ESPN top 100 all time list

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Yep.  I’m not a huge fan of FIP, which is a very blunt instrument, but it certainly supports the argument about how the defense helped Palmer.   And as an O’s fan, you really can’t have it both ways.  You can’t on the one hand say that guy like Brooks, Belanger, Blair and Grich were some of the best defenders ever, and then say that Palmer didn’t benefit from that.

I really don't like FIP as a retrospective way to examine a career post-hoc.

Generally agree with your broader point, but at a certain point the FIP criticism loses some value IMHO.

With the exception of his very first season (1965) and his very last season (1984), Palmer's ERA was lower than his FIP in every single season of his career. Many of those guys came and went during that window. At a certain point, it's hard to say that a guy would / should regress and can't consistently outperform FIP significantly.  

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Posnanski also had Palmer outside the top 100.  So, I dunno.

But I'd agree, somewhere between 35 and 50 seems about right.

I don’t think Palmer would be in my top 100 either.  Have to think about it but I think if he did make it, he would just get in.  At least that would be my initial thought.

[Sports Guy]

Btw, this would be a fun project to do on here, especially with the lockout happening.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

I really don't like FIP as a retrospective way to examine a career post-hoc.

Generally agree with your broader point, but at a certain point the FIP criticism loses some value IMHO.

With the exception of his very first season (1965) and his very last season (1984), Palmer's ERA was lower than his FIP in every single season of his career. Many of those guys came and went during that window. At a certain point, it's hard to say that a guy would / should regress and can't consistently outperform FIP significantly.  

Well, I do think the O’s pretty consistently had above average defense throughout Palmer’s career.   More spectacular in the first half than the second half.  And, Memorial Stadium was a pitchers’ park.    So, that’s two advantages he had contributing to his low ERA’s.    And, so far as his W-L record goes, he played on really good teams throughout his career.   So, it’s fair to say, I think, that though Palmer was a great pitcher easily deserving of Hall of Fame status, he wasn’t quite as good as his raw ERA and W-L record might suggest.

[Justinlstn]

Looking at the list, it's not even worth debating. It looks to be a complete popularity contest with ignoring steroid enhancement except I do not see Sosa or Palmerio yet you have Manny Ramirez at 68.   Btw Palmer was 85. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

6 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

But this is what they want.  Clicks (so I'm refusing to click on it) and arguments.  Job well done, ESPN.  

It worked and made me irrationally angry until I remembered ESPN is trash when it comes to covering MLB. Still interested in their top 10 rankings for entertainment purposes only. 

[Sports Guy]

Frank comes in at 19.

Gehrig over Bonds?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33158613/top-100-mlb-players-all-nos-25-1

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Frank comes in at 19.

Gehrig over Bonds?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33158613/top-100-mlb-players-all-nos-25-1

Gehrig never used Steroids.

The fact that he played for the Yankees isn't relevant. 

 

I'd say Griffey is high.

[Sports Guy]

Well at least these ESPN guys know the list is terrible:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33200876/top-100-mlb-players-all-debating-too-high-too-low-our-list

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well at least these ESPN guys know the list is terrible:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33200876/top-100-mlb-players-all-debating-too-high-too-low-our-list

This part here is exactly the argument I was suggesting someone might make.

Quote

Do we attempt to envision Mike Trout facing Walter Johnson? If so, I would suggest there shouldn't be a pre-1960s player in the top 100.

So for you folks that acted confused...there it is.  That is why someone might leave Ruth off.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

This part here is exactly the argument I was suggesting someone might make.

So for you folks that acted confused...there it is.  That is why someone might leave Ruth off.

But if you are going to do these lists, you have to do it while comparing them to their peers and in their eras..otherwise, why do them?  
 

In that context, there is no intelligent reason to leave Ruth off.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

But if you are going to do these lists, you have to do it while comparing them to their peers and in their eras..otherwise, why do them?  
 

In that context, there is no intelligent reason to leave Ruth off.  

In that context.

But it is reasonable to use a different criteria.

As I said, I wouldn't have done it, but folks shouldn't act confused or offended that someone else might.

It's a rational approach to the question.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

In that context.

But it is reasonable to use a different criteria.

As I said, I wouldn't have done it, but folks shouldn't act confused or offended that someone else might.

It's a rational approach to the question.

No it’s not.  It’s an all time list.  The only reasonable and intelligent way to do an all time list is comparing eras.  

Otherwise, don’t do it at all.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No it’s not.  It’s an all time list.  The only reasonable and intelligent way to do an all time list is comparing eras.  

Otherwise, don’t do it at all.  

That is so you.  Deciding for others how they should interpret things.  Anyone else I'd be surprised.  

No your opposing view should not even exist.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That is so you.  Deciding for others how they should interpret things.  Anyone else I'd be surprised.  

No your opposing view should not even exist.

Yea it’s so me to point out the obvious, common sense and the truth.  I’m good with that.  I will happily wear that hat.