***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

Good explanation - and very much how I am viewing the draft, especially from here out.If you check ARods numbers, you might be surprised at the OBP (.381) which is pretty darn close to the older guys you mention. No doubt, however, ARod is more a slugger and will usually be down in the order to perform a different role.If A Rod was not a GG shortstop (granted, not a D whiz) his last two years at the position (I htink it was his last two) then I would be more prone to agree with you. However, good table setters as Appling and Cronnin are, that type of player may be available later. Not many guys who can hit for 40 or even 50+ HRs, while going over .300 average... while not giving up much on D. I would prefer to get a table setter at 2nd (a platoon might not be as good as a Cronnin/Appling, but might be 80%+ of what they bring to the table) where the best players available were Ryne and Biggio (very good players, but not the Offense of a Banks or Arod) at second. VBD I suppose.For your team however, if yu need a table setter, you fill a very important position. Because, as VBD would suggest, if you MISSED on the final couple shortstops, I would much rather have a small hole at second on O and D (more O, D is important at 2nd) than try to scrape by at short.

 

[Funkley]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

 

[Funkley]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

Used 'guy' 4 times in three sentences.:newrecord:

 

[larry_boy_44]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

yeah, I see that... but now I have 3 guys who can bat 3-4-5 (Yount, Thomas, Pudge) and 1 guy who is gonna get on base (Gehringer who went .320/.404/.480 career (and he had a season batting .220 at the end of his career which drug his average down a couple points))...So figure:1/2. Gehringer3/5. Yount4. Thomas5/6. Pudgethat's a pretty good lineup...and I have these pitchers:SP1: Christy MathewsonSP2: Roger Clemensand I have a very, very solid start of a team...and the positions I don't have, with the exception of 3b, is historically where the most potent hitters play... So I easily could have a VERY VERY stacked lineup...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

yeah, I see that... but now I have 3 guys who can bat 3-4-5 (Yount, Thomas, Pudge) and 1 guy who is gonna get on base (Gehringer who went .320/.404/.480 career (and he had a season batting .220 at the end of his career which drug his average down a couple points))...So figure:1/2. Gehringer3/5. Yount4. Thomas5/6. Pudgethat's a pretty good lineup...and I have these pitchers:SP1: Christy MathewsonSP2: Roger Clemensand I have a very, very solid start of a team...

Well, it's solid, but IMO, you are dead last in this draft.Thomas is basically a DH, not a 1B. This hurts his value from "big" to "sorta large."I think Pudge went too early. Not a bad pick based on need, but probably a bit soon.The rest is pretty good. Your pitchers are excellent. I'm not one for rating guys highly based on strikeouts (purely a vanity stat -- it doesn't matter how you get guys out), so Clemens loses a little value there, but he's got as good of a career as anyone.Overall I think you're weighting recent players too heavily.. something that most people do exactly in reverse.

 

[Koya]

Oso - are you an observer or now taking Nips spot or do we not yet know?If either you, or someone else would do the following for me (give me a link and Ill respond to yours ) I would like an objective person to give a good "expected year" for my Position players. I have what I think are their averages in my mind (taking out last two years of a career - or last 5, if they were a big decline, and factors like that which may mislead), but an objective person might have a better view... perhaps other people would like to see it too. Likewise, someone objective can take HRs hit in one era and give them a little boost, or minus, to even the field. i.e. Ruth - expected year: .340/54/120Bonds expected year .315/48/120 or something like that (I havent given these numbers thought yet so dont tell me I over or underestimated, just giving quick examples)Can include steals, or other stats as well.

 

[oso diablo]

Oso - are you an observer or now taking Nips spot or do we not yet know?

last word from Capella (as posted earlier in the thread - last post on pg 66) was that Nipsey was still in.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

yeah, I see that... but now I have 3 guys who can bat 3-4-5 (Yount, Thomas, Pudge) and 1 guy who is gonna get on base (Gehringer who went .320/.404/.480 career (and he had a season batting .220 at the end of his career which drug his average down a couple points))...So figure:1/2. Gehringer3/5. Yount4. Thomas5/6. Pudgethat's a pretty good lineup...and I have these pitchers:SP1: Christy MathewsonSP2: Roger Clemensand I have a very, very solid start of a team...

