the best 7 or so years, again using winshares.
3. If he meant who was best for the length of their entire career, I would calculate total winshares divided by number of games.
#2 is the best of the 3 options to identify who had the most true talent.
#1 and #3 really don't mean much....they aren't necessarily a very good indication of how much talent one really had.
ThoseBackPages
New member
Jeter
aaron41984
New member
- Jun 22, 2009
- 1,931
- 0
Definitely 100%, without a doubt... Eddie Gaedel.
shayscards79
New member
Pete Rose and Ichiro
Is it premature to bring up Matt LaPorta in this conversation?
i went Bonds/ Ruth, which seems to be a popular option.
On the issue of longevity, I think it's silly to frame it as a black and white issue. Of course there's value in playing a long time, but only if you're producing at a high level for a long time.
i went Bonds/ Ruth, which seems to be a popular option.
On the issue of longevity, I think it's silly to frame it as a black and white issue. Of course there's value in playing a long time, but only if you're producing at a high level for a long time.
Similar threads
