hey guys who do you think is the Best Player in MLB as of currently
me, i think its either Gary Sheffield or Miguel Tejada
brkhrt7
04-04-05, 05:55 PM
Pujols and Vlady
nevermind
04-04-05, 05:55 PM
Is Randomville near Vacaville?
Mad Dawg
04-04-05, 05:59 PM
Is Randomville near Vacaville?
:lol: I'm guessing that it's very close.
The best player, and it's a shame that he sucks so badly in the field, is a healthy Barry Bonds. Being the best hitter in the game makes up quite a bit for his problems with the glove and that ass he wears on his shoulders.
Pujols is next, followed by Vlad.
Quake1028
04-04-05, 06:03 PM
:lol: I'm guessing that it's very close.
The best player, and it's a shame that he sucks so badly in the field, is a healthy Barry Bonds. Being the best hitter in the game makes up quite a bit for his problems with the glove and that ass he wears on his shoulders.
Pujols is next, followed by Vlad.
Yep.
Aphex Twin
04-04-05, 06:09 PM
Right now? Dimitri Young
BrianYuen
04-04-05, 06:44 PM
cough cough
Barry Bonds = Steroids
Mad Dawg
04-04-05, 06:49 PM
Well, you didn't say "Best player not suspected of using steroids."
Of course, that would strike Sheffield off of your list, too.
fumanstan
04-04-05, 06:50 PM
Vlad.
Josh H
04-04-05, 06:53 PM
Bonds, Vlad, Pujols.
Setzer
04-04-05, 07:04 PM
Vlad
chrisih8u
04-04-05, 07:06 PM
Pujols and Vlady
:up:
FantasticVSDoom
04-04-05, 07:47 PM
I will have to go with Vlad and Pujols as well, and if someone could get Manny a prescription for Ritalin, he'd be there as well...
RoyalTea
04-04-05, 07:51 PM
Godzilla
Dabaomb
04-04-05, 10:50 PM
Bonds, Vlad, Pujols.
:up:
Although I do think that ARod is gonna have a bounceback year and could easily move to the top of the list again.
nickdawgy
04-04-05, 11:05 PM
Vlad Guerrero is definitely the best all around.
My top 5 (not in order) is Vlad, David Ortiz, Pujols, Beltran, and Sammy.
Dabaomb
04-04-05, 11:13 PM
Vlad Guerrero is definitely the best all around.
My top 5 (not in order) is Vlad, David Ortiz, Pujols, Beltran, and Sammy.
Sammy Sosa rotfl
In the Sporting News Annual Top 50, he's not even in the top 50 anymore.
Ortiz is nowhere near the top due to zero fielding.
fumanstan
04-04-05, 11:28 PM
I agree with ARod as well. I'd put him right there after Vlad and Pujols.
B.A.
04-04-05, 11:50 PM
Vlad
Jericho
04-05-05, 01:23 AM
I like Vlad a lot as well as Pujols, but I would say A-Rod despite a "down" 2004. Bonds of course would be if he played, but he seems some fragile now and of course isn't playing
Thrush
04-05-05, 01:24 AM
Sammy Sosa rotfl
In the Sporting News Annual Top 50, he's not even in the top 50 anymore.
Ortiz is nowhere near the top due to zero fielding.
Yep, If anyone else is curious, They polled MLB General Managers and Bonds was voted #1 by a wide margin. Thats who would get my vote for best player as well.
the aftermath
04-05-05, 02:07 AM
Vlad, and it's not really even close IMO. He can hit for average and power, has good speed and we all know how great his arm is.
wabio
04-05-05, 02:51 AM
Top 20 (not in any particular order):
Vlad
Sheff
Pujols
Ichiro
ARod
Manny
Huff
Beltran
Bonds
M. Cabrera
Scott Rolen
Ortiz
Texiera
Helton
H. Matsui
Edmonds
Pierre
A. Soriano
A. Ramirez
wabio
04-05-05, 02:51 AM
....Sammy.
:hscratch:
Dabaomb
04-05-05, 05:06 AM
:hscratch:
I think that he thinks that it's still 2001 :lol:
twikoff
04-05-05, 06:44 AM
Bonds, Vlad, Pujols.
hard for any sane person to argue with this list/order
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 01:30 PM
I think people have forgotten about ARod, too many people leaving him off the list.
But a healthy Bonds tops them all, no doubt, even though his fielding is now suspect he changes the game too much at the plate to not be #1.
After that, Id take Pujols then ARod then Vlad.
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 01:31 PM
hard for any sane person to argue with this list/order
so, people are insane if they think ARod belongs on the list?
Deftones
04-05-05, 01:37 PM
Since Bonds is more of a liability in the field, he can't be the best. The best, to me, means they are good in most, if not all aspects of their game. To me there's two guys right now that fit that mold. Vladamir Gurerro and Carlos Beltran. Arod would come in third.
Pujols and Bonds are great, but their game is too one dimensional, heavily slanted towards offense than defense.
dick_grayson
04-05-05, 01:39 PM
Vlad (easily when you combine his hitting and his rocket for an arm )
No love for the pitchers? What about Johann Santana, Randy Johnson, and Eric Gagne (healthy)? They deserve mention as well but Ill go with Pujols.
Deftones
04-05-05, 01:47 PM
No love for the pitchers? What about Johann Santana, Randy Johnson, and Eric Gagne (healthy)? They deserve mention as well but Ill go with Pujols.
Well, since pitching is pretty one sided, it's hard to call a pitcher the best in the game. Not saying that you can't, but that's probaby why the have the Cy Young and the MVP. :lol:
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 04:33 PM
Since Bonds is more of a liability in the field, he can't be the best. The best, to me, means they are good in most, if not all aspects of their game. To me there's two guys right now that fit that mold. Vladamir Gurerro and Carlos Beltran. Arod would come in third.
Pujols and Bonds are great, but their game is too one dimensional, heavily slanted towards offense than defense.
