General Tiger Discussion

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

at least ranking between eras has generally the same universe of teams, games played, conditions of play, etc.  there are a few differences in the ball over the years, but nothing like the differences between mlb and the negro leagues.  and the pool of players for the negro leagues was much smaller.  a lot of barnstorming more than a set league.  not that there wasnt a set league for a lot of the history, but not for all of it.

i dont think the two leagues were equal and that the mlb pool of players was much deeper, but both leagues were diminished by the absence of the other league's great players.

The available data online are from actual league play, so it wouldn't be watered down by weaker barnstorming opponents.  It is true that there was a smaller pool since there were fewer Blacks than Whites, but there is also a larger pool now compared to pre-integration.  I think it's highly probable that the best Negro League players were as good as the best white players.  If you look at the performance in the three decades after integration, half of the top 40 hitters by WAR were black players. I think it's safe to say that the superstars of the Negro Leagues would also have been superstars in the White leagues.  You are right that you can't rank them precisely, but you can't really do that with different eras either. 

Another thing is that the Black teams fared very well in head to head games versus white teams.  You can say those were just exhibition games, but White MLB teams dominated White minor league teams at the same time.  I think they would have liked to dominate the black teams too, but they couldn't.  Yeah, there is still a lot of guess work, but the more I look at it, the more I think it's possible to come up with a reasonable ranking.     

 

 

[Tiger337]

Did ESPN do their top 50 yet?  Jeter will probably be top 5.  

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

The available data online are from actual league play, so it wouldn't be watered down by weaker barnstorming opponents.  It is true that there was a smaller pool since there were fewer Blacks than Whites, but there is also a larger pool now compared to pre-integration.  I think it's highly probable that the best Negro League players were as good as the best white players.  If you look at the performance in the three decades after integration, half of the top 40 hitters by WAR were black players. I think it's safe to say that the superstars of the Negro Leagues would also have been superstars in the White leagues.  You are right that you can't rank them precisely, but you can't really do that with different eras either. 

Another thing is that the Black teams fared very well in head to head games versus white teams.  You can say those were just exhibition games, but White MLB teams dominated White minor league teams at the same time.  I think they would have liked to dominate the black teams too, but they couldn't.  Yeah, there is still a lot of guess work, but the more I look at it, the more I think it's possible to come up with a reasonable ranking.     

 

 

i think there is no doubt the best black players would have done well in the major leagues.  i also think there is no doubt that the best white players would have done just as well or better in the negro leagues, simply because the player pool for the negro leagues was much smaller.

but the only definitive evidence we have is the numbers we have and stories that come down to us, the veracity of which we dont really know.  were oscar charleton and josh gibson better than ty cobb and charlie gehringer?  we'll never know.  all we can go on is what they did at the time they did it.  and by those measures, they were not.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think there is no doubt the best black players would have done well in the major leagues.  i also think there is no doubt that the best white players would have done just as well or better in the negro leagues, simply because the player pool for the negro leagues was much smaller.

but the only definitive evidence we have is the numbers we have and stories that come down to us, the veracity of which we dont really know.  were oscar charleton and josh gibson better than ty cobb and charlie gehringer?  we'll never know.  all we can go on is what they did at the time they did it.  and by those measures, they were not.

I don't understand what you mean.  Charleston and Gibson were better than Gehringer based on the data.  You can't really compare stats like that, but based on the measures, they were better.  Ty Cobb is a different story.  

[buddha]

16 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't understand what you mean.  Charleston and Gibson were better than Gehringer based on the data.  You can't really compare stats like that, but based on the measures, they were better.  Ty Cobb is a different story.  

maybe youre right on gehringer.  but i think the negro league numbers are very inflated.

[gehringer_2]

7 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

Gehringer is already criminally underrated on this list.

ain't it the truth!

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, buddha said:

i think ripken is actually overrated.  he played a long long long time that helps his war, but he wasnt all that great for the second half of his career.

agreed. Cal was very good for a very long time but you never feared losing a game just because you were playing against Ripkin. A lifetime 112 OPS+, 276 BA?. 4 seasons over 130 OPS+, Trammell had 6 in shorter career.

[1984Echoes]

58 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

ain't it the truth!

PS: I spent middle school and high school in Gehringer's hometown...

[RandyMarsh]

Ripken has the 3rd highest JAWS score and 3rd highest 7 year WAR of any SS in history only behind AROD and Wagner. Had a 7 year run where he averaged over 8 wins a season. 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Ripken has the 3rd highest JAWS score and 3rd highest 7 year WAR of any SS in history only behind AROD and Wagner. Had a 7 year run where he averaged over 8 wins a season. 

war rewards durability, not surprising.  and he played a good shortstop.  he made the all star game every year of his career for god's sake, no matter whether he deserved it or not.

i'll take gerhringer over ripken.  from age 24-37 gehringer never had an ops+ below 100.  ripken did five times.  i might take scott rolen too.  more consistent than ripken and a better fielder.

