The Greatest LF Who Ever Lived

[sweaver]

OK, moving to the outfield. I see this as a three-horse race, although it will probably be a two-horse race. Place your bets!

[SmedIndy]

Man, that's a tough call.

Stan the man is it for me, with Ted and Barry a close second.

If Barry has another season like 2001, then forget it. It's him. Over and done. Even a 2002 with 60 homers puts it to Barry. So I guess my vote for Musial is as of this exact date and time. Ask me in August and I may have changed my mind.

Rickey thinks that Rickey should get some votes for being Rickey. Rickey says he was the best leadoff man in baseball history, and Rickey thinks that should count for something.

And thanks for remembering Shoeless Joe.

[Slippery Pedro]

I went with Bonds.

More power and better arm than Rickey.
Better glove than Ted.
Stan the Man, well, if only he didn't play those games at 1B...........

[BuzzBuzzard]

Williams gets my nod.

[moose]

i really agonized here. i picked bonds by a hair over williams, with a nod to rickey and stan the man.

While Ted was the best at getting on base, barry's still amongst the top 20 all time, and once barry got there he did a lot more to give his team an opportunity to get him across the plate.
and that's before the fielding. I did consider teddy's lost years, and the power numbers in context.

I hope that's not sacrilege - I just think barry edges teddy overall.

[hmrsf]

Ted Williams. Never saw him play but I see the reaction of old men turn into boys with the mere mention of his name.

Barry will never have that.

[TGwynn19]

Teddy Ballgame is still #1. Barry is very, very close. Just not yet, and I do mean yet.

[Gosfgiants]

I think the next few years will push Bonds over both Musial and Williams. Right now Barry is in a zone that I have never seen any hitter be in. He is constantly pitched around. When they do throw strikes to him, more often than not, he scalds the ball. This year I have seen him miss homers by a few feet or even inches on nasty pitches. The crazy part is that he's doing it on one leg. Before you throw in the thiness of pitching argument consider that he has pounded good pitchers like Maddux and Glavine over the years. I think he has trascended out of the greatness of position debate into the greatest of all time debate. (Not that he wins in the debate, you just have throw him in there.)

[spitball]

Had to go with Williams.for the same reasons as hmrsf.

[Duque]

Before last season - Williams. Now - Bonds.

[poorme]

How can you go wrong with Williams, Henderson, Bonds, or Musial? I'm partial to Rickey, but Bonds could pull ahead in a year or two. Who would you rather pitch to Bonds in 2001 or Rickey in the early 80s? Pick your poison.

[sweaver]

My nod goes to Barry. Teddy Ballgame at bat, Rickey on the bases and in the field, Stan the Man in the clubhouse, but for everything, I'll take Barry. 2001 did it for me.

[Skip]

Bonds, Williams, Musial, Rickey in a roughly 10 - 9.8 - 9.0 - 8.5 ratio. If you attempt to factor in the war years Williams wins, but you cant do that. If Musial spent more time there, its even closer between the big three. Rickey is truly great but I just cant quite push him past Stan. This is so tough right now - many that promote Bonds would probably back off after the warm fuzzies wear off if he goes down for good in the next year or two. Despite all the wishy-washy, I go for Bonds based on even a very conservative projection of the next 3-4 years.

[JamesI]

I had to go with Williams. I think if he hadn't lost so much time to world war 2 and Korea he would still be far ahead of the rest. Bonds is a close second, will probably pass Williams soon. After Bonds, I'd take Musial and Rickey.

[Sablewolf]

Of those listed, just to make a response I chose Bonds over Williams because Bonds has speed and deffense that Williams never brought to the table ...

HOWEVER unless I'm sorely mistaken was not Ty Cobb, the Georgia Peach a left fielder as well? My true vote goes for Mr Cobb myself ...

[WiredTiger]

I went with Williams. I think if he hadn't missed season due to the wars then heis stats would have been even more formidable.

[johnny]

Teddy. Not the defense or speed of Barry, but .400 really stands out.

Was there ever a better batter's eye?

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Sablewolf

HOWEVER unless I'm sorely mistaken was not Ty Cobb, the Georgia Peach a left fielder as well? My true vote goes for Mr Cobb myself ...

Ty played the vast majority of his career in CF

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Skip
If you attempt to factor in the war years Williams wins, but you cant do that.

I can. And that is why, to me, Ted is still numero uno.

[nyy26wc]

Can anyone explain the downgrading of Stan Musial, due him spending so much time at 1B?

That seems arbitrary, considering the fact that I don't expect anyone to downgrade Ruth, as a RF. Considering that Ruth played less games as a RF than a LF, if people want to be consistent, they have to severely downgrade Ruth in the RF discussion.

[nightal]

Musial is my pick. Don't know why the memory of just how great he was is slowly dwindling, but he was a tremendous player who, in anybody's way of figuring, should have won at least 2 more MVP's in addition to the 3 he did win.

[moose]

Originally posted by nightal
he was a tremendous player who, in anybody's way of figuring, should have won at least 2 more MVP's in addition to the 3 he did win.

Along those lines, don't forget about Barry in '91 and '00

[pwdennis]

I only saw Ted in his final year but even then, there was a aura about the man

1 - Teddy Ballgame
2 - Stan the Man
3 - Barry Bonds
4 - Rickey
5 - Yaz

Barry will undoubtedly pull ahead of Stan the Man in the next year. Might pull ahead of the Splinter with two good years. Barry never will hustle harder than Stan the Man, though. Even in his 40s Stan ran out EVERYTHING

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Can anyone explain the downgrading of Stan Musial, due him spending so much time at 1B?

1890 games in the OF, 1016 at 1B.
It's just hard for me to think of him as a pure OF - like Rickey, Williams, Bonds, etc. Not a downgrade, just hard to link up "LF" with his name.

At least Ruth just shifted between RF and LF. Still a fly chaser.

I have the same problem with considering Ernie Banks a SS. When a guy plays just as many games at an entirely different position, I just have a hard time thinking of them as one particular position.

Is it OK to consider Brian Downing as a great offensive catcher because he played just about as many games there as OF?

[moose]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
Is it OK to consider Brian Downing as a great offensive catcher because he played just about as many games there as OF?

For me, it's a case-by-case analysis. Take Biggio. He had 3 or 4 seasons as a C. To me that doesn't make me say "and he's a catcher, wow, look out piazza and bench!" rather, i think, "wow, he's amazing, and I bump him up a point or two for catching for 4 years"....

if that makes any sense whatsoever...

[KCBOOMER]

I went with Williams, but, damn, what a group!!

Ted was the dominant hitter in baseball for 15 years. He was the man. While I don;t normally factor in time missed I do make some exception for WWII and in his case a BIG exception.

At the end of 2001 Barry and Ted had appeared in virtually the same number of games and Ted led in EVERY offensive category (BA, RBI, Runs, Hits, , and Walks), except HR's, and he led them by good margins. His career OPS was 1.116 versus Bonds 1.004. Add in the war years and the comparison is absurd.

We do have to figure Bonds will play another four to six years and the RBI's, Runs, and Walks will tighten up, and of course Bonds lead in HR's will increase dramatically.

To me the only way you put Bonds ahead is 1) you give Ted no war time credit, and 2) you are seeing Barry everyday. Most of this board never saw Ted at all.

As for the rest of the group I love Musial. I don't downgrade him an inch for playing first base. Damn what a man. I think most of us have a soft spot for Shoeless Joe. I'm not high on Rickey because I think he is a clubhouse cancer, but recognize he has gargantuan numbers for a lead off hitter.

Recognizing that Bonds and Henderson are locks for the HoF the only two non-HoFers on the list are Shoeless Joe and Minnie. Obviously, Joe qualifies if he had avoided the 1919 debacle, and a serious case can be made for Minoso.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro


1890 games in the OF, 1016 at 1B.
It's just hard for me to think of him as a pure OF - like Rickey, Williams, Bonds, etc. Not a downgrade, just hard to link up "LF" with his name.

At least Ruth just shifted between RF and LF. Still a fly chaser.

I have the same problem with considering Ernie Banks a SS. When a guy plays just as many games at an entirely different position, I just have a hard time thinking of them as one particular position.

Is it OK to consider Brian Downing as a great offensive catcher because he played just about as many games there as OF?

For me, it's where they made their name. Downing, OF/DH. Banks, SS. Musial, OF.

[Golden Bear]

I went with the Splinter. Bonds has a better overall game, and if he has another year or two as the best player in baseball, he'll pass Ted, but Williams still has just about the best bat outside of Ruth ever.

And I do give him credit for the war years -- he wasn't just in the army barnstorming around the Pacific, he was flying planes in harm's way. Williams is a genuine war hero. That broke the tie; call my criteria strange, but this is subjective.

[pathogan]

Williams, Musial, Bonds Jackson,rickey...not as easy as SS or RHp is it?

Williams with 5 YEARS, YEARS of his prime gone? are you joking...this is easier than I thought

[Skip]

You just cant stick hypothetical years onto a career at this point, even if Williams is the most likely candidate to justify it. Whether its in the middle of a career, end of a career, or beginning, it is all hypothetical.

Williams is the best example in favor of adding years, but who knows what would have happened if he'd played all that time.

I wont argue with a choice of Williams as best; but I think the choice must be made based on actual performance, not possible performance. His actual makes a good enough case.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Skip
You just cant stick hypothetical years onto a career at this point, even if Williams is the most likely candidate to justify it. Williams is the best example in favor of adding years, but who knows what would have happened if he'd played all that time.

Normally I would agree with you, Skip, but if Bill James says we can make an exception in Ted's case then I'm going with him.:)

[Skip]

C'mon - what's James done that I havent done? :)

[Skip]

If we get to count years that havent occurred, we should count Bond's next few years, right.

In that case, giving Bonds an "average" three more years based on end of career adjusting for his crescendo, and Williams 4 more peak years based on mid 40's, what do you think? Yes, these numbers are guesstimates, and do not include park factors so that Williams actually benefits somewhat by being in a much better hitters park.

Bonds (19 yrs) v. Williams (23 yrs) -- Cum stats / Per year stat
~680 HR v. ~670 / 36 v. 29
~1900 RBI v. ~2300 / 100 v. 100
~2150 BB v. ~2600 / 113 v. 113
~2800 H v. ~3400 / 147 v. 148
~500 SB v. ~20 / 26 v. 1
~1.025 OPS v. ~1.125 / same
~.300 AVG v. ~.345 / same
Fielding unquantified but a definite Bonds advantage.

Bonds has defense, steals and HR. Williams has OPS (both OBA and SLG) and AVG.

Tough call overall. Do Bonds overall advantages outweight Teddy Ballgame's offensive numbers? Most will probably say no.

[nyy26wc]

If we're going to add years to someone's career, I'm changing my vote.

I voted for Williams, but now I want a writein vote for Oscar Gamble.

I'm going to add 5 Barry Bonds 2001 seasons to his career, plus 3 of Ted Williams 1941 and just for the hell of it, I'm going to say he finished his career as a 1B, with a token Mark McGwire 1998 thrown in.

Furthermore, I'm going to add some zeroes to Gamble's actual years. He had 3 years with 30+ RCAA: 46 in 1977 & 1979 and 30 in 1982. But, I'm going to add a zero to end up of those figures, to give a couple of 460s and a 300.

[sweaver]

Goes with all those "intangibles."

There's a reason things are intangible. It's because they don't exist.;)

Hey, it's your vote, and as I said back when we started, you can use your own criteria to determine "best." That includes projections. But you have to defend your pick.

[gyb13]

No credit to missed time or for future years to come..
Teddy
Stan
Barry
Rickey

[Golden Bear]

Gamble had the best LF 'fro of all time.

[Skip]

Hey, I voted Bonds. I just wanted to show that if you give Ted extra years you have to do the same for Barry. Its a very close vote with or without projections, IMO. I choose the all around package over pure hitter but can respect arguments the other way. Dont buy Stan, Rickey and others in the same ballpark as quite at the level of those two though.

[Golden Bear]

Seriously, I like Bill James's definitions of acceptable excuses to miss time (p. 341, Politics of Glory):

1) Military service.

2) Players in mid-career when the color line was broken.

3) One or two (uncited) other things; he's probably thinking of some future Muhammad Ali situation happening in baseball, or some kind of apocalyptic labor battle.

Williams obviously falls under the military service exception; he's probably the foremost example. (Not that he needed those years; Cecil Travis comes to mind as a player who might have.)

Note: While most injuries shouldn't be granted allowances for, I like to distinguish between an injury and a tragedy. So I'm inclined to give guys like Munson, Addie Joss, Campanella, etc., the benefit of the doubt.

I'll define tragedy as some event outside of one's control (so excluding suicide, prison, etc.) that prevents one from leading a normal life after baseball, including but not limited to death by accident (Clemente, Munson), disease (Gehrig, Joss, Ross Youngs), or murder (Lyman Bostock -- not that I'm making a HOF case for him). Campanella's paralyzing car accident would qualify. Puckett's sudden loss of sight in one eye is a borderline case. Mattingly's back or Dizzy Dean's bum toe would not qualify. Ed Delahanty's death by stupidity at Niagra Falls would not qualify -- it was a tragedy, but a self-inflicted one.

This is an allowance, not a free pass...players suffering tragedies would still need at least 8 years or so of HOF caliber performance. If, say Fred Lynn had died tragically in winter 1979, he wouldn't have been a HOF based on his projected numbers (especially since we know he fell off badly afterward). Same with Eric Davis if he had died in winter 1989, or even if Lou Gehrig had contracted ALS in 1929 rather than 1939 -- you've got to have enough of a track record to be in serious HOF arguments when your career ends. This rules out guys like Tony Conigliaro, Herb Score, and Ken Hubbs

[Skip]

GB - I have trouble with this. Coming back from a year long (or more) injury is too bad, but serving in the military (even if in the baseball morale troop) is ok? Either you are out or in so far as stats go. I am truly a very patriotic guy here but wont go so far as to give extra credit for military service over any other reason for missing the game when it comes to assessing value.

I think Williams is the greatest American baseball "hero" type (combining baseball and patriotic-ness) by far. I still vote Bonds in LF.

[Golden Bear]

Injuries are part of the game; avoiding them is a component of greatness.

Military service, particularly "real" service like Ted did, I consider part of the "character clause" of greatness, and thus to me has a certain additive effect. It wasn't altogether his choice, (Was Williams drafted or did he enlist first? I forget. With the spirit of the times, voluntarism was more or less expected anyway), but he added to his personal luster and to the luster of the game. That matters, and should count.

It's not a negative towards Bonds at all, but I think Ted gets an extra boost from the service, over and above the numbers he can be projected to have lost, and if I think that all other things considered Williams and Bonds are about equal (which I do), I think Splinter's service (WWII and Korea -- very few players were in Korea -- Ted was because he was an extraordinary pilot) puts him over the top.

We can agree to disagree on this; I'm not interested in having a long overwrought debate on this.

[nyy26wc]

When people give players extra credit for time spent in military service, they tend to forget how few players actually risked their lives in the military.

Ted Williams and Cecil Travis saw combat time. But, they were not the norms.

There were more players, with Joe DiMaggio and Bob Feller being the most prominent examples, whose military "service" consisted of playing baseball on military bases.

To say that most WW II baseball players were patriotic servers in the military is an insult to anyone who really is a war veteran.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
When people give players extra credit for time spent in military service, they tend to forget how few players actually risked their lives in the military.

Ted Williams and Cecil Travis saw combat time. But, they were not the norms.

There were more players, with Joe DiMaggio and Bob Feller being the most prominent examples, whose military "service" consisted of playing baseball on military bases.

To say that most WW II baseball players were patriotic servers in the military is an insult to anyone who really is a war veteran.

DiMaggio got an easy ride, yes, as did most major leaguers.

But it's my recollection that Feller saw action in Europe. Am I mistaken?

Anyway, I'll agree that DiMaggio, for example, shouldn't get extra credit for his military service. But he shouldn't be penalized either.

You also note that Williams (to return to topic) is a special case here...I agree, that's why I do give him extra credit.

Regardless, I'm not sure I'd call it an insult to war veterans to salute those players who served, even if it was easy duty. Those guys just went where they were ordered, and they were ordered to stay out of harm's way. That doesn't diminish the sacrifice of their liberty and livelihoods during the war years, or make them unpatriotic. It just means they don't reach the level of heroism that combat veterans do; I think most of them would agree with that.

[Duque]

Don't know about everyone else - but I'd be real interested in another thread on player's service times, where they served, and the extent of their duty.

On the LF - right now, Williams is the better hitter of the two, but Bonds was the better defender and baserunner, and didn't hit in Fenway

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Duque
Don't know about everyone else - but I'd be real interested in another thread on player's service times, where they served, and the extent of their duty.

On the LF - right now, Williams is the better hitter of the two, but Bonds was the better defender and baserunner, and didn't hit in Fenway

1) I'd contribute to the military service thread.

2) I thought Fenway was not friendly to lefties.

[Duque]

Originally posted by TGwynn19

2) I thought Fenway was not friendly to lefties.

I think that while Fenway probably hampers lefty power-hitters, it'd be a big boost for LH hitters who made good contact. If you aim for the Monster, a lot of balls that end up as flyouts in bigger parks go for singles. I always figured this was how Mo Vaughn was a .330 hitter in his Red Sox days.

[TGwynn19]

ok....Fenway helped Boggs....but probably hurt Williams.

[hmrsf]

The wall giveth and the wall taketh away. For as many balls that would be caught turned into doubles are as many would be homers turned into loud singles. I think the all wash out evenly, IMHOP.