Fair enough, re: your criteria. And if it was close between players, that would be a deciding factor for me. But Bonds changes the game in so many ways that far overshadow his defensive liabilities. How many hits or runs occur because of his poor fielding? And how many runs is he responsible for?
Also, Pujols is nowhere near a one-dimensional player, many people predict he will win a gold glove at first, if not this year then soon. And Vlad, for all of his rifle arm, is not actually that great of a fielder.
To me, the best player in the game right now is the one I would select first if I was putting a team together for this season only. And there is simply NO WAY Beltran would beat out Bonds, Pujols, Arod, or Vlad if that was the measure.
Fair enough, re: your criteria. And if it was close between players, that would be a deciding factor for me. But Bonds changes the game in so many ways that far overshadow his defensive liabilities. How many hits or runs occur because of his poor fielding? And how many runs is he responsible for?
Also, Pujols is nowhere near a one-dimensional player, many people predict he will win a gold glove at first, if not this year then soon. And Vlad, for all of his rifle arm, is not actually that great of a fielder.
To me, the best player in the game right now is the one I would select first if I was putting a team together for this season only. And there is simply NO WAY Beltran would beat out Bonds, Pujols, Arod, or Vlad if that was the measure.
No matter how you justify it, Bonds' offensive play doesn't make up for his crappy OF play. To be the best, you have to play like the best. He's the best offensive player, but not even close on the field.
I don't necessarily disagree w/ Pujols being great defensively, but I think he's still a ways away from winning that Gold Glove just yet.
To me Beltran is up there simply because he is a 5 tool guy like Vlad is. Look at what he did in the playoffs last year single handedly.
Obviously this is very subjective, but to me, if you are going to say someone is the best, they need to rank highly in all aspects of the game.
grrrah
04-05-05, 05:37 PM
:lol: at the comments for Bonds "crappy" OF play. His outfield play is great anymore , but its average to better than average. To say its crappy is just clueless. His arm isn't the strongest, but its decently accurate. He doesn't have the speed anymore, but usually gets good jumps on the ball. He doesn't make the mental errors that many others do. His defense takes a beating because it isn't up to par with his offense, but compared to other outfielders, he's not a liability when healthy, which he has been for the most part up until recently.
edit: with that said, I don't think he is the best player in the league this year. i would say vlad, or Arod if he goes back to his old self.
Deftones
04-05-05, 05:43 PM
:lol: at the comments for Bonds "crappy" OF play. His outfield play is great anymore , but its average to better than average. To say its crappy is just clueless. His arm isn't the strongest, but its decently accurate. He doesn't have the speed anymore, but usually gets good jumps on the ball. He doesn't make the mental errors that many others do. His defense takes a beating because it isn't up to par with his offense, but compared to other outfielders, he's not a liability when healthy, which he has been for the most part up until recently. Pujols is just as much, if not more a "liability"
edit: with that said, I don't think he is the best player in the league this year. i would say vlad, or Arod if he goes back to his old self.
Let's see. A Giant fan blinded by his own allegiance. :lol:
His outfield play sucks. He doesn't go after anything anymore, and he has an average arm. I've seen him misplay a ton of balls because he's not in the right position to even play the ball off the bat. I'm sorry, take off your blinders.
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 05:49 PM
No matter how you justify it, Bonds' offensive play doesn't make up for his crappy OF play. To be the best, you have to play like the best. He's the best offensive player, but not even close on the field.
Obviously this is very subjective, but to me, if you are going to say someone is the best, they need to rank highly in all aspects of the game.
Well, you're right, it is very subjective, plus I don't define "best" the way you do, so we're starting from different points. To me, best is the one I most want on my team RIGHT NOW. And a healthy Bonds wins that easy.
As for Bonds offensive play not making up for his crappy OF play, how many errors does he commit a year? How many balls does he miss that aren't considered errors? Even if he was the worst LF in the game, it just can't be that many. From here, http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statnlbat/ Bonds' runs created stats, and runs created per game, are astronomical when compared to other players. I just don't see how his fielding can be that bad that his hitting does not more than make up for it. But again, if you require that somebody be good at every facet of the game, sure, you can rule him out. But I don't think you'd find a GM alive who wouldn't agree that having Bonds in LF and in your lineup will bring you more net runs than having Beltran in CF and in your lineup.
Deftones
04-05-05, 05:57 PM
Well, you're right, it is very subjective, plus I don't define "best" the way you do, so we're starting from different points. To me, best is the one I most want on my team RIGHT NOW. And a healthy Bonds wins that easy.
As for Bonds offensive play not making up for his crappy OF play, how many errors does he commit a year? How many balls does he miss that aren't considered errors? Even if he was the worst LF in the game, it just can't be that many. From here, http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statnlbat/ Bonds' runs created stats, and runs created per game, are astronomical when compared to other players. I just don't see how his fielding can be that bad that his hitting does not more than make up for it. But again, if you require that somebody be good at every facet of the game, sure, you can rule him out. But I don't think you'd find a GM alive who wouldn't agree that having Bonds in LF and in your lineup will bring you more net runs than having Beltran in CF and in your lineup.
Bonds doesn't get alot of errors because he doesn't drop balls that are right at him. Watch him play for a while. He misplays balls, which unfortunately, don't count as errors. That coupled with the fact he doesn't track down balls anymore because he can't run. Unless the ball is hit right at him, he's about as average as they come in LF as a fielder.
Again, you are simply focusing on how Bonds generates runs. Think of how many runs a Beltran prevents by making great catches or running down balls in the gap, or how many runs Vlad prevents by gunning out guys with his cannon for an arm.
I don't have statistics at how many runs Bonds potentially allows other teams to score when he's in the OF, as I don't ever recall seeing statistics like that.
grrrah
04-05-05, 06:08 PM
I have to respectfully disagree about him misplaying balls. yes he does misplay a few, but, compared to other visiting outfielders, he is better than average. Maybe he has an advantage at home, as its a disadvantage when he is in arizona. but to say he misplays "a ton" of balls is ignorant. He had 11 assists last year too, which is pretty good for a defensive liability.
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 06:09 PM
Bonds doesn't get alot of errors because he doesn't drop balls that are right at him. Watch him play for a while. He misplays balls, which unfortunately, don't count as errors. That coupled with the fact he doesn't track down balls anymore because he can't run. Unless the ball is hit right at him, he's about as average as they come in LF as a fielder.
Again, you are simply focusing on how Bonds generates runs. Think of how many runs a Beltran prevents by making great catches or running down balls in the gap, or how many runs Vlad prevents by gunning out guys with his cannon for an arm.
I don't have statistics at how many runs Bonds potentially allows other teams to score when he's in the OF, as I don't ever recall seeing statistics like that.
I understand that he doesn't always get errors, that's why I said "How many balls does he miss that aren't considered errors". I know exactly what you are saying.
And I am not "simply" focusing on how many runs Bonds generates, or ignoring how many Beltran saves. From that site, Bonds RC was 177, RC/G was 20 :eek:. Vlad's was 128 and 8, Beltran 60 and 8 for KC, 67 and 7 for HOU (total 127).
And the RC/G stat is particularly telling, because it considers how many runs the team would score if that guy took every at bat. Bonds more than doubles Beltran's total. Or any other full time major leaguer, for that matter. No way good defense makes up that difference.
twikoff
04-05-05, 06:12 PM
Let's see. A Giant fan blinded by his own allegiance. :lol:
as opposed to a bonds hater with the opposite opinion :hscratch:
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:17 PM
I understand that he doesn't always get errors, that's why I said "How many balls does he miss that aren't considered errors". I know exactly what you are saying.
And I am not "simply" focusing on how many runs Bonds generates, or ignoring how many Beltran saves. From that site, Bonds RC was 177, RC/G was 20 :eek:. Vlad's was 128 and 8, Beltran 60 and 8 for KC, 67 and 7 for HOU (total 127).
And the RC/G stat is particularly telling, because it considers how many runs the team would score if that guy took every at bat. Bonds more than doubles Beltran's total. Or any other full time major leaguer, for that matter. No way good defense makes up that difference.
Maybe it doesn't, but the argument still holds, you are overvaluing offense over defense according to your argument. To me, that doesn't define a great player. Great = well above average at everything you do. At this point, you can't really say that about Bonds. :lol:
But, again, this is all subjective and for the purposes of argument, so we are both wrong. ;)
grrrah
04-05-05, 06:19 PM
Thanks twikoff. Deftones was right, and so were you.
Def: Just curious, where would your rank him defensively among left fielders?
IMO, a defensive liability is around 0-25th percentile
His stats rank him roughly in the top 5-10 (errors, assists, %)
Personally, I think he is somewhere around the 50th-60th percentile among other left fielders.
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:22 PM
as opposed to a bonds hater with the opposite opinion :hscratch:
When was the last time Bonds name was even mentioned as a Gold Glove candidate? When was the last time we saw a Bonds play make a SC highlight reel?
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 06:25 PM
Maybe it doesn't, but the argument still holds, you are overvaluing offense over defense according to your argument. To me, that doesn't define a great player. Great = well above average at everything you do. At this point, you can't really say that about Bonds. :lol:
But, again, this is all subjective and for the purposes of argument, so we are both wrong. ;)
well, yeah, we're just arguing for the sake of arguing. but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. :p
And again, I know that we have different definitions of great, you've made clear that under your definition Bonds can't be considered. And I accept that, although I have a different definition.
But I am most certainly NOT overvaluing offense over defense. I am recognizing that the game, both offense and defense, is all about one team scoring more runs than the other. On a player level, that evaluation comes down to how a particular player does that, how do they help their team score more runs than the other team. they can do that with the bat and the glove, and neither has more weight, except insofar as one deserves more weight than another (for ex., a HR helps a team more than a bobble which results in a fielders choice and not a double play hurts).
So, I am not overvaluing offense over defense. I am merely stating that Bonds as a complete player does more to help his team win on the field than Beltran. And that is fully considering both offense and defense, with the understanding that no matter how good or bad you are at either, ultimately the measure of what you mean to your team is whether you help them score more runs than the opponent, both with the bat and the glove.
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:26 PM
Thanks twikoff. Deftones was right, and so were you.
Def: Just curious, where would your rank him defensively among left fielders?
IMO, a defensive liability is around 0-25th percentile
His stats rank him roughly in the top 5-10 (errors, assists, %)
Personally, I think he is somewhere around the 50th-60th percentile among other left fielders.
His range factor is pretty bad for a LF. I know that's not a perfect stat, but still gives a good indication of ability.
He still does get a fair amount of outfield putouts, so what he lost in RF he regained some in putouts.
I'd say he's probably ranks amongst the 50% percentile. He's better than half the league and worst than the rest. ;)
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:29 PM
well, yeah, we're just arguing for the sake of arguing. but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. :p
And again, I know that we have different definitions of great, you've made clear that under your definition Bonds can't be considered. And I accept that, although I have a different definition.
But I am most certainly NOT overvaluing offense over defense. I am recognizing that the game, both offense and defense, is all about one team scoring more runs than the other. On a player level, that evaluation comes down to how a particular player does that, how do they help their team score more runs than the other team. they can do that with the bat and the glove, and neither has more weight, except insofar as one deserves more weight than another (for ex., a HR helps a team more than a bobble which results in a fielders choice and not a double play hurts).
So, I am not overvaluing offense over defense. I am merely stating that Bonds as a complete player does more to help his team win on the field than Beltran. And that is fully considering both offense and defense, with the understanding that no matter how good or bad you are at either, ultimately the measure of what you mean to your team is whether you help them score more runs than the opponent, both with the bat and the glove.
The problem is, you are arguing with stats because they keep track of that, but they don't keep track of misplayed balls in the OF or stuff like that. If it's an E, it's an E. If it's not, it's not. So you can rely on statistics to say he may create more runs offensive, but there's nothing definitive to say that a guy like Beltran may prevent just as many runs.
twikoff
04-05-05, 06:36 PM
When was the last time Bonds name was even mentioned as a Gold Glove candidate? When was the last time we saw a Bonds play make a SC highlight reel?
big difference between gold glove (which of course he has won plenty in his career) and being an adequate fielder
I definitly dont see him as a liability in the field.. and he is by far the biggest offensive weapon in the majors
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:39 PM
big difference between gold glove (which of course he has won plenty in his career) and being an adequate fielder
I definitly dont see him as a liability in the field.. and he is by far the biggest offensive weapon in the majors
You only get to see him play 6x per year. I get to see him 19 times. :p
LurkerDan
04-05-05, 06:40 PM
The problem is, you are arguing with stats because they keep track of that, but they don't keep track of misplayed balls in the OF or stuff like that. If it's an E, it's an E. If it's not, it's not. So you can rely on statistics to say he may create more runs offensive, but there's nothing definitive to say that a guy like Beltran may prevent just as many runs.
of course there aren't stats for that. but I challenge you to find any reputable baseball person, columnist, GM, whatever, (and you sure don't count! :p) to argue that Beltran saves as many runs over Bonds in the field than Bonds creates at the plate over Beltran. Often that kind of estimation can be difficult. In this case, because Bonds' offensive numbers are so absurdly better, it's just imporrible to argue.
Scratch that. It's impossible to argue logically or legitimately. ;)
Deftones
04-05-05, 06:47 PM
of course there aren't stats for that. but I challenge you to find any reputable baseball person, columnist, GM, whatever, (and you sure don't count! :p) to argue that Beltran saves as many runs over Bonds in the field than Bonds creates at the plate over Beltran. Often that kind of estimation can be difficult. In this case, because Bonds' offensive numbers are so absurdly better, it's just imporrible to argue.
Scratch that. It's impossible to argue logically or legitimately. ;)
I should email a stat head like a Stark or something to see what he says.
lemieux66c
04-07-05, 06:48 AM
I certainly agree with the Vlad, Bonds, A-Rod and Pujols arguments - plus Beltran if he steps it up again like he did in the playoffs. But how about Scott Rolen?
twikoff
04-07-05, 07:33 AM
rolen definitly has both the offensive and defensive skills to make the list.. But as far as that goes, so do ALOT of other players..
rolen just doesnt have the same *WOW* factor the guys listed above
nickdawgy
04-07-05, 07:57 AM
Sammy Sosa rotfl
In the Sporting News Annual Top 50, he's not even in the top 50 anymore.
Ortiz is nowhere near the top due to zero fielding.
Nobody said it had to be best all around. I am talking offense. Who cares what the sporting news said.
twikoff
04-07-05, 08:02 AM
well.. even offense.. as of "right now".. sosa is no longer on that list
several years ago.. definitly
this year or last... no chance
Dabaomb
04-07-05, 08:07 AM
Nobody said it had to be best all around. I am talking offense. Who cares what the sporting news said.
maybe prior to getting found with cork in his bat but not anymore. Plus, he's probably not on the juice anymore so that ain't helping him :lol:
oh yeah, btw, the Sporting News rankings are from the polling of GMs, not of the opions of their writers.
well.. even offense.. as of "right now".. sosa is no longer on that list
several years ago.. definitly
this year or last... no chance
Well since his injuries he hasn't been the same, and he hasn't played a full season since 2001.
Dabaomb
04-07-05, 12:20 PM
Well since his injuries he hasn't been the same, and he hasn't played a full season since 2001.
your post confirms my previous post that Sammy hasn't been a top 5 player since 2001.
nickdawgy
04-07-05, 01:20 PM
your post confirms my previous post that Sammy hasn't been a top 5 player since 2001.
He's still a top 5 player. Any team in the league besides maybe the Cubs would love to have him.
nevermind
04-07-05, 01:27 PM
He's still a top 5 player. Any team in the league besides maybe the Cubs would love to have him.
provided the Cubs pay 75% of his salary :)
DaveNinja
04-07-05, 01:36 PM
I hate bonds but do have to agree that his on base percentage and total bases totally over shadow his week fielding. On base percentage counts a lot more heavily than fielding. In Moneyball they discuss Johnny Damon vs Scott Hattieburg. Damon's fielding ability creates lots of outs that would have been hits, but Hats greater control at the plate make up for the difference (and he's a lot cheaper).
Dabaomb
04-07-05, 01:41 PM
provided the Cubs pay 75% of his salary :)
:lol:
yeah, not even the Mets were willing to eat his contract and the Mets are like the NY Knicks of baseball in that they're willing to eat every bad contract out there.
nickdawgy, I doubt you'll find any supporters on your sentiment that Sammy Sosa is a top 5 player :lol:
LurkerDan
04-07-05, 01:54 PM
:lol:
yeah, not even the Mets were willing to eat his contract and the Mets are like the NY Knicks of baseball in that they're willing to eat every bad contract out there.
nickdawgy, I doubt you'll find any supporters on your sentiment that Sammy Sosa is a top 5 player :lol:
what is Sammy's typical draft position in fantasy leagues this year?
I am fairly certain that even if money was not an issue, and we were just drafting for this year (i.e., age is factored out, essentially), no GM would draft Sammy in the first round. Which would mean he isn't even in the top 30.
Jeez, he's not even the top player on his current team, how could he be top 5 in the league? :hscratch:
Mad Dawg
04-07-05, 01:56 PM
I think Sammy could be a top 5 player*
*if the top 25 players where heading to an awards ceremony only to have their plane crash in the Andes Mountains. And the next 25 players where stricken with a deadly virus.
I was gonna say stick to basketball, but then again he still thinks that KG isn't a top 5 player :lol:
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 10:46 AM
That list is a joke. No way I'd put guys like Abreu, Patterson, and Crawford ahead of him. Plus, take the pitchers off the list. He's still top 5 to me. I'd put him before everyone on that list except Pujols, Vlad, A-Rod, and Beltran.
Put it this way. Some GM isn't going to say "hmm, Carl Crawford or Sammy Sosa? Let's go with Crawford."
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 10:47 AM
I think that nickdawgy got served :lol:
I was gonna say stick to basketball, but then again he still thinks that KG isn't a top 5 player :lol:
I got served? What are you 12 years old?
Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Wade, Duncan top 5
KG 6th
LurkerDan
04-08-05, 10:55 AM
Put it this way. Some GM isn't going to say "hmm, Carl Crawford or Sammy Sosa? Let's go with Crawford."
why yes, yes they might. :lol: Crawford is an up and coming star who is expected to get better and better, Sammy is a declining guy whose OPS has gone down significantly every year since 2001.
In any case, without agreeing to the list, to put down Abreu shows you don't pay much attention. Abreu had an OPS of .971 last year (15th in MLB), stole 40 bases, hit 30 HR, drove in 105 runs, and scored 118.
Sosa, OTOH, had an OPS of .849, stole 0 bases, hit 35 HR, drove in 80, and scored 69. You have to go back to 2002 to find a season that tops Abreu's.
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 11:05 AM
why yes, yes they might. :lol: Crawford is an up and coming star who is expected to get better and better, Sammy is a declining guy whose OPS has gone down significantly every year since 2001.
In any case, without agreeing to the list, to put down Abreu shows you don't pay much attention. Abreu had an OPS of .971 last year (15th in MLB), stole 40 bases, hit 30 HR, drove in 105 runs, and scored 118.
Sosa, OTOH, had an OPS of .849, stole 0 bases, hit 35 HR, drove in 80, and scored 69. You have to go back to 2002 to find a season that tops Abreu's.
Actually, I had no idea about Crawford. I had heard of him, but I didn't know he was up and coming. I was gonna say Patterson, but I figured Dabaomb would be in here and say the Cubs GM did choose Patterson over Sosa. While I do love baseball, for the most part my knowledge is confined to the Angels and a little of the Dodgers. It's not like football, basketball, or hockey where I know of other players.
I think me saying Sosa is top 5 is just an opinion (as Dabaomb noted in his sig) and like he said most people wouldn't agree with me.
Deftones
04-08-05, 11:10 AM
why yes, yes they might. :lol: Crawford is an up and coming star who is expected to get better and better, Sammy is a declining guy whose OPS has gone down significantly every year since 2001.
In any case, without agreeing to the list, to put down Abreu shows you don't pay much attention. Abreu had an OPS of .971 last year (15th in MLB), stole 40 bases, hit 30 HR, drove in 105 runs, and scored 118.
Sosa, OTOH, had an OPS of .849, stole 0 bases, hit 35 HR, drove in 80, and scored 69. You have to go back to 2002 to find a season that tops Abreu's.
I'd argue that Crawford is already a star in the league, but just doesn't get the press that alot of guys do because he plays in TB.
The fact of the matter is, Sosa was great, but now he's not. There are a ton of other players who put up better numbers and that should be considered better than him now.
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 11:25 AM
It just shows how much I pay attention to players in the National League. By the way, how is McGwire doing this season?
;)
Third Baseman
04-08-05, 11:34 AM
I don't consider anyone who strikes out once every three at bats to be in the top 20.
That's pretty sad that you are so ignorant. A strikeout is just another out.
mgbfan
04-08-05, 11:36 AM
I got served? What are you 12 years old?
Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Wade, Duncan top 5
KG 6th
lol - You can argue for Shaq and Duncan. Lebron isn't better than KG yet (he probably will be, but not yet - don't believe the hype). Wade and Kobe, no chance. Wade's a nice little player, but come ooooon dude.
Deftones
04-08-05, 11:38 AM
It just shows how much I pay attention to players in the National League. By the way, how is McGwire doing this season?
;)
When did Tampa Bay get moved to the National League? :lol:
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 11:42 AM
When did Tampa Bay get moved to the National League? :lol:
I was talking about Patterson, Sosa, and Abreu, not Crawford.
EDIT: And I know Sosa is in the AL now, I'm just saying.....
LurkerDan
04-08-05, 11:44 AM
lol - You can argue for Shaq and Duncan. Lebron isn't better than KG yet (he probably will be, but not yet - don't believe the hype). Wade and Kobe, no chance. Wade's a nice little player, but come ooooon dude.
wade is more than a nice little player. anyone who has watched the Heat (with and without Shaq) will tell you that. I think Wade is already in the top 10. But yeah, he isn't better than KG right now, not close.
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 11:44 AM
lol - You can argue for Shaq and Duncan. Lebron isn't better than KG yet (he probably will be, but not yet - don't believe the hype). Wade and Kobe, no chance. Wade's a nice little player, but come ooooon dude.
I'm talking players I'd want on my team if I were a GM. Yes, I'd pick Kobe and all of those players over KG.
Elldubtoo
04-08-05, 11:45 AM
That's pretty sad that you are so ignorant. A strikeout is just another out.
Are you sure you're not the ignorant one?
A strikeout is definitely not "just" an out. There are good outs and there are horrible/inning-killing/rally-killing outs. Strikeouts are horrible.
Elldubtoo
04-08-05, 11:47 AM
Yes, I'd pick Kobe and all of those players over KG.
Isiah Thomas NEEDS you to be an NBA GM so he will no longer be the village idiot.
Deftones
04-08-05, 12:37 PM
Guys, this is about baseball. Quit w/ the basketball talk. kthxbye
Third Baseman
04-08-05, 12:48 PM
Are you sure you're not the ignorant one?
A strikeout is definitely not "just" an out. There are good outs and there are horrible/inning-killing/rally-killing outs. Strikeouts are horrible.
rotfl
So, hitting into a double play is better than striking out? Is hitting into a weak ground out or a pop out to center field better than striking out? News flash, an out is an out. It counts as the same thing. Yep, sometimes an out can produce a run via sac fly, yep, sometimes you can reach on an error, but you can also reach base via strikeout and a passed ball. Oh, here are some facts you can chew on...
