Need a laugh?

[eftda]

Are talking about Omar Visquel

nice finds hootie

[nikku88]

Eckstein is a better ss then Jeter.

I'm not surprised at that one at all considering how much all the broadcasters praise him. I'm guessing Eckstein either pays them or has pictures of them all.

[Sticky Spice]

If Ozzie Smith belongs in the hall, so does every player with an OPS over 650...i.e., just about everyone.

Right, because offensive statistics are what it takes to get in the HOF.

I think people like you greatly underrate or somehow don't appreciate Ozzie's greatest gift to the game and that's what a positive ambassador of the game he was. Based on that alone he should be in the HOF. Sorry there's no numbers to back that up.

[Pogotheostrich]

a healthy Chipper

That man does not exist. Besides Chipper is brutal with the glove at 3B.

[Mookie4ever]

Its not even just a few people who are clueless. The All-Century voting taught me that very fast.

Pitchers

1. Nolan Ryan, 992,040 votes
6. Walter Johnson, 479,279 votes
14. Christy Mathewson, 249,747 votes
16. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 151,255 votes


OF
8. Ken Griffey Jr., 645,389
9. Pete Rose, 629,742
18. Barry Bonds, 173,279
21. Tris Speaker, 84,461

3B
2. Brooks Robinson, 761,700
4. Eddie Mathews, 174,529

You know I just missed seeing Matthewson play, couldn't stay awake for the 1911 WS.

I almost made it down to see Pete Alexander and Tris Speaker in 1926.

Seriously, how can we vote on these guys - all that we see are their stats and we hear their anecdotes. There is no way that we could compare Pete Alexander to Nolan Ryan, no way that we can know how good Speaker was in the field.

These popularity contests are worthless IMO.

[Pogotheostrich]

[Seriously, how can we vote on these guys - all that we see are their stats and we hear their anecdotes. There is no way that we could compare Pete Alexander to Nolan Ryan, no way that we can know how good Speaker was in the field.

Compare their stats to the league averages. The only way you can judge baseball players throughout the changes in the game and without seeing them is to compare them to their peers. Even today you can't tell me you see enough baseball to compare every player in MLB. That's why the stats are there.

[Mookie4ever]

[Seriously, how can we vote on these guys - all that we see are their stats and we hear their anecdotes. There is no way that we could compare Pete Alexander to Nolan Ryan, no way that we can know how good Speaker was in the field.

Compare their stats to the league averages. The only way you can judge baseball players throughout the changes in the game and without seeing them is to compare them to their peers. Even today you can't tell me you see enough baseball to compare every player in MLB. That's why the stats are there.

Sure, I'm not saying that stats are completely useless. But if you are asking me to compare Mickey Welch to Walter Johnson and I happened to be otherwise occupied in 1900 what good is my vote - can't you just use a computer program to compare stats and tell us who was better?

My only point was that there is no use for a vote for guys that we could not have possibly seen play if it turns out to be just a mathematical exercise.

[HOOTIE]

Its not even just a few people who are clueless. The All-Century voting taught me that very fast.

Pitchers

1. Nolan Ryan, 992,040 votes
6. Walter Johnson, 479,279 votes
14. Christy Mathewson, 249,747 votes
16. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 151,255 votes


OF
8. Ken Griffey Jr., 645,389
9. Pete Rose, 629,742
18. Barry Bonds, 173,279
21. Tris Speaker, 84,461

3B
2. Brooks Robinson, 761,700
4. Eddie Mathews, 174,529

You know I just missed seeing Matthewson play, couldn't stay awake for the 1911 WS.

I almost made it down to see Pete Alexander and Tris Speaker in 1926.

Seriously, how can we vote on these guys - all that we see are their stats and we hear their anecdotes. There is no way that we could compare Pete Alexander to Nolan Ryan, no way that we can know how good Speaker was in the field.

These popularity contests are worthless IMO.

Hey Mookie

As Pogo said, you compare them to their peers. Not as hard as some think. People never saw Ruth or Gehrig either in most cases.

Tavish, i remember the voting. It was crazy. There are 992,040 clueless Ryan fans out there. You buy em books, send them to school, and this is what happens. A generation lost in space.

How do you explain Rose over Bonds? Rose wasn't that long ago.

Btw, that vote, and countless comments along the line, make Ryan my overwhelming choice, for most overrated player ever. Rose is probably my choice as hitter.

[Pogotheostrich]

Sure, I'm not saying that stats are completely useless. But if you are asking me to compare Mickey Welch to Walter Johnson and I happened to be otherwise occupied in 1900 what good is my vote - can't you just use a computer program to compare stats and tell us who was better?

My only point was that there is no use for a vote for guys that we could not have possibly seen play if it turns out to be just a mathematical exercise.

Well not everyone values every stat in the same way and which stats do you use? Some people think Nolan Ryan is the best pitcher ever because of the K's and no hitters while others say the best pitcher ever wouldn't walk so many batters. Even with the math and numbers involved peoples opinions differ greatly. Who is the greatest 2B? Hornsby, Morgan, Collins?

[HOOTIE]

[Seriously, how can we vote on these guys - all that we see are their stats and we hear their anecdotes. There is no way that we could compare Pete Alexander to Nolan Ryan, no way that we can know how good Speaker was in the field.

Compare their stats to the league averages. The only way you can judge baseball players throughout the changes in the game and without seeing them is to compare them to their peers. Even today you can't tell me you see enough baseball to compare every player in MLB. That's why the stats are there.

Sure, I'm not saying that stats are completely useless. But if you are asking me to compare Mickey Welch to Walter Johnson and I happened to be otherwise occupied in 1900 what good is my vote - can't you just use a computer program to compare stats and tell us who was better?

My only point was that there is no use for a vote for guys that we could not have possibly seen play if it turns out to be just a mathematical exercise.

Mookie, even if you or i saw them, did we really? Did you see every game? What if the 50 games you saw said player, they were among his worst? ESPN shows us great plays here and there, but do they show us the 999 bad ones? Seeing a guy is ok, but overrated. Go to any park, and ask grandma and grandpa some questions. You would be better off asking where to find the latte stand? TV shows us what they want to show us. No one could possibly catch enough games to evaluate every player in person.