[moose]

For the record, when I talk about "giving credit" for military service, I mean I'm "considering" the fact that some of these guys lost a few years of their primes, and thus might, MIGHT have slightly better totals. [ie, they could always have gotten hurt or something in those seasons]

it is NOT a matter of crediting them for their service to our country or what not.

so while TW might have hit 600, he wasn't going to raise his lifetime average to .430 in three extra years.... so I guess I also tack on 10 HRs for barry for 1994... :)

[Golden Bear]

Fine with me if we assume Barry can get a boost from '94. Give him the 10 homers. Give him 30. It's not the point.

I'm not assuming Williams would have passed Ruth in HR or that he would have hit .500 in 1944. I didn't really give that any thought at all. It's not that important to me, really, so I'm amazed that people are pushing back on it.

Barry lost two months of his career striking with his fellow players to preserve the bloated salary structure in MLB. That's fine; this is America, and that's the players' right.

They have that right because guys like Williams sacrificed 28 months of his career, and his winters, and possibly life and limb, protecting America and our way of life.

Look, it's an opinion poll...if people object to my citing service to country as a tiebreaker on the very tough call between Bonds and Williams in LF, sorry. It seems as reasonable to me as any attempt to quantify the difference between Ted's advantage at the plate vs. Barry's all-around game. It boils down to a gut call anyway.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone at this point, or expecting to. I'd just like to make my point and let it lie.

[sweaver]

I think it's a good point, GB. There is still some debate out there about whether "service to country" should be credited, but I think it's a valid opinion for your own criteria.

Me? Heck yeah. Ted Williams is a bona fide war hero, and deserves credit for that.

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Fine with me if we assume Barry can get a boost from '94. Give him the 10 homers. Give him 30. It's not the point.

I'm not assuming Williams would have passed Ruth in HR or that he would have hit .500 in 1944. I didn't really give that any thought at all. It's not that important to me, really, so I'm amazed that people are pushing back on it.

Barry lost two months of his career striking with his fellow players to preserve the bloated salary structure in MLB. That's fine; this is America, and that's the players' right.

They have that right because guys like Williams sacrificed 28 months of his career, and his winters, and possibly life and limb, protecting America and our way of life.

Look, it's an opinion poll...if people object to my citing service to country as a tiebreaker on the very tough call between Bonds and Williams in LF, sorry. It seems as reasonable to me as any attempt to quantify the difference between Ted's advantage at the plate vs. Barry's all-around game. It boils down to a gut call anyway.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone at this point, or expecting to. I'd just like to make my point and let it lie.


Thanks GB for saying what I can never say. You write your point very clearly. All that I could add is ditto.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by sweaver
Me? Heck yeah. Ted Williams is a bona fide war hero, and deserves credit for that.
Sure, just not on a baseball field. He shouldn't get any credit for what he could have done.

[poorme]

Originally posted by gyb13

Sure, just not on a baseball field. He shouldn't get any credit for what he could have done.

Extending this logic, you could not take into account park factors since actual historical "events" are the only basis for comparison, not what he "would have done" given a different set of circumstances.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by poorme
Extending this logic, you could not take into account park factors since actual historical "events" are the only basis for comparison, not what he "would have done" given a different set of circumstances.
Your logic is incorrect. Park factors take into account what a player actually did on a baseball field and then translate that into the context of the game as played in those particular stadia. It is based on actual performance, not on filling in gaps.

[poorme]

Originally posted by gyb13

Your logic is incorrect. Park factors take into account what a player actually did on a baseball field and then translate that into the context of the game as played in those particular stadia. It is based on actual performance, not on filling in gaps.

I'm not convinced one is more accurate than the other. If you are using statistics to draw a conclusion it behooves one to analyze the data. Are there any anomolies, or outliers? How can we explain them? If you are using career statistics as a comparison, you have to realize that there is a problem with the data on williams career. You can try to account for this problem or you can just ignore it.

[gyb13]

Reproducing Lee's table from ATM:


DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Babe Ruth .403 1.164 .760
2 Ted Williams .370 1.115 .746
3 Lou Gehrig .299 1.080 .780
4 Rogers Hornsby .276 1.010 .735
5 Jimmie Foxx .263 1.038 .775
6 Barry Bonds .261 1.007 .746
7 Mickey Mantle .252 .977 .725
8 Frank Thomas .251 1.014 .763
9 Joe Jackson .251 .941 .690
10 Hank Greenberg .249 1.017 .768
13 Stan Musial .236 .976 .739

MIN--5000 PA, stats through Tuesday

[gyb13]

Originally posted by poorme
I'm not convinced one is more accurate than the other. If you are using statistics to draw a conclusion it behooves one to analyze the data. Are there any anomolies, or outliers? How can we explain them? If you are using career statistics as a comparison, you have to realize that there is a problem with the data on williams career. You can try to account for this problem or you can just ignore it.
Then we should argue whether to base a player on his natural ability or on his performance. By ability, I mean what his true level of skill is (without numbers). By performance, I mean what the player actually did while on the field. If you argue based on ability, it shouldn't matter whether a player missed time for one reason or another. His natural level of ability is above his actual numbers. But if you argue based on performance, then missed time does matter.

[poorme]

Originally posted by gyb13

Then we should argue whether to base a player on his natural ability or on his performance. By ability, I mean what his true level of skill is (without numbers). By performance, I mean what the player actually did while on the field. If you argue based on ability, it shouldn't matter whether a player missed time for one reason or another. His natural level of ability is above his actual numbers. But if you argue based on performance, then missed time does matter.

Agreed. I, for one, find it more fun to argue about a player's "natural ability". Unfortunately, it's difficult to convince anyone of anything in that realm. It's fun to hear about the flesh and blood players. The game itself is so beautiful and graceful, full of all sorts of characters. It's good to get away from the stats once in a while.

[Golden Bear]

Analogy:

You're an employer, with two star employees.

One, person A, doesn't miss work much -- not never (that would be your third employee Cal), but pretty rarely. His work is uniformly excellent.

The other, person B, misses a fair amount of work, because he's a volunteer firefighter in your community and is frequently called to save women and children from burning buildings. His work is also superior, but at the end of 20 years, he's accumulated a little less aggregate output in terms of volume than person A.

Their jobs are somewhat different so direct comparison is not easy. (This accounts for era, park, style-of-play effects.)

Is person B less valuable because he took time off to fight fires? Given that you, your family, your company, and your other employess live and work in the community person B protects, is he arguably more valuable?

[Golden Bear]

Analogy:

You're an employer, with two star employees.

One, person A, doesn't miss work much -- not never (that would be your third employee Cal), but pretty rarely. His work is uniformly excellent.

The other, person B, misses a fair amount of work, because he's a volunteer firefighter in your community and is frequently called to save women and children from burning buildings. His work is also superior, but at the end of 20 years, he's accumulated a little less aggregate output in terms of volume than person A.

Their jobs are somewhat different so direct comparison is not easy. (This accounts for era, park, style-of-play effects.)

Is person B less valuable because he took time off to fight fires? Given that you, your family, your company, and your other employess live and work in the community person B protects, is he arguably more valuable?

[gyb13]

American capitalist society (which you say TW and others bravely defended) dictates that what matters most is the bottom line, so yes, person A is more valuable to the company, since he "accumulated more aggregate output."

[gyb13]

Originally posted by poorme
Agreed. I, for one, find it more fun to argue about a player's "natural ability". Unfortunately, it's difficult to convince anyone of anything in that realm. It's fun to hear about the flesh and blood players. The game itself is so beautiful and graceful, full of all sorts of characters. It's good to get away from the stats once in a while.
Yeah, you're not convincing me ;)
Having never seen Ted play, I don't know how I can 'get away from the stats.' They bring some context as to what his ability at the time meant.

[Skip]

C'mon guys, time to drop this. It isnt going anywhere. Ted won the poll; I voted differently; I dont think you can speculate about missing performance; but I have no problem with him winning.

Lets move on the the Greatest CF poll, or whatever's next Sweaver.

[sweaver]

Agreed. I just wonder if gyb would feel differently if he was raised in this country, or if his father or grandfather served in WWII, as my dad did.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Let's not make this personal. Somebody close this before it explodes.

[Skip]

I dont know that family history would or should make a difference. My grandfather served in WWI and my dad was 30 year career military though he never was in "action". I dont think it diminishes my respect for them or the military to say that I wont consider lost years in a comparison of players.

I'm fine with the vote, although I disagree personally, but am concerned that feeling this way implies I am less patriotic or respectful or whatever of our country and its history. That's ludicrous.

We need to close this thread. I will no longer look at it in any case.

[sweaver]

I voted for Bonds, because I think overall he was better. As LGO says, your mileage may vary.

I hate to have this thread closed just because that would mean latecomers wouldn't get to vote. It is, however, time to agree to disagree.