Well, it's solid, but IMO, you are dead last in this draft.Thomas is basically a DH, not a 1B. This hurts his value from "big" to "sorta large."I think Pudge went too early. Not a bad pick based on need, but probably a bit soon.The rest is pretty good. Your pitchers are excellent. I'm not one for rating guys highly based on strikeouts (purely a vanity stat -- it doesn't matter how you get guys out), so Clemens loses a little value there, but he's got as good of a career as anyone.Overall I think you're weighting recent players too heavily.. something that most people do exactly in reverse.

wait... you realize that on my team I have:6 MVPs7 Cy Youngs4 Pitching Triple Crowns35 All Star apearancesnumerous batting titles, EBH titles, a couple HR titles, etc.I mean, really... you are judging my team 100% based upon the Thomas pick, but Id idn't make the pick for the sake of Defense, I made the pick because he is .308/.429/.567 career at the plate... and I don't think he would have lasted until my next pick...He didn't need to win gold gloves at first base, and, quite frankly, attitude doesn't really matter all that much in this draft...Yes, he has a crappy attitude about playing defense, but he was also the best player in the league from 1993-1997 and one of the top 10 from 91-92 and 98-2000 or so... and again in 2004...He has had an incredible career and is so good at the plate that he was #2 in MVP voting in 2000 when he only played at 1B for THIRTY GAMES!!! He played 30 games of defense and was 2nd in MVP voting??? How does that happen? 'cuz he was that good at the plate...that is a guy whose Defensive problems I can deal with...

 

[Koya]

Guys... would a "best ten consecutive year average" be a good stat for comparison's sake? That means you are taking the most productive part of a players career, but eliminating (1) short peaks or (2) many great years but inconsistent, some bad ones also. So many baseball players "hang around" too long, and the final numbers end up lying. Someone bats under .260 for three years and now instead of a .311 avg, it drops to the high 200's. By taking players through their extended prime (figuring "prime" is 5-10 years) this seems a pretty good estimation of a players "average year"Obviously there needs to be a mental adjustment vs. 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 1973, but it seems like a good place to start from.Agree or disagree? Trying to find "objective" ways to eventially compare teams and rosters. Not one guys three best years vs. one guys 23 year career vs. another guys top decade. Yet all three have some value, and some detractions perhaps.

 

[Koya]

Oso - are you an observer or now taking Nips spot or do we not yet know?

last word from Capella (as posted earlier in the thread - last post on pg 66) was that Nipsey was still in.

Ok. Maybe you can help us (or me at least) find an "objective stat line" to use in comparisons. see above post. thx

 

[Koya]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

yeah, I see that... but now I have 3 guys who can bat 3-4-5 (Yount, Thomas, Pudge) and 1 guy who is gonna get on base (Gehringer who went .320/.404/.480 career (and he had a season batting .220 at the end of his career which drug his average down a couple points))...So figure:1/2. Gehringer3/5. Yount4. Thomas5/6. Pudgethat's a pretty good lineup...and I have these pitchers:SP1: Christy MathewsonSP2: Roger Clemensand I have a very, very solid start of a team...

Well, it's solid, but IMO, you are dead last in this draft.Thomas is basically a DH, not a 1B. This hurts his value from "big" to "sorta large."I think Pudge went too early. Not a bad pick based on need, but probably a bit soon.The rest is pretty good. Your pitchers are excellent. I'm not one for rating guys highly based on strikeouts (purely a vanity stat -- it doesn't matter how you get guys out), so Clemens loses a little value there, but he's got as good of a career as anyone.Overall I think you're weighting recent players too heavily.. something that most people do exactly in reverse.

wait... you realize that on my team I have:6 MVPs7 Cy Youngs4 Pitching Triple Crowns35 All Star apearancesnumerous batting titles, EBH titles, a couple HR titles, etc.I mean, really... you are judging my team 100% based upon the Thomas pick, but Id idn't make the pick for the sake of Defense, I made the pick because he is .308/.429/.567 career at the plate... and I don't think he would have lasted until my next pick...He didn't need to win gold gloves at first base, and, quite frankly, attitude doesn't really matter all that much in this draft...Yes, he has a crappy attitude about playing defense, but he was also the best player in the league from 1993-1997 and one of the top 10 from 91-92 and 98-2000 or so... and again in 2004...He has had an incredible career and is so good at the plate that he was #2 in MVP voting in 2000 when he only played at 1B for THIRTY GAMES!!! He played 30 games of defense and was 2nd in MVP voting??? How does that happen? 'cuz he was that good at the plate...that is a guy whose Defensive problems I can deal with...

Although I dont agree with the pick, Larry is giving a good defense. Thomas was a great great hitter. He compares well with Greenberg, as I recall - offensively - during his prime. But, he would have been there later. His defense is a huge strike that early. You have to be Ruth to ignore that Defense, as a 1B can make the infielders around him better or worse, defensively. Personally, I will put up Mize as a considerably better 1B than Thomas, and Eddie Murray as well. Eddie's defense is something that should not be overlooked by someone that good with the bat. Easily makes up for lesser power numbers... and a lot of those subject to it being the early 80's.

 

[oso diablo]

Ok. Maybe you can help us (or me at least) find an "objective stat line" to use in comparisons. see above post. thx

haven't run across that before. i saw a discussion today on another board about the use of the AVERAGE of (a) AVG of consecutive 4, (b) AVG of consecutive 8, and © AVG of all seasons, normalized to 162 games. Seemed too complicated to me.

 

[Koya]

Ok. Maybe you can help us (or me at least) find an "objective stat line" to use in comparisons. see above post. thx

haven't run across that before. i saw a discussion today on another board about the use of the AVERAGE of (a) AVG of consecutive 4, (b) AVG of consecutive 8, and © AVG of all seasons, normalized to 162 games. Seemed too complicated to me.

did they have a listing of that. 8 cons. years is a players prime, I would think. bonus points to those with 12 year primes Ill add.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Ill look up more about the others - but I dont see their offense being a dominant enough force (from what I know) to compare with a Banks or Arod - especially since the latter two were not bad defensive players themselves.

I'm trying to keep in mind as I'm drafting guys that I'm building a real lineup. Guys like Banks and A-Rod are dominant offensive players but will cause teams to look for defense and high OB/BA elsewhere. Unless someone thinks that a lineup full of homerun hitters can win. Cronin and Appling fit in real well for someone like me who has 90 homeruns at the corner positions. Yount is an awesome SS and I was ready to draft him but right center is cavernous in Sportsman's Park so maybe I'm better off with a SS who's not swinging for the fences. Cronin's 82nd alltime in extra base hits, mainly doubles, so he looks to be a player that can take advantage of the gaps without hitting 410 foot flyouts. All speculation on my part but these are the kinds of things I think about when considering guys. The tough part is not knowing how any of this might play out in the SIM. For voting purposes I'd imagine Yount will have it all over Cronin and Appling and is part of why I had him slightly higher.

are you saying Yount just swang for the fences??? Yount is 30th all-time in EBH and never was in the top 10 for Home Runs...*confused*

Again, I had Yount higher. My point is that having a bunch of guys that drive in runs gets wasted if you don't have guys on base. Yount is a guy you can count on to drive in runs but if you're looking for a guy to hit high in the order and get on base then Cronin and Appling might be better picks for your team.

yeah, I see that... but now I have 3 guys who can bat 3-4-5 (Yount, Thomas, Pudge) and 1 guy who is gonna get on base (Gehringer who went .320/.404/.480 career (and he had a season batting .220 at the end of his career which drug his average down a couple points))...So figure:1/2. Gehringer3/5. Yount4. Thomas5/6. Pudgethat's a pretty good lineup...and I have these pitchers:SP1: Christy MathewsonSP2: Roger Clemensand I have a very, very solid start of a team...

Well, it's solid, but IMO, you are dead last in this draft.Thomas is basically a DH, not a 1B. This hurts his value from "big" to "sorta large."I think Pudge went too early. Not a bad pick based on need, but probably a bit soon.The rest is pretty good. Your pitchers are excellent. I'm not one for rating guys highly based on strikeouts (purely a vanity stat -- it doesn't matter how you get guys out), so Clemens loses a little value there, but he's got as good of a career as anyone.Overall I think you're weighting recent players too heavily.. something that most people do exactly in reverse.

wait... you realize that on my team I have:6 MVPs7 Cy Youngs4 Pitching Triple Crowns35 All Star apearancesnumerous batting titles, EBH titles, a couple HR titles, etc.I mean, really... you are judging my team 100% based upon the Thomas pick, but Id idn't make the pick for the sake of Defense, I made the pick because he is .308/.429/.567 career at the plate... and I don't think he would have lasted until my next pick...He didn't need to win gold gloves at first base, and, quite frankly, attitude doesn't really matter all that much in this draft...Yes, he has a crappy attitude about playing defense, but he was also the best player in the league from 1993-1997 and one of the top 10 from 91-92 and 98-2000 or so... and again in 2004...He has had an incredible career and is so good at the plate that he was #2 in MVP voting in 2000 when he only played at 1B for THIRTY GAMES!!! He played 30 games of defense and was 2nd in MVP voting??? How does that happen? 'cuz he was that good at the plate...that is a guy whose Defensive problems I can deal with...

Although I dont agree with the pick, Larry is giving a good defense. Thomas was a great great hitter. He compares well with Greenberg, as I recall - offensively - during his prime. But, he would have been there later. His defense is a huge strike that early. You have to be Ruth to ignore that Defense, as a 1B can make the infielders around him better or worse, defensively. Personally, I will put up Mize as a considerably better 1B than Thomas, and Eddie Murray as well. Eddie's defense is something that should not be overlooked by someone that good with the bat. Easily makes up for lesser power numbers... and a lot of those subject to it being the early 80's.

but here is my thought for Thomas:maybe it was early, I didn't think it was for one reason...There is not one player that you can honestly say that from 1991-2004 you would rather have at the plate than Frank Thomas...yes, Bonds from 2000-2004, but Thomas was definately better than Bonds from 1991-1997...if you take Thomas' 3 down years (98, 01, 02) he would be at like .340/.460/.600 EASY...that is SICK numbers...give me a clean up hitter who is hitting .340 any day... even if his defense isn't great...also, on career, even including down years, Bonds is .300/.443/.611 and Thomas is .308/.429/.567 in 6851 ABs... take out 1200 ABs in 98, 01, 02 that he hit > .265/.381/.480 and you raise his average a lot... I'd say probably a total of .020/.012/.025 total... giving him .328/.441/.592 during his non-down years... I would argue that is on level with Bonds, at the very least right behind him...He is BY FAR this generations second best hitter and the top batter of the 90's...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Guys... would a "best ten consecutive year average" be a good stat for comparison's sake? That means you are taking the most productive part of a players career, but eliminating (1) short peaks or (2) many great years but inconsistent, some bad ones also. So many baseball players "hang around" too long, and the final numbers end up lying. Someone bats under .260 for three years and now instead of a .311 avg, it drops to the high 200's. By taking players through their extended prime (figuring "prime" is 5-10 years) this seems a pretty good estimation of a players "average year"Obviously there needs to be a mental adjustment vs. 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 1973, but it seems like a good place to start from.Agree or disagree? Trying to find "objective" ways to eventially compare teams and rosters. Not one guys three best years vs. one guys 23 year career vs. another guys top decade. Yet all three have some value, and some detractions perhaps.

There's no objective way to do comparisons. If there were, this draft wouldn't be any fun.The sim is sort of a neat way to test some things head to head, but there's no way one can just arbitrarily say "let's compare a ten year stretch" and say that's a good measure. Everyone has their own idea of what all time great means, and yours appears to be big numbers over a 10 year span. To me, that's nice, but it also doesn't capture something like longevity. Even if a guy was never dominant, it says a lot that he stuck around for 20 years and was highly productive. I won't even go into correcting stats for era.Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be an all time great, and we're all drafting with that in mind. Using some arbitary measure isn't going to make things any clearer. The whole point is to argue about it, not to reach some kind of objective conclusion.

 

[Funkley]

Thomas is hurt by his position in this draft. First base is loaded with talent and the career numbers for Thomas really aren't there. He's 11th all time in OB and 16th in SLG but 31st in homeruns, 51st in RBI, only has 2,100 career hits. Frankly he's not even going to go to the HOF. Overall, not worthy of where he was selected given the first baseman available. The good news for you LB is that the SIM loves him. But really he's possibly slightly above average at 1st base in this draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

 

[Kraft...]

So is Nipsey punishing us all by stalling here or has he just not been around?

 

[larry_boy_44]

So is Nipsey punishing us all by stalling here or has he just not been around?

who knows, but i'm getting kinda mad... lol

 

[Funkley]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

But Thomas fell off the table. That matters. If our draft was based on drafting the best seven year stretches then Thomas would be viewed differently but other than a couple 40 homerun seasons (possibly the quietest 40 homerun seasons in MLB history) he's been past his peak since 1996.

 

[10993]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

Um... nope.Nice logic with the career numbers by a given age though. I'd bet that tells the whole story.

 

[Koya]

Guys... would a "best ten consecutive year average" be a good stat for comparison's sake? That means you are taking the most productive part of a players career, but eliminating (1) short peaks or (2) many great years but inconsistent, some bad ones also. So many baseball players "hang around" too long, and the final numbers end up lying. Someone bats under .260 for three years and now instead of a .311 avg, it drops to the high 200's. By taking players through their extended prime (figuring "prime" is 5-10 years) this seems a pretty good estimation of a players "average year"Obviously there needs to be a mental adjustment vs. 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 1973, but it seems like a good place to start from.Agree or disagree? Trying to find "objective" ways to eventially compare teams and rosters. Not one guys three best years vs. one guys 23 year career vs. another guys top decade. Yet all three have some value, and some detractions perhaps.

There's no objective way to do comparisons. If there were, this draft wouldn't be any fun.The sim is sort of a neat way to test some things head to head, but there's no way one can just arbitrarily say "let's compare a ten year stretch" and say that's a good measure. Everyone has their own idea of what all time great means, and yours appears to be big numbers over a 10 year span. To me, that's nice, but it also doesn't capture something like longevity. Even if a guy was never dominant, it says a lot that he stuck around for 20 years and was highly productive. I won't even go into correcting stats for era.Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be an all time great, and we're all drafting with that in mind. Using some arbitary measure isn't going to make things any clearer. The whole point is to argue about it, not to reach some kind of objective conclusion.

Fair enough. Knowing how you bring up a point sometimes, to have a Nips done on you (well, you are only looking at a snippet of that guys career... even if the snippet is 15 years). Trying to find some way I can say:An average Griffey year, and one I would expect to see, is .295/48/124 (in an offensively inflated era). and then not have to try to justify that conclusion when there might be a "fair enough" way to compare apples to apples. I look at it like this, personally:Career Stats - look to see if the player "hung on" to hurt numbers10 year stretch (the longer part of a player "prime")5 year stretch (a players "peak" - many great peaks and not much else though)3 year stretch (some guys have three straight years that are just so good, you have to take notice. it is not at all longevity, but it says something).If there were a site that had those already averaged out... or something like it (as mentioned before, 4, 8 year splits) that would be cool to check out.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

But Thomas fell off the table. That matters. If our draft was based on drafting the best seven year stretches then Thomas would be viewed differently but other than a couple 40 homerun seasons (possibly the quietest 40 homerun seasons in MLB history) he's been past his peak since 1996.

but did he really fall off the table?The reason I didn't go past 29 is because he had a few bad years... 1999 31 CHW AL 135 486 74 148 36 0 15 77 3 3 87 66 .305 .414 .471 229 0 8 13 9 14 2000 32 CHW AL 159 582 115 191 44 0 43 143 1 3 112 94 .328 .436 .625 364 0 8 18 5 13 2001 33 CHW AL 20 68 8 15 3 0 4 10 0 0 10 12 .221 .316 .441 30 0 1 2 0 0 2002 34 CHW AL 148 523 77 132 29 1 28 92 3 0 88 115 .252 .361 .472 247 0 10 2 7 10 2003 35 CHW AL 153 546 87 146 35 0 42 105 0 0 100 115 .267 .390 .562 307 0 4 4 12 11 2004 36 CHW AL 74 240 53 65 16 0 18 49 0 2 64 57 .271 .434 .562 135 0 1 3 6 22000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...2003 and 2004 aren't horrible, either, although they aren't as good as his seasons pre 1998...

 

[Bogart]

Thomas is hurt by his position in this draft. First base is loaded with talent and the career numbers for Thomas really aren't there. He's 11th all time in OB and 16th in SLG but 31st in homeruns, 51st in RBI, only has 2,100 career hits. Frankly he's not even going to go to the HOF. Overall, not worthy of where he was selected given the first baseman available. The good news for you LB is that the SIM loves him. But really he's possibly slightly above average at 1st base in this draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

Um... nope.Nice logic with the career numbers by a given age though. I'd bet that tells the whole story.

and if you take Bonds' last 4 years out of hte equation he wouldn't have been picked 'til the 3rd or 4th round at the earliest...

 

[oso diablo]

did they have a listing of that. 8 cons. years is a players prime, I would think. bonus points to those with 12 year primes Ill add.

didn't show any stats; just one guy's opinion on overall rankings by position. was more stat-geekish than James is.

 

[10993]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997 8 1076 3821 785 1261 246 8 257 854 879 582 .330 .452 .600 18 15 182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994 9 1281 4514 890 1287 276 41 259 760 811 712 .285 .394 .537 309 93 157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100 3565 925 1251 270 83 284 889 881 599 .351 .482 .712 72 66 219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

Um... nope.Nice logic with the career numbers by a given age though. I'd bet that tells the whole story.

and if you take Bonds' last 4 years out of hte equation he wouldn't have been picked 'til the 3rd or 4th round at the earliest...

How many MVPS did Thomas have in the 90s?Thanks.You're right, I'll bet everyone with 3 MVPs in one decade would have lasted till the 3rd or 4th.Hey, you know maybe if you take reality out of the equation, things would be different.Like there'd be dragons all over the place, and I could turn you into a toad. *** ZAP ***

 

[Funkley]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Guys... would a "best ten consecutive year average" be a good stat for comparison's sake? That means you are taking the most productive part of a players career, but eliminating (1) short peaks or (2) many great years but inconsistent, some bad ones also. So many baseball players "hang around" too long, and the final numbers end up lying. Someone bats under .260 for three years and now instead of a .311 avg, it drops to the high 200's. By taking players through their extended prime (figuring "prime" is 5-10 years) this seems a pretty good estimation of a players "average year"Obviously there needs to be a mental adjustment vs. 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 1973, but it seems like a good place to start from.Agree or disagree? Trying to find "objective" ways to eventially compare teams and rosters. Not one guys three best years vs. one guys 23 year career vs. another guys top decade. Yet all three have some value, and some detractions perhaps.

There's no objective way to do comparisons. If there were, this draft wouldn't be any fun.The sim is sort of a neat way to test some things head to head, but there's no way one can just arbitrarily say "let's compare a ten year stretch" and say that's a good measure. Everyone has their own idea of what all time great means, and yours appears to be big numbers over a 10 year span. To me, that's nice, but it also doesn't capture something like longevity. Even if a guy was never dominant, it says a lot that he stuck around for 20 years and was highly productive. I won't even go into correcting stats for era.Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be an all time great, and we're all drafting with that in mind. Using some arbitary measure isn't going to make things any clearer. The whole point is to argue about it, not to reach some kind of objective conclusion.

Fair enough. Knowing how you bring up a point sometimes, to have a Nips done on you (well, you are only looking at a snippet of that guys career... even if the snippet is 15 years). Trying to find some way I can say:An average Griffey year, and one I would expect to see, is .295/48/124 (in an offensively inflated era). and then not have to try to justify that conclusion when there might be a "fair enough" way to compare apples to apples. I look at it like this, personally:Career Stats - look to see if the player "hung on" to hurt numbers10 year stretch (the longer part of a player "prime")5 year stretch (a players "peak" - many great peaks and not much else though)3 year stretch (some guys have three straight years that are just so good, you have to take notice. it is not at all longevity, but it says something).If there were a site that had those already averaged out... or something like it (as mentioned before, 4, 8 year splits) that would be cool to check out.

Well, you're still avoiding the obvious which is adjusting for league, team, defense, era, etc. all of which are important to overall numbers.You seem to be drafting for big time numbers over a 10 year span, and that's fine, but I don't know if that's really the definition of an all time great or not. As was posted above, Frank Thomas is going to have a hell of a time getting into the HOF.You seem to want to justify your pick of Griffey and A-Rod. Hell, you're the guy that took LeBron James in the second round of the all time basketball draft!

 

[larry_boy_44]

Frank Thomas through 1997 (29 y.o.):1990-1997  8 1076  3821  785 1261 246  8 257  854  879  582  .330  .452  .600  18  15  182Barry Bonds through 1994 (29 y.o):1986-1994  9 1281  4514  890 1287 276  41 259  760  811  712  .285  .394  .537  309  93  157Babe Ruth through 1924 (29 y.o.):1914-1924 11 1100  3565  925 1251 270  83 284  889  881  599  .351  .482  .712  72  66  219Ruth is better, Bonds is not at similar ages...Yes, Bonds suddenly got better at like 37 years of age and started blasting home runs at more than double what he used to hit them...But, quite frankly, thomas was the better hitter until Bonds hit 37 (whatever he was in 2000)...

Um... nope.Nice logic with the career numbers by a given age though. I'd bet that tells the whole story.

and if you take Bonds' last 4 years out of hte equation he wouldn't have been picked 'til the 3rd or 4th round at the earliest...

How many MVPS did Thomas have in the 90s? And how does that compare with Terry Pendleton?Thanks.You're right, I'll bet everyone with 3 MVPs in one decade would have lasted till the 3rd or 4th.Hey, you know maybe if you take reality out of the equation, things would be different.Like there'd be dragons all over the place, and I could turn you into a toad. *** ZAP ***

Thomas had 2, XXXX 1...Bonds would have been taken 3rd round, MAYBE 2nd had 2000-2004's steroid-induced rampage not happened and you know it...He was NEVER mentioned with Ruth until he turned THIRTY-SIX YEARS OLD!!! NO ONE DOUBLES THIER POWER AT THIRTY-SIX!! NO ONE!!!Bonds was not that good until 2000, he would have been drafted top 36, yeah, but he wouldn't be thought of anywhere near top 3 and Thomas was a better batter than Bonds until 1998...

 

[larry_boy_44]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

I don't know... If Frank Thomas reacts like Barry Bonds did he's due for like 65-70 next season...

 

[Capella]

I'm back.Just noticed that larry is trying to compare frank thomas to barry bonds.maybe I'm drunk and just imagined that. will have to re-read.

 

[Capella]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

I don't know... If Frank Thomas reacts like Barry Bonds did he's due for like 65-70 next season...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'm back.Just noticed that larry is trying to compare frank thomas to barry bonds.maybe I'm drunk and just imagined that. will have to re-read.

I compared Thomas to Bonds pre-2000, which is actually a fair comparison

 

[Koya]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

Personally, I think a brilliant 7 years (Mr. Kiner) speaks for something. That said, there is a such thing as an empty number.. and fair or not, watching his career, great as Thomas was, you had the feeling his numbers did not carry the weight of HoF, even if they looked the same. what hurts Thomas is he was so poor defensively, and did not seem to have the influence on the game his numbers would show. I think over time, Frank gets very close to in. But there is someone not in the hall of fame, that dominated their decade far far more than Thomas did. There are also current players (i.e. Bonds and Griffey) that were held in considerably higher regard than Thomas as an all around player.

Great as Thomas was, he was an offensive only guy in an era where you could find a lot of offense. Had he brought 85-90% of his production in the late '70's early 80's, then he would be in the Hall.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

larry_boy.. you're far too worried about vanity stats like HRs. We all acknowledge that Big Hurt put up sick numbers for a stretch, but he's been inconsistent and logged a lot of those huge stats while he was a DH. As for Bonds, he's always been a ridiculous OPS guy (even before the juice) which is a much better indication of hitting production. Speed is another aspect you're ignoring here, conveniently.

 

[Funkley]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

I don't know... If Frank Thomas reacts like Barry Bonds did he's due for like 65-70 next season...

Not the point. Bonds never falls off a cliff like Thomas does. 43+4+42+28+18 averages out to 27 homeruns a year the last 5 years. That's pretty average, maybe even below average for power 1st basemen in this draft.

 

[Capella]

I'm back.Just noticed that larry is trying to compare frank thomas to barry bonds.maybe I'm drunk and just imagined that. will have to re-read.

I compared Thomas to Bonds pre-2000, which is actually a fair comparison

 

[Nipsey]

Sorry, I'm here. MLK day is like Thanksgiving for me. Give me a second to catch up.

 

[10993]

Thomas had 2, XXXX 1...Bonds would have been taken 3rd round, MAYBE 2nd had 2000-2004's steroid-induced rampage not happened and you know it...He was NEVER mentioned with Ruth until he turned THIRTY-SIX YEARS OLD!!! NO ONE DOUBLES THIER POWER AT THIRTY-SIX!! NO ONE!!!Bonds was not that good until 2000, he would have been drafted top 36, yeah, but he wouldn't be thought of anywhere near top 3 and Thomas was a better batter than Bonds until 1998...

***ZAP*** Now you're a walrus.Bonds was easily a second rounder without the last five years. Do you know how many other people had three MVP awards? Might want to find that out.It makes no sense to say that Bonds, without his last few years, would not be good. He was tremendous, and way better than no-fielding Frank. He was the best player of the 90s.Further, it makes no sense because it denies reality. Michael Jordan, if he couldn't dunk, wouldn't have been as good. Reality is, he could. Reality is, Barry beat up every ballpark, and your theory, over the last four years.No one doubles their power then? Big Mac sure had a late-career explosion. Strength and weight-training methods have absolutely evolved. And the whole league hit a lot better during that time as pitching was diluted--Barry was still light years ahead of them. If juicing up gets you as good as Ken Caminiti, what gets you as good as Barry?He didn't just double his power, Larry. He got on base more. He has a better eye than anyone else. He has quicker reflexes. Steroids only help how far the ball goes, Larry, not whether or not you can see it.Bonds kicks your ###, and he kicks No-Fielding Frank's ### (who shouldn't even be drafted yet, btw).***ZAP*** You're a unicorn!

 

[larry_boy_44]

Bonds before 2000:1986-1999 14 2000 6976 1455 2010 423 65 445 1299 1430 1112 .288 .409 .559 460 132 163Thomas before 2000:1990-1999 10 1371 4892 968 1564 317 10 301 1040 1076 741 .320 .440 .573 28 18 169Thomas has almost as many HR per year (30.1) as Bonds (31.785)...Thomas has a higher BA (.320) than Bonds (.288)Thomas has a higher OB% (.440) than Bonds (.409)Thomas has a higher Slugging % (.573) than Bonds (.559)Thomas has more RBI per year (104) than Bonds (92.785)Thomas has more doubles per year (31.7) than Bonds (30.214)Thomas has more walks per year (107.6) than Bonds (102.142)all in all, Frank Thomas was a better batter until Bonds truly met BALCO...

 

[Koya]

Guys... would a "best ten consecutive year average" be a good stat for comparison's sake?  That means you are taking the most productive part of a players career, but eliminating (1) short peaks or (2) many great years but inconsistent, some bad ones also.  So many baseball players "hang around" too long, and the final numbers end up lying.  Someone bats under .260 for three years and now instead of a .311 avg, it drops to the high 200's.    By taking players through their extended prime (figuring "prime" is 5-10 years) this seems a pretty good estimation of a players "average year"Obviously there needs to be a mental adjustment vs. 45 HRs in 2003 and 45 HRs in 1973, but it seems like a good place to start from.Agree or disagree? Trying to find "objective" ways to eventially compare teams and rosters.  Not one guys three best years vs. one guys 23 year career vs. another guys top decade.  Yet all three have some value, and some detractions perhaps.

There's no objective way to do comparisons. If there were, this draft wouldn't be any fun.The sim is sort of a neat way to test some things head to head, but there's no way one can just arbitrarily say "let's compare a ten year stretch" and say that's a good measure. Everyone has their own idea of what all time great means, and yours appears to be big numbers over a 10 year span. To me, that's nice, but it also doesn't capture something like longevity. Even if a guy was never dominant, it says a lot that he stuck around for 20 years and was highly productive. I won't even go into correcting stats for era.Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be an all time great, and we're all drafting with that in mind. Using some arbitary measure isn't going to make things any clearer. The whole point is to argue about it, not to reach some kind of objective conclusion.

Fair enough. Knowing how you bring up a point sometimes, to have a Nips done on you (well, you are only looking at a snippet of that guys career... even if the snippet is 15 years). Trying to find some way I can say:An average Griffey year, and one I would expect to see, is .295/48/124 (in an offensively inflated era). and then not have to try to justify that conclusion when there might be a "fair enough" way to compare apples to apples. I look at it like this, personally:Career Stats - look to see if the player "hung on" to hurt numbers10 year stretch (the longer part of a player "prime")5 year stretch (a players "peak" - many great peaks and not much else though)3 year stretch (some guys have three straight years that are just so good, you have to take notice. it is not at all longevity, but it says something).If there were a site that had those already averaged out... or something like it (as mentioned before, 4, 8 year splits) that would be cool to check out.

Well, you're still avoiding the obvious which is adjusting for league, team, defense, era, etc. all of which are important to overall numbers.You seem to be drafting for big time numbers over a 10 year span, and that's fine, but I don't know if that's really the definition of an all time great or not. As was posted above, Frank Thomas is going to have a hell of a time getting into the HOF.You seem to want to justify your pick of Griffey and A-Rod. Hell, you're the guy that took LeBron James in the second round of the all time basketball draft!

I personally believe 10 years is an adequate amount of time, giving for peaks and valleys, to fairly judge how good a player was. You also have to look at the entire career. Not sure why that is so out there.I am sorry my thinking of all time great players is not the same as yours. In regard to the NBA draft, that was completely different. I was making a team to go into an imaginary pick up game (and also know much less about nba than mlb) - here I am trying to pick the best players from the pool of history. The players I have, I will let stand on their merits - there is plenty samlpe for someone to judge on, imo.To me, a compiler is not as good a player as someone that did it not for a flash, not for a few years, but an entire decade. If you do it for a decade, and were great, to me that is a better player than someone who played well, for a long or very long period of time. Mind you, the latter might have a better career... but in my opinion, the former is the better player. Better player for a decade over a good but not as good player for 15 or 18 years. I like the former, you prefer the latter. Nothing right or wrong with either stance, I think.

 

[Koya]

Plus, how am I defending Giffey pick when I am talking about not unfairly penalizing a player who has a decline? That is just the opposite of what I was looking for.

 

[larry_boy_44]

larry_boy.. you're far too worried about vanity stats like HRs. We all acknowledge that Big Hurt put up sick numbers for a stretch, but he's been inconsistent and logged a lot of those huge stats while he was a DH. As for Bonds, he's always been a ridiculous OPS guy (even before the juice) which is a much better indication of hitting production. Speed is another aspect you're ignoring here, conveniently.

no, actually Thomas has pretty much sucked since he became a DH, his only really great year being 2000...

 

[larry_boy_44]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

I don't know... If Frank Thomas reacts like Barry Bonds did he's due for like 65-70 next season...

Not the point. Bonds never falls off a cliff like Thomas does. 43+4+42+28+18 averages out to 27 homeruns a year the last 5 years. That's pretty average, maybe even below average for power 1st basemen in this draft.

that's 'cuz Bonds' made his head double in size...

 

[10993]

Thomas has a higher OB% (.440) than Bonds (.559)

Larry, you need someone to help you with your math skills?

 

[Funkley]

2000 was a very good year... .328/.436/.625 with 43 homers and 143 RBIs...

And all anyone said was "Where the hell has this Thomas been?" He followed it up with 4 homeruns the next year. Yeah, hit 42 in 2003 and followed it up with 18 last year. He's also now 36 so he ain't getting better. I think it all adds up to an above average 1st baseman who had a brilliant 6-7 years.

I don't know... If Frank Thomas reacts like Barry Bonds did he's due for like 65-70 next season...

Not the point. Bonds never falls off a cliff like Thomas does. 43+4+42+28+18 averages out to 27 homeruns a year the last 5 years. That's pretty average, maybe even below average for power 1st basemen in this draft.

that's 'cuz Bonds' made his head double in size...

The thing they have in common is that neither one of them have a teammate who would throw them a lifering if they were drowning.

 

[10993]

Bonds before 2000:1986-1999 14 2000 6976 1455 2010 423 65 445 1299 1430 1112 .288 .409 .559 460 132 163Thomas before 2000:1990-1999 10 1371 4892 968 1564 317 10 301 1040 1076 741 .320 .440 .573 28 18 169Thomas has almost as many HR per year (30.1) as Bonds (31.785)...Thomas has a higher BA (.320) than Bonds (.288)Thomas has a higher OB% (.440) than Bonds (.559)Thomas has a higher Slugging % (.573) than Bonds (.559)Thomas has more RBI per year (104) than Bonds (92.785)Thomas has more doubles per year (31.7) than Bonds (30.214)Thomas has more walks per year (107.6) than Bonds (102.142)all in all, Frank Thomas was a better batter until Bonds truly met BALCO...

Why are you using Barry's stats from the pitcher-dominated 80s? If you want to compare Frank and Barry in the 90s, then only use stats from 1990-1999. You know, in the 90s. I'd love to see that comparison, Larry.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Thomas has a higher OB% (.440) than Bonds (.559)

Larry, you need someone to help you with your math skills?

no, I typed Bonds' Slugging in his OB%, too

 

[Funkley]

Thomas has a higher OB% (.440) than Bonds (.559)

Larry, you need someone to help you with your math skills?

:rotflmao: Missed that. Oops.