538 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Think Trout would be a lock HOF if his career ended today Rob.  (He has more career fWAR than Puckett for instance.)

 

Without getting to Bonds, I'm not sure I'd have Trout above Junior in-terms of just pure talent.
 

Junior was obviously no offensive slouch (albeit his prime years were in a more offensive era vs. the Trout years prior to '17... this is a guess btw, not necessarily fact).... and was a great defensive player with the Mariners.

 

The metrics hated Jr's time with the Reds and WS... his defensive numbers are horrific. Clearly he hit a wall, and wasn't the same player with the Reds...  but that 10 year run to begin his career was tremendous. If the advanced defensive metrics were in place during those initial 10 years of his career, I wonder how much his career fWAR would be increased?

Overall, Jr might get my vote as the most talented MLB player I've seen.  Which obviously isn't the same as best career. 

 

Back to Bonds...

When looking at best MLB careers in this era....  it's impossible to get past his numbers. There so astronomical, it's just beyond belief.  As amazing as Trout has been... the numbers he'd have to continue to put up to equal Bonds' career numbers is just insane.

 

[mweb08]

Baseball lists:

 

Me:

 

20. Smoltz
19. McGwire
18. Schilling
17. Thomas
16. Piazza
15. Jeter
14. Griffey
13. Ripken
12. Bagwell
11. Chipper

10. Boggs

9. Rivera

8. Henderson

7. Pujols

6. Maddux

5. Pedro

4. Johnson

3. AROD

2. Clemens

1. Bonds

 

Rob:

 

20) MCab

19) Thomas

18) Jeter

17) Larkin

16) Smoltz

15) Moose

14) Schilling

13) Bagwell

12) Pedro

11) Chipper

10) Ripken

9) Boggs

8) Griffey Jr

7) Pujols

6) Maddux

5) R Johnson

4) Rickey

3) AROD

2) Clemens

1) Bonds

 

Our baseball rankings from the show.

 

I have to think about Trout and Kershaw more, but neither would be in my top 3 as of now. Kershaw would probably slot in around #10. Trout somewhere in the #4-7 range, but obviously I expect him to move up. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

I liked and still do like the Rickey love from both of you.

[SportsGuy]

This is when it gets tough with these lists.

Am I rating the player on career accomplishments or best I have seen?

And then, keeping up with the consistency of that is also difficult.

If it's best I have seen, Trout is amongst top 10. If it's peak, he's easily top 10. If it's overall accomplishments, he has a long ways to go.

If I think about it more, I think I would have to have Tiger and Serena in the top 10 over Trout in the top 10 because career accomplishments have to matter at some point on these lists, no matter how you want to weigh it.

[Cisc-O's]

I loved Rickey too but he had one year were he had 143 hits and tried stealing 172 times. He got caught 42 times that year, would be frustrating to watch lol.

[mweb08]

That's not a bad caught stealing rate, especially assuming that was a year that featured a lower slugging percentage.

[mