The definitive inner-circle Hall of Fame list

59 Replies

Our friend Graham Womack has executed an amazing study over at his website, Baseball: Past and Present. He asked voters to name the top 50 Hall of Famers, and determined the inner circle of Hall of Famers. You’ve got to go check it out. He assembled an all-star team of writers to compose essays on the 50 finalists.

It’s interesting that Tony Gwynn just made it into the inner circle, while Wade Boggs was the last guy to get cut. They got a similar number of votes, and had a lot of similarity as players. Boggs finished with a huge edge in WAR, at 88.3 compared to Gwynn’s 65.3. Boggs played a more important defensive position and played it well. How exactly did Gwynn get the nod?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

59 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed
Ed
11 years ago

I would guess two things helped Gwynn re: Boggs. First, is that Gwynn played his whole career with one team. Second, Gwynn continued to win batting titles in his mid 30s while posting BAs between .353-.394. Boggs, on the other hand, kind of faded post age 30, at least relative to what he did earlier in his career.

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago

The top 29 vote-getters were where they should be, but Koufax, Ryan, Killebrew, and Reggie, each for different reasons, don’t qualify as inner circle, no matter what the vote says. I can see the argument for Koufax, though I don’t agree (and having him ranked above Feller, Grove, Carlton, and Alexander is ridiculous—not to mention the overlooked Kid Nichols), but the others, no way are they top 50. Killebrew isn’t top 100. All the same, as Adam Darowski says in his follow-up comment, the fact that the vote was about 80% on target is encouraging. I just wonder if his… Read more »

0
Reply
MikeD
MikeD
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

Reggie’s 15-year peak produced an OPS+ of 151 (and I’m doing that from memory, so I hope I didn’t misremember), so not only was it high, but it was also a long peak. I’d have to compare that with others before I would quickly dismiss him for the inner circle. As I’ve noted before, for a player who was constantly in the headlines and was often referred to as a superstar, in some ways he actually became underrated.

0
Reply
Andy
Author
Andy
11 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

I strongly agree about Reggie becoming underrated. I think Reggie’s mustache and personality added a ton to his popularity, and after he retired and (obviously) stopped producing numbers and the personality continued, fans started to think that they were influenced by his persona into thinking he was better than he was.

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

MikeD:

I’m not knocking Reggie—I am knocking Killer—but to me he’s not top 50, and I can’t see the argument for him the way I can for Koufax. Maybe top 60. The commentator at the Inner Circle project does him an injustice by saying he was all about home runs, true, and I’ll grant that he’s under-appreciated, but I refuse to over-compensate by reversing the logic. He was a great player, they all were, but enough others were greater that he shouldn’t have made the inner circle cut.

0
Reply
MikeD
MikeD
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

NSB, I understand. I didn’t necessarily take your comment as a knock. I even mentioned I’d have to go and review the list to see if Reggie does belong in the top 50. My quick comment is probably a reaction to some recent news stories/bloggers/tweets who knocked Jackson’s recent comments questioning some borderline HOFers, with some saying he was a borderline HOFer. Jackson is not a borderline HOFer. Not even close. I’m still not sure if Jackson belongs in the top 50. I did see some players who didn’t make the cut who I would rate ahead of Jackson, yet… Read more »

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

Reggie’s raw totals suffered a lot because the two clubs he is best known for, the A’s and Yankees, played in pitchers parks (especially the A’s, with all that foul territory). Plus overall he played in a well below-average offensive environment (AIR of 92; as low as 75 and 79 with the A’s). His lifetime BA of .262 sounds mediocre at best, but twelve times his BA was higher than the league average. Neutralized Batting gives him a .277 BA, with 618 HR. All those walks and HRs led to an excellent OPS+ over many years, as MikeD noted above… Read more »

0
Reply
Baltimorechop
Baltimorechop
11 years ago

I wrote the below on the original thread while thinking go Koufax: Looked long and hard at Koufax, but realized his four year peak (34.9 pitch War, 33.7 total war) was pretty much matched by Robin Roberts (33.5 pitch, 33.9 total) and Rube Waddell (36.7 pitch, 35.7 total) and Marichal (32.1 pitch, 33.9 total). I couldn’t justify Koufax as enough of a dominate period to dub him top 50. (Also, this is why i left Roberts in, when I did consider dropping him). I know robe didn’t make it. I’l probably be back with more thoughts (swapping tabs loses my… Read more »

0
Reply
Baltimorechop
Baltimorechop
11 years ago
Reply to  Baltimorechop

Had a chance to look over it all, thoughts:

Those on:
Definitely some fame involved here. Berra middle of the pack? Ryan, Jackson, and Banks all aren’t quite there to me. Not sure how someone can value Berra so high but leave off Carter.

Snubs:

Carter, Boggs, niekro, blyleven, Nichols. I also think Vaughan and Roberts (had a peak on par with Koufax) should be there. Some old timers were skipped too, like brouthers, Connor, plank, Davis. Also, I would say gehringer is more deserving than Greenberg. Guess it depends how you correct for war years (but then, where’s maize?)

0
Reply
Richard Chester
Richard Chester
11 years ago
Reply to  Baltimorechop

Talking about snubs what about Harry Heilmann. He was one of the best hitters in baseball but I am really impressed with his peak years from 1921 to 1927. Here’s how he ranked during those years: R………..4th H………..2nd behind only Hornsby 2B……….3rd 3B……….7th HR……….8th RBI………2nd behind only Ruth BB……….7th BA……….2nd behind only Hornsby OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+….3rd behind only Ruth and Hornsby. I also checked rolling 5-year averages from 1921 to 1930. For those 6 periods Hornsby was on top 5 times and Heilmann was the one to break the string. Heilmann was 1 of 2 players to bat .393… Read more »

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Richard Chester

Richard, Several reasons why Heilmann isn’t considered in the Top-50: – While he was geat from 1921-27, as you noted, he was never considered in the same level as the very greatest hitters of the twenties, in Ruth and Hornsby. There were just too many other great hitters around, for him to stand out: Early 20s: Ruth, Hornsby, Sisler, Cobb, Speaker, Collins Mid-20s: still Ruth and Hornsby; also Gehrig, Al Simmons, Goose Goslin, Zach Wheat Late-20s: still Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, Simmons, Goslin; also Jimmy Foxx, Mel Ott, Paul Waner There were just too many other hitters about as good as… Read more »

0
Reply
Richard Chester
Richard Chester
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

Thanks for the response. I guess you’re saying he was lost in the crowd. Regardless, I still think he should have gotten more than 13 votes, he did things that few other players have done.

0
Reply
deal
deal
11 years ago

#1 reason for Gwynn > Boggs is without a doubt due to the West Coast Bias throught out sports coverage.

Seriously I think the one team thing is important. The Padres do not have a World Championship so their apex are their 2 NL Championships and Gwynn was on both clubs which were separted by 14 years.

Unrelated: I have never had a cat yet the ad that comes up in my Lower right is 4 cat food. Targeted marketing Fail.

0
Reply
Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
11 years ago
Reply to  deal

deal–I really don’t see how you can cite West Coast bias. Boggs played nearly his entire career for the Red Sox and the Yankees. I’m from the Midwest, and I think there is far more East Coast bias, especially for those two cities, due mostly to the four-letter network.

1
Reply
Andy
Author
Andy
11 years ago
Reply to  Gary Bateman

He was joking, hence why his second paragraph started with the word “seriously”.

0
Reply
Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
11 years ago
Reply to  Andy

Missed that completely. Sorry.

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  deal

deal, you need to move here to Switzerland. I get a smoking hot babe advertising – well, I’m not all that sure what she’s advertising. Some kind of weight-reduction program, I think, but I never take my eyes off the SHB long enough to read what it is.

0
Reply
Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
11 years ago

We can debate Gwynn/Boggs sll we want, but there are 3 things that concern me more: how Kid Nichols didn’t get in, somebody didn’t vote for Willie Mays, and 2 people didn’t vote for the Babe.

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Insert Name Here

INH, Did you vote in Graham’s “inner-circle” poll? Because if you did, you’d remember how very difficult it was to scroll up and down the list of possible candidates (all of the position-player HOFers), to make sure you actually checked off all the candidates you wanted to. The number of selections was several screen-heights up-and-down. It’s quite possible someone went over the list several times and just plain missed Ruth and Mays, even hough they intended to vote for them. I actually checked my votes several times to make sure I had _exactly_ 50 checked, since I kept changing votes,… Read more »

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

LA:

In the earlier discussion, when the poll was announced, one (presumed) voter proclaimed he wouldn’t vote for anyone pre-1947. He would doubtless have voted for Willie, so there’s someone out there who was probably just a contrarian, or that’s my guess. Hard to believe, though, that anyone with a brain and no ax to grind would omit not just Mays and Ruth, but about twenty others.

Now at least we have a clue as to why no one gets elected to the hall unanimously.

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

NSB,

I stand corrected, I guess that there’s always a few contrarians out there in any field.

Not voting for _anyone_ pre-1947 (because of segregation) is about as dumb as not voting for anyone post-1990 (because of steriods). Of course, that’s just my opinion.

0
Reply
MikeD
MikeD
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I did something similar, although I’m comfortable with what I did but not with this other person did by not voting fay anyone pre-1947. I didn’t vote for any players from the Negro Leagues. While I recognize that Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston would have been great players and likely HOFers if they played in MLB, the fact is they didn’t play in MLB. No fault of their own, but I was already having difficulty narrowing choices, so I limited my selection to players based on what they did as major league players. Great players? Totally. But to be an… Read more »

0
Reply
PP
PP
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

it just might have been the length of the list, i recall seeing I’d left out Musial just before I was going to submit it and then removing Kaline, whom i’m glad to see made it in at 45, only 1 of my 3 Negro Leaguers made it in though (Josh Gibson)

0
Reply
Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

Yes, I voted – and yes, it was difficult, but you have to have a serious brain fart to not have Willie Mays among those who you find and check off before finishing off the ballot.

I evidently forgot about the voters promising no segregation-era votes… as if segregation created by owners somehow lessens the players’ value?

0
Reply
PP
PP
11 years ago
Reply to  Insert Name Here

Agreed Mays is one of the proverbial no-brainers, automatic check. My first thought when I realized I’d missed Musial was that he’s the all-time great who gets ignored in a lot of discussions, or it seems that way to me, and over at the sight I see 8 people “forgot” to put him on their lists. By my humble count 40 of those guys are locks, 1 through 29, and 11 others after that. Fun project for sure.

0
Reply
brp
brp
11 years ago

Quick thoughts… Nothing on the top 25 that’s worth nit-picking. I’m amazed at how high Clemente is rated and am certain it has to do with how he died… Cal Ripken rated higher than Joe Morgan? I’m sure that Morgan’s horrible announcing hasn’t helped…. Koufax and Lajoie are way overrated…. appropriate that Gibson/Paige are ranked together, and I’m not touching the Negro League issue…surprised Rod Carew almost made it… The nice thing is that there’s nothing inexcusable about who made it. The bottom 5-10 guys are most of the ones that could be argued about. All in all this was… Read more »

0
Reply
Abbott
Abbott
11 years ago

I wonder why Sadaharu Oh wasn’t on the ballot.

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Abbott

Because Sadaharu Oh is not in the Baseball Hall Of Fame in Cooperstown, NY, which was the sole criterion for being listed on Graham’s ballot.

Besaball stars from Japan fall outside the realm of this particular list.

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago

Three comments: 1) As someone who’s always maintained that Koufax is overrated, I’m glad to see that others on this forum agree with me. 2) As for Kid Nichols, I’m not surprised by his lack of support. His best years were all pre-1901 which people likely chose to discount. He’s also not a “name player. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about baseball history but I actually had to look to see if he was a pitcher or a position player. 3) Is it me or are old-timers overvalued relative to more recent players? I’m talking particularly in the top 10-15.… Read more »

0
Reply
Chad
Chad
11 years ago
Reply to  Ed

As to point number 3, I think some of the All-time greats from more recent times are excluded from the poll because they are not yet in the Hall of Fame. I think if you did the same study 10 years from now, you’d see some more recent guys cracking the top of the list (Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Big Unit, A-Rod, Pujols …)

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago
Reply to  Chad

Chad: I hear what you’re saying but all the top 14 began their career in 1954 or earlier. That just doesn’t make much sense. Obviously some of the more recent guys haven’t had an opportunity to make the Hall of Fame and thus be part of this project but there’s still post-1954 still gives a long time frame of guys that could have cracked the top 14. Anyway, my theory is that less competition/lower oveall quality allowed players to accumulate more counting stats (and WAR!) and thus make them look better than perhaps they were. Plus of course, better advanced… Read more »

0
Reply
Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Not to mention it’s a whole lot easier to lead an 8 team league in a category than it is a 14 or 16 (or next year 15) team league and being first in something seems to count far more than being runner up no matter how narrow the margin.

Still- and even accounting for the complexity of the ballot and votes being inadvertently missed- I was kind of expecting to see at least a dozen or so unanimous choices

0
Reply
Chad
Chad
11 years ago
Reply to  Ed

I agree with you to a large extent, but if you look at career leaders in WAR, the top 16 guys all are pre-1954 guys, with the exceptions of #3 Bonds and #8 Clemens (neither of whom is yet eligible. The rest of the post ’54 guys in the top 30 are: #17 – ARod (not eligible) #19 – Rickey Henderson #21 – Seaver #23 – Schmidt #25 – Maddux (not eligible) #26 – Frank Robinson (started in ’56) #28T – Joe Morgan #30 – Big Unit (not eligible) 3 of the top 5 in the voting (Mays, Aaron, Mantle)… Read more »

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago
Reply to  Chad

Right but that gets to my point that WAR overrates earlier players cause they played in easier times/against easier competition. I obviously can’t prove it but (just to pick one name) I’ll bet that Joe Morgan would be a lot higher in career WAR if he had played in an earlier time period.

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  Chad

Ed, there’s a lot of debate about the easier-competition-in-earlier-times claim. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a famous piece explaining why we don’t have .400 hitters any more, basically concluding that it’s because overall excellence has increased and there is less variation between the best and worst hitters. (If you don’t like batting average as a stat you can substitute, say, a .750 or an .800 slugging percentage. You have to go back to the 1920s for .800 and I don’t think even T. Williams got to .750. It took Bonds in 2001 to break the .800 barrier again, and we all… Read more »

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Ed: It’s funny, but my impression is that the people at BR-REf do just the opposite—that is, they tend to overcorrect on WAR for the hypothetical lesser competition in past eras, for just the reasons you and others question. I don’t see how anyone can actually know how Joe Morgan would have done had he played in, say, the 1910s and 1920s, AND existed day-to-day without more modern amenities, AND performed under the conditions of that time and with the training and equipment then available. The idea that he or other moderns would have done better seems always to be… Read more »

0
Reply
Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

NBS, I think the premise is not so much that your generic modern-day superstar would have dominated the older eras more than they actually did, but that the actual level of talent has steadily risen throughout MLB history, so that older (say pre-WWWII) stars would not dominate as much as they did, and their stats would not stand out as much. Ed made this point in #25 and #29, and tag/#31 did a great job bringing up the late great Harvard paleontologist/baseball fan Stephen Jay Gould, who tried to explain baseball stats in evolutionary terms. His point, in biogical terms,… Read more »

0
Reply
Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

I actually think that Gould was a bit off base, and that nobody hitting .400 has more to do with styles and parks, and the fact of the offensive explosion in the 20s and 30s. At the time Gould made that conclusion, baseball was still in a relatively low offensive era (early 80s), and had just been through the lesser deadball era.

the 90s/00s offensive explosion took place in an era of higher strikeouts and more HR, something that has a lot to do with parks, different pitching styles and usage, and different approaches of the top hitters.

0
Reply
MikeD
MikeD
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

I think players no longer hitting .400 goes beyond just the talent level. Let’s keep the talent level the same in today’s game and make one simple change. We’ll make all the ballplayers today wear the fielding gloves from Babe Ruth’s time. If you want to take it a step further, make them where the same shoes, bulky uniforms restricing movement, and remove all the advanced positioning through cameras and computer-generated statistics. In other words, the players can compete basically on talent, but put them on the same playing field as the old-time players equipment and technology wise. What are… Read more »

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

MikeD, so you’re saying that if the 17-year-old Babe Ruth were transported to the game today, he would become a combination of Barry Bonds in his prime (perhaps minus the speed) and Barry Bonds on the most effective steroids ever developed. And what if he never did learn to pick up and hit the slider and the cutter? Would he be Ron Kittle?

0
Reply
CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

No, tag, he likely wouldn’t be a combination of 1990-1993 prime Barry and 2001-2004 prime Barry. But I also doubt he’d be Steve Balboni.

He wouldn’t hit more HRs than entire teams, and he wouldn’t retire with an OPS+ over 200. He would probably be a great player, though, because hitting a Walter Johnson fastball over the short RF porch in old Yankee Stadium isn’t that much different from hitting a Justin Verlander fastball over the short RF porch in new Yankee Stadium.

0
Reply
MikeD
MikeD
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

Tag @49, is that really what you took away from what I wrote?

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

“Transport me the 17-year-old Babe Ruth to today where he can go through the minors, adapt to the game, modern advances, equipment etc. and I want that guy. Maybe after his career is all said and done he’s “only” a lifetime .290 hitter as opposed to a lifetime .340 hitter, but instead of hitting 714 HRs, maybe he finished with 814 career HRs.” MikeD, I wasn’t trying to be flippant. I was trying to find a .290 hitter with close to 814 homers, and the combo Bonds I suggested (who hit .298 with 762 homers) is the only one even… Read more »

0
Reply
CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

Tag, I guess I just don’t see any reason why Babe Ruth couldn’t be a HoF player in today’s game. With basketball, you’re talking about huge physical difference. LeBron has about 60 pounds of pure muscle on Ed McCauley, not to mention the huge gap in speed, quickness and pure athleticism. Meanwhile, take a guy who has had a very good, just below HoF career like, oh, Paul Konerko. Konerko is listed at 6’2”, 220 lbs. Ruth is listed at 6’2”, 215 lbs, and I’m guessing that even the 1920s Ruth (in his athletic prime) was quicker than Paulie, who… Read more »

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

Well, CC, there are just so many variables. Ruth relied on his outsized ability in the 1920s. He was simply far better than everyone else. He wouldn’t be today. He’s not that big or strong by today’s standards. From everything we know, he didn’t like to train; he may have been uncoachable by current standards; he may have had a minor hole in his swing that today’s hundreds of scouts and other baseball people with their associated technology would pick up on; he didn’t like breaking stuff and might not have been able to hit the sliders, cutters, split-fingers and… Read more »

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

I’m going to agree and disagree with Tag. Ruth definitely wouldn’t have hit 814 home runs had he played in modern times. Here’s what I don’t think many people get….the level of competition during Ruth’s time was absurdly low. Just looking at it from a general population perspective, the population of the US was about 70 million when he was born; had he been born in 1980 or 1990 the population would have been 226 or 248 million. So a more than tripling of the population but less than a doubling of the # of roster sizes available (16 teams… Read more »

0
Reply
CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

We’ll never know, but it’s also difficult to say for certain that he wouldn’t dominate the game. I mean, we sit back and say “Ruth hit more HRs than entire other teams, so obviously, it was just a different time, and competition was so weak.” And it’s definitely true that the talent pool wasn’t as deep as it is now, and that players today (and people in general) are MUCH better athletes. At the same time, you didn’t have the NBA and NFL taking away tons of great athletes who would otherwise be playing “America’s pasttime.” With regards to Ruth… Read more »

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

CC – My last comment on this matter since it seems we’ll have to “agree to disagree”. While it’s undeniable that baseball loses players to football and basketball that they wouldn’t have lost in Ruth’s day, I think it’s also true that the sheer number of kids who have the free time to play ANY sport has skyrocketed. Life was simply a lot different in Ruth’s time. Lots of kids had to work on farms or work in other ways to help support their families (child labor laws didn’t go into effect until 1938). Nowadays basically any kid who wants… Read more »

0
Reply
Chad
Chad
11 years ago

Ed- I agree with you on that – it was definitely easier for someone like Ruth or Cobb to dominate their competition than those that have come after them. But being that it’s impossible to compare Morgan against, say, Hornsby, we do the best with the information we have, and WAR is one of the best tools we have. I’m a big fan of OPS+, but that only focuses on hitting, and again is skewed towards the old-timers. I have the fortune of watching guys like Cabrera and Verlander on TV every time they play, and I don’t need stats… Read more »

0
Reply
kds
kds
11 years ago

I’m not positive if the most recent version of br-WAR adjusts for quality of competition in different eras, but it certainly does so between the leagues. Bill James wrote an essay in the original “BJ Historical Baseball Abstract” that in peak Mantle was clearly better than Mays. By the raw numbers this is clearly true. But it does not show up in br-WAR because they have adjusted for the AL being weaker than the NL. (Presumably primarily because of slower integration.) Mays gets a lot more credit for the difference between replacement level and average than does Mantle.

0
Reply
Ed
Ed
11 years ago
Reply to  kds

After doing some digging, it looks like NSB is correct about br-WAR being adjusted for quality of competition in different eras. But the differences are very small and also reflect the shorter 154 game schedule. Generally speaking, it amounts to about 0.1 or 0.2 WAR per year. IMHO, not enough of an adjustment.

It is odd that baseball venerates its history more so than other sports. Basketball does to a certain extent but nowhere near the level of baseball. And football hardly does at all.

0
Reply
Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  Ed

In my mind- and I have to admit all of my arguments are theoretical and I haven’t done a huge amount of research specifically about this nor any statistical analysis of any sort- I’ve always pictured the average talent in baseball to generally follow a non-linear regression (or actually, in this case progression) curve. The curve would be steepest in the pre-60’6″ or 2 league era, less so in the first dead-ball era and so on until you get to the latest expansion of the talent pool which would be when international scouting expanded to current levels. While I do… Read more »

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Calmly, Hartvig. The poll does NOT indicate that voters thought 26 of the top 35 players started their careers prior to 1954. It simply indicates that those 26 were thought by a large number of the voters to belong in the top 50. It’s only the follow-up articles and the vote totals that lead to a conclusion not warranted by the facts of the poll. The major reason why the earlier players received such widespread approbation is probably because their high level of performance is completely decided upon in the general consciousness: Bench and Berra—known quantities, have to have them… Read more »

0
Reply
Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

Actually, that 26 out of 35 number came from the career WAR leaders on Baseball-Reference, although in the poll all of the top 15 met that same criteria. I’ve actually already posted that I thought that the voters did a pretty reasonable job but even there every one of the top 15 vote getters met the pre-54 criteria. I just have a hard time believing that almost all of the greatest baseball players in history were born before 1935.

And @#% %^*&^*+! I am CALM! CALM I TELL YOU!!!

/s (just in case)

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

nsb, I agree with most of your points but would argue that, when it comes to baseball, nostalgia is always involved. Fans of every other sport except the national pastime have come to dignified terms with the fact that today’s athletes are far superior to those of yesteryear, and that if, say, MJ or Kobe or LeBron couldn’t/can’t average 50 ppg, it’s not because Wilt was a better scorer but because no one can average 50 ppg anymore. The overall talent level is just too high. Now I know baseball is different from other sports because pure athleticism doesn’t translate… Read more »

0
Reply
no statistician but
no statistician but
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

In response to tag: In terms of fandom pro basketball in 1950 was about where pro baseball was in 1890, so I’m not sure I agree regarding nostalgia. Cousy, Mikan, Russell, Chamberlin, Robertson, the long Celtics dynasty—I’d say there’s considerable nostalgia for those times, not that I’m much of a fan myself. There’s already nostalgia for MJ, the only athlete of our lifetimes having a Ruthian aura about him. The real difference re basketball comes as a result of the huge increase in the size of the players, playing on a court that hasn’t grown with them, shooting at James… Read more »

0
Reply
tag
tag
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

nsb, I appreciate your reasoned response and I understand what you’re saying, but I think you misconstrue my meaning a little. While NBA or NFL fans might know and respect the history of their teams and/or leagues, no serious NBA fan would claim that a 1950s NBA MVP, say, “Easy Ed” Macauley could compete with this year’s MVP, LeBron James. They recognize it would be carnage. LeBron is so superior it’s not even worth mentioning: though they’re the same height, LBJ is bigger, faster, able to jump higher, able to handle the ball better, able to do everything from shoot… Read more »

0
Reply
CursedCLevelander
CursedCLevelander
11 years ago
Reply to  no statistician but

The American Constitution is the Babe Ruth of comparative world politics. Superior documents may exist today, but none of them dominated their era like the Constitutional Bambino.

0
Reply
Mike Felber
Mike Felber
11 years ago

Ruth did train hard after his earliest years. Though some training was primitive & not that effective, He stayed dominant event while being heavy largely due to significant off season workouts. And his swing was superb, no apparent holes. Of course if he was given the same video & training tools as today, that would be a huge advantage.

0
Reply