Edited February 2, 2022 by buddha

[Jim Cowan]

If you were afraid to play the Orioles, it was because of Eddie Murray, not Ripken.

[Tiger337]

I think Ripken was legitimately one of the all-time great shortstops.  Durability and strong fielding counts a lot at shortstop.  He is probably #3 behind Wagner and Rodriguez.  You could maybe move Vaughn ahead of him.    I might move Ripken a little higher on the top 100 list, but I don't think he is grossly over or under rated here. 

Gehringer is under rated because he was quiet and there are no interesting stories about him.   

[John_Brian_K]

Slow and steady wins the race.

[oblong]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think Ripken was legitimately one of the all-time great shortstops.  Durability and strong fielding counts a lot at shortstop.  He is probably #3 behind Wagner and Rodriguez.  You could maybe move Vaughn ahead of him.    I might move Ripken a little higher on the top 100 list, but I don't think he is grossly over or under rated here. 

Gehringer is under rated because he was quiet and there are no interesting stories about him.   

Durability is definitely something we should give credit for.  It's not always luck.

[Tiger337]

17 hours ago, buddha said:

maybe youre right on gehringer.  but i think the negro league numbers are very inflated.

They are inflated because the worst Negro League teams were worse than the worst white teams.  If someone was a top five player in a Negro League, his statistics would be better than a top five player in a white league in the same time period.  However, I think the top five player in the Negro League would be as good as the top five player in the white league.  

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think Ripken was legitimately one of the all-time great shortstops.  Durability and strong fielding counts a lot at shortstop. 

Durability counts in terms of the long term value to his team, but in terms of making him a feared player on a game by game basis not so much. Take the extreme case of a 3 war/yr player who was some kind of genetic freak and played for 35 yrs. He might own all kind of counting records by the end of his career and he would have been a great signing for his team (and a HOF lock), but the opposition teams would hardly have cared about playing against him. There is something to be said for a player's intensive qualities as well as his cumulative ones. It's true that player that burn brightly for shorter careers have a hard time making the HOF - but they they are often the ones we are watching the game to see play.

[Tiger337]

28 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Durability counts in terms of the long term value to his team, but in terms of making him a feared player on a game by game basis not so much. Take the extreme case of a 3 war/yr player who was some kind of genetic freak and played for 35 yrs. He might own all kind of counting records by the end of his career and he would have been a great signing for his team (and a HOF lock), but the opposition teams would hardly have cared about playing against him. There is something to be said for a player's intensive qualities as well as his cumulative ones. It's true that player that burn brightly for shorter careers have a hard time making the HOF - but they they are often the ones we are watching the game to see play.

In ranking the greatest players of all time, I look at value, both long-term and short-term.  Ripken had both.  According to WAR, he was the best player in the league three times.  He wasn't the best hitter in the league those years, but shortstops almost never are unless you're Wagner or Rodriguez.  He was a very good hitter those years and could also field.  I am not seeing where he is over rated, at least not on the list that was posted.   

Ripken is not Wagner or Rodriguez.  He is Jeter with a glove.  He is Trammell with durability.  

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

Numbers 26-50.  Jeter #28.  The real overrated shortstop.  

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33145627/top-100-mlb-players-all-nos-50-26

[1984Echoes]

Yogi Berra is way, way too high on that list. Another heavy New York bias.

Better than Jimmie Foxx, Nolan Ryan and George Brett? Really?

[Tiger337]

I probably wouldn't rank Berra that high, but I think catchers tend to be underrated.   it's really hard to rank them since so much of what they do can not be measured.  I don't usually like to give players a lot of points for post-season play but he was an important piece of ten world champions and he did well in post-season.  So, he gets a little boost for that.  More importantly, he was a good hitter for a catcher and had a good reputation as a defender.  I  think he's still too high, but his ranking is less egregious than Jeter.  

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

This is a good article on evaluation of Negro League players.  One of the main points is that both the White and Negro Leagues were very watered down prior to integration.  If Blacks had been allowed to play in the majors, you would be replacing the bottom third of players with substantially better players.  So, you can't trust the white major league numbers either.  The conditions would have very diferent.  The author makes a point about head to head match-ups between Black and White teams as well.  

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33194902/top-100-mlb-players-all-oscar-charleston-best-baseball-player-all-why-important-try-find-out

 

 

[TheWordIsBird]

So incredibly predictable. 🙄

[RandyMarsh]

Unless Shep pulls a Thom Brennamen or something I afraid we are stuck with him for the foreseeable future. I did really like Petry in the color role so I'm glad he is still part of the rotation. 

[TheWordIsBird]

9 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Unless Shep pulls a Thom Brennamen or something I afraid we are stuck with him for the foreseeable future. I did really like Petry in the color role so I'm glad he is still part of the rotation. 

Does it make me an awful human being if I secretly hope he pulls a Brennaman?

 

[RandyMarsh]

46 minutes ago, TheWordIsBird said:

Does it make me an awful human being if I secretly hope he pulls a Brennaman?

 

If so then I think we are all awful human beings. Lol