Breaking out the old TI-85: 0.0175 + 0.0257-0.0136 = 0.0296. On a very rough scale, a strikeout costs a team about three one-hundredth of a run. Looking at team totals from 2004, Reds batters led the league in strikeouts with 1,335 while the Giants trailed with 874, a difference of 461 whiffs. All those failures at the plate cost the Reds an estimated 13.6 runs over the course of the season, or just over one win. With individual batters who accumulated at least 600 plate appearances, Adam Dunn led the league with a well-publicized 195 strikeouts while Juan Pierre trailed with a mere 35. The 160 strikeouts--the most extreme case in the majors--add up to a difference of 4.7 runs.
Strikeouts do have a marginal cost when it comes to offense. The problem with evaluating them is that the price is so marginal that even between the most extreme teams and players, the difference is negligible. While the Reds would certainly like to have those 13.6 runs they "lost" by striking out so many times, the strikeouts come part and parcel with the kind of players the Reds have, the kind of players that are case studies for the positive relationship between isolated power and strikeout rate. Everyone can agree that strikeouts are not ideal, but like "Honey," they may make you cringe, but if you just focus on the other positives, the marginal costs become just that: marginal.
Quake1028
04-08-05, 01:04 PM
Sosa isn't anywhere close to top 5, hell I can spit out 15 names I would rather have in about 30 seconds: Bonds, Pujols, Vlad, ARod, Jeter, Sheff, Berkman, Beltran, Beltre, Ichiro, Tejada, ManRam, Helton, Soriano, Thome (in no order), and that is not including pitchers, of whom I would take around 20-25 before Sosa.
BTW, LeBron is top 5 right now (Duncan, KG, Kobe, LeBron, Shaq), and is most definitely NOT hype, just look at the stats.
nickdawgy
04-08-05, 01:15 PM
Isiah Thomas NEEDS you to be an NBA GM so he will no longer be the village idiot.
You calling me an idiot, n00b?
Dabaomb
04-08-05, 01:50 PM
Isiah Thomas NEEDS you to be an NBA GM so he will no longer be the village idiot.
:lol:
mgbfan
04-09-05, 12:52 AM
Isiah Thomas NEEDS you to be an NBA GM so he will no longer be the village idiot.
:lol:
mgbfan
04-09-05, 12:55 AM
BTW, LeBron is top 5 right now (Duncan, KG, Kobe, LeBron, Shaq), and is most definitely NOT hype, just look at the stats.
I didn't say he wasn't among the best (top 5 is debatable, top 10 is not). But there IS hype. I'm sorry, there just is. He's over-inflated a bit by a lot of folks. That's not to say what's real isn't fantastic. You can certianly argue that he's top 5. But I don't think you can argue YET that he's better than KG. He just isn't there yet. Give him some time - he's got lots of it.
Quake1028
04-09-05, 02:43 AM
I didn't say he wasn't among the best (top 5 is debatable, top 10 is not). But there IS hype. I'm sorry, there just is. He's over-inflated a bit by a lot of folks. That's not to say what's real isn't fantastic. You can certianly argue that he's top 5. But I don't think you can argue YET that he's better than KG. He just isn't there yet. Give him some time - he's got lots of it.
Not to derail the thread, but have you looked at his stats lately?:
Add in the fact that he has his team in the playoffs without much talent around him, and he won't turn 21 until the penultimate day of 2005. I guess I (and many others around here) fail to see where the "hype" is.
wabio
04-09-05, 03:38 AM
In any case, without agreeing to the list, to put down Abreu shows you don't pay much attention. Abreu had an OPS of .971 last year (15th in MLB), stole 40 bases, hit 30 HR, drove in 105 runs, and scored 118.
Bobby Abreu is an awesome player. I keep trying to get him on my fantasy team, but the bastid manager won't give him up. :(
He's way better than Sosa right now. Abreu's only drawback is that he strikes out a lot. But even so, I still think he's better than Beltran....but that's a different argument altogether.
Deftones
04-09-05, 03:46 AM
Abreu's only drawback is that he strikes out a lot. But even so, I still think he's better than Beltran....but that's a different argument altogether.
Oh no you didn't! :lol:
Third Baseman
04-09-05, 10:59 AM
Abreu's only drawback is that he strikes out a lot.
OMG PEOPLE. When will you fellas learn. -ohbfrank-
mgbfan
04-11-05, 03:26 AM
and he won't turn 21 until the penultimate day of 2005. I guess I (and many others around here) fail to see where the "hype" is.
This is exactly what I'm talking about with hype. His age has NOTHING to do with how good he is right now. Yes, he has immense upside. Yes, he's likely to get even better. But his age has absolutly ZERO relevance to the question of who is the best/better player right now. Saying things like this is axactly what hype is all about.
Again, bear in mind that acknowledging that a player has hype doesn't mean you're putting the player down.
The Cow
04-11-05, 03:43 AM
This is exactly what I'm talking about with hype. His age has NOTHING to do with how good he is right now. Yes, he has immense upside. Yes, he's likely to get even better. But his age has absolutly ZERO relevance to the question of who is the best/better player right now. Saying things like this is axactly what hype is all about.
Again, bear in mind that acknowledging that a player has hype doesn't mean you're putting the player down.
WTF, on topic??
I agree, LeBron is not close to being in top ten MLB players at this point. Maybe someday -ohbfrank-
nickdawgy
04-11-05, 10:39 AM
:lol:
Only you would think that was funny. But if someone called you an idiot, you'd be hitting "report bad post" faster then the Lakers can give up a lead.
Dabaomb
04-11-05, 11:50 AM
Only you would think that was funny. But if someone called you an idiot, you'd be hitting "report bad post" faster then the Lakers can give up a lead.
I only did that cuz I perceived his post the wrong way. I thought that he was stating that all of my posts at DVDTalk were stupid. I could care less whether he considers my basketball knowledge stupid.
Clearly, no one agrees with you on the Sammy Sosa issue and very few ppl agree with you on the KG one.
Anyways, this is going off-topic.
LurkerDan
04-11-05, 01:16 PM
Anyways, this is going off-topic.going? :hscratch:
Josh H
04-11-05, 01:23 PM
rotfl
So, hitting into a double play is better than striking out? Is hitting into a weak ground out or a pop out to center field better than striking out? News flash, an out is an out. It counts as the same thing. Yep, sometimes an out can produce a run via sac fly, yep, sometimes you can reach on an error, but you can also reach base via strikeout and a passed ball. Oh, here are some facts you can chew on... [i]
If you stike out a lot you're putting less balls into play. That means less chance for reaching on an error (more frequent than reaching on K and pass ball), less chances for sacrifice flys, less chances to move the runner over on a ground ball to the right side of the infield, etc.
Good things can happen when you put the ball into play that can't happen when you strike out.
So an out is not an out in the case of K's vs. putting the ball in play and making an out IMO.
nickdawgy
04-11-05, 01:40 PM
I only did that cuz I perceived his post the wrong way. I thought that he was stating that all of my posts at DVDTalk were stupid. I could care less whether he considers my basketball knowledge stupid.
Clearly, no one agrees with you on the Sammy Sosa issue and very few ppl agree with you on the KG one.
Anyways, this is going off-topic.
You just pissed me off even more by putting what he said in your sig.
The Cow
04-11-05, 03:25 PM
If you stike out a lot you're putting less balls into play. That means less chance for reaching on an error (more frequent than reaching on K and pass ball), less chances for sacrifice flys, less chances to move the runner over on a ground ball to the right side of the infield, etc.
Good things can happen when you put the ball into play that can't happen when you strike out.
So an out is not an out in the case of K's vs. putting the ball in play and making an out IMO.
or a double-play...
chrisih8u
04-11-05, 03:30 PM
More runs have been scored on double plays than on strikeouts.
LurkerDan
04-11-05, 03:56 PM
More runs have been scored on double plays than on strikeouts.
you're not seriously arguing that a double play is better than a K, are you? :whofart: Which would you rather have: a) score 0-0, men on first and third, one out, or b) score 1-0, bases empty, 2 out?
FWIW, I think lots of statistical analysis has shown that a K is slighly worse than other outs. But not nearly as much as those who like to complain about them would think. I'll take a guy with an OPS of .900 who K's 150 times a year over a guy with an OPS of .800 who K's 25 times a year. And that is why guys like Adam Dunn are still valuable players.
chrisih8u
04-11-05, 04:03 PM
you're not seriously arguing that a double play is better than a K, are you? :whofart: Which would you rather have: a) score 0-0, men on first and third, one out, or b) score 1-0, bases empty, 2 out?
Depends on the situation. If its the top of the ninth, ill take the run. Of course a double play is almost always worse than a K. But all things being equal, Id rather have a guy who makes contact and puts the ball in play.
Josh H
04-11-05, 04:23 PM
or a double-play...
Of course a double play is worse than a K. Two outs vs. 1.
Still, all else equal, I want the contact hitter that puts the ball in play on my team over the one who strikes out a lot.
Third Baseman
04-11-05, 04:38 PM
you're not seriously arguing that a double play is better than a K, are you? :whofart: Which would you rather have: a) score 0-0, men on first and third, one out, or b) score 1-0, bases empty, 2 out?
FWIW, I think lots of statistical analysis has shown that a K is slighly worse than other outs. But not nearly as much as those who like to complain about them would think. I'll take a guy with an OPS of .900 who K's 150 times a year over a guy with an OPS of .800 who K's 25 times a year. And that is why guys like Adam Dunn are still valuable players.
Finally a guy with some sense around here. ;) That's basicly what I said, but I guess they chose to ignore the facts I provided them with. -confused-
Still, all else equal, I want the contact hitter that puts the ball in play on my team over the one who strikes out a lot. http://raisedbykubrick.com/smilies/hsugh.gif
chrisih8u
04-11-05, 04:42 PM
Dont you think that if Adam Dunn cut his strikeouts in half, it would be beneficial? Of course, this doesnt mean he isnt a good player. My point is that strikeouts are bad and its better to put it in play.
Third Baseman
04-11-05, 04:51 PM
Dont you think that if Adam Dunn cut his strikeouts in half, it would be beneficial? Who knows. Actually, no - I don't. Because as I posted, the difference is very slim and very unimportant. Also, It's not a risk I'm willing to take. He is who he is. He walks over 150 times because of his selectment at the plate. If that is going to equal into more strikeouts as well (trust me, I watch every Reds game possible (over 100), the guy strikes out looking alot), then so be it. I could care less because of the facts provided to me that strikeouts are just as bad as any other out, and not worst over the course of the season.
If a guy produces, strike outs doesn't and shouldn't matter.
The only thing that does matter are runs created, and strikeouts don't affect that.
I simply don't care to root for the hope of an error or a sac fly.
Josh H
04-11-05, 04:59 PM
The only thing that does matter are runs created, and strikeouts don't affect that.
I simply don't care to root for the hope of an error or a sac fly.
See, that is contradictory. Just because you don't care to root for an error, sac fly, ground ball advancing a runner, etc. doesn't mean they don't affect the creation of runs.
They certainly do, and a ball in play has some chance of these things (as well as risk of double play) where as a strike out does not.
And no need for the roll eyes above. I said all things equal I'll take the contact hitter.
In the other guys example, I too would take the guy with the higher OPS and more Ks. That's not all things equal. If two guys have the same OPS and similar power numbers, I'm taking the one who strikes out less as he'll probably drive in or contribute to more runs (by advancing runners) by putting the ball in play.
Third Baseman
04-11-05, 05:04 PM
Again... read what I posted.
Breaking out the old TI-85: 0.0175 + 0.0257-0.0136 = 0.0296. On a very rough scale, a strikeout costs a team about three one-hundredth of a run. Looking at team totals from 2004, Reds batters led the league in strikeouts with 1,335 while the Giants trailed with 874, a difference of 461 whiffs. All those failures at the plate cost the Reds an estimated 13.6 runs over the course of the season, or just over one win. With individual batters who accumulated at least 600 plate appearances, Adam Dunn led the league with a well-publicized 195 strikeouts while Juan Pierre trailed with a mere 35. The 160 strikeouts--the most extreme case in the majors--add up to a difference of 4.7 runs.
Strikeouts do have a marginal cost when it comes to offense. The problem with evaluating them is that the price is so marginal that even between the most extreme teams and players, the difference is negligible. While the Reds would certainly like to have those 13.6 runs they "lost" by striking out so many times, the strikeouts come part and parcel with the kind of players the Reds have, the kind of players that are case studies for the positive relationship between isolated power and strikeout rate. Everyone can agree that strikeouts are not ideal, but like "Honey," they may make you cringe, but if you just focus on the other positives, the marginal costs become just that: marginal.
Josh H
04-11-05, 05:08 PM
Hey, I'm not saying they make a huge difference or that players that strike out a lot are bums.
Just that I'd rather have those 13.6 runs* by having say someone that puts up the same numbers as someone like Dunn but strikes out less.
*(I hate projected stats anyway, just made up BS, need to consider what scenario each K happened under to do accurately).
But anyway, it's not worth arguing over.
Third Baseman
04-11-05, 05:10 PM
You root your way, I'll root my way. ;)
Still the best game on earth. So who cares, eh?
chrisih8u
04-11-05, 05:12 PM
Who knows. Actually, no - I don't. Because as I posted, the difference is very slim and very unimportant.
Of course it would be more benificial! If you put the ball in play you have a considerabley better chance to make something good happen.
occasionally > never
Also, It's not a risk I'm willing to take. He is who he is. He walks over 150 times because of his selectment at the plate. If that is going to equal into more strikeouts as well (trust me, I watch every Reds game possible (over 100), the guy strikes out looking alot), then so be it.
I agree. He is still a great player even though he strikes out a lot. But that doesnt mean that its better for him to srike out than put the ball in play.
I could care less because of the facts provided to me that strikeouts are just as bad as any other out, and not worst over the course of the season.
If a guy produces, strike outs doesn't and shouldn't matter.
The only thing that does matter are runs created, and strikeouts don't affect that.
I simply don't care to root for the hope of an error or a sac fly.
Strikouts are worse than other outs. A sac fly is hell of a lot better than a strikout. A grounder that scores a runner from third is a lot better than a strikout. What can you gain by striking out?
Third Baseman
04-11-05, 05:16 PM
http://raisedbykubrick.com/smilies/hsughr.gif
So can we mark Jorge Piedra (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/rockies/2005-04-11-piedra-suspension_x.htm%3FPOE%3DSPOISVA) off the best player list?
SuprVgeta
04-13-05, 01:35 AM
Not much seperates Beltran / A-Rod / Pujols.... so i'll say those are the three best. No one player is far and above better than the next closest guy though...
Elldubtoo
04-13-05, 02:13 AM
Not much seperates Beltran / A-Rod / Pujols.... so i'll say those are the three best. No one player is far and above better than the next closest guy though...
When did Beltran become a better player than Vladimir Guerrero?
twikoff
04-13-05, 09:01 AM
When did Beltran become a better player than Vladimir Guerrero?
statistically.. beltran shouldnt be anywhere near this list
but he had a really good year last season (of course, it was his contract year)
Dabaomb
04-13-05, 09:25 AM
statistically.. beltran shouldnt be anywhere near this list
but he had a really good year last season (of course, it was his contract year)
I think his postseason just blew everyone away.
He does have the potential to be at the top of the list.
twikoff
04-13-05, 09:38 AM
I think his postseason just blew everyone away.
He does have the potential to be at the top of the list.
potential... yes
but until he can do this on a regular basis.. and not just during his contract year... i dont see how anyone could justify putting him that high
there are a large handful of players i would put in the same group as beltran right now... but the "top player" list is MUCH shorter.
Dabaomb
04-13-05, 09:42 AM
potential... yes
but until he can do this on a regular basis.. and not just during his contract year... i dont see how anyone could justify putting him that high
there are a large handful of players i would put in the same group as beltran right now... but the "top player" list is MUCH shorter.
I agree
Elldubtoo
04-13-05, 10:57 AM
Since Bonds is more of a liability in the field, he can't be the best. The best, to me, means they are good in most, if not all aspects of their game. To me there's two guys right now that fit that mold. Vladamir Gurerro and Carlos Beltran. Arod would come in third.
Pujols and Bonds are great, but their game is too one dimensional, heavily slanted towards offense than defense.
Carlos Beltran is a better player than A-Rod? You guys are seriously overrating a guy who has never led his team to a division title, who has only 1 all-star appearance (and that's due to an injury to another player), who has never been close to winning an MVP, whose career BA is less than .300. And for all his defense, he has never won a Gold Glove. And don't tell me about his age/potential, he's only a year younger than Vlad, 2 years younger than A-Rod and older than Pujols.
Beltran is good but nowhere near Vlad, A-Rod, Bonds or Pujols.
LurkerDan
04-13-05, 12:07 PM
Carlos Beltran is a better player than A-Rod? You guys are seriously overrating a guy who has never led his team to a division title, who has only 1 all-star appearance (and that's due to an injury to another player), who has never been close to winning an MVP, whose career BA is less than .300. And for all his defense, he has never won a Gold Glove. And don't tell me about his age/potential, he's only a year younger than Vlad, 2 years younger than A-Rod and older than Pujols.
Beltran is good but nowhere near Vlad, A-Rod, Bonds or Pujols.
ding ding ding! we have a winner!
I'm a Mets fan, and even I admit many here are vastly overrating him based solely on one postseason and oodles of potential. But I hope they're right! :D
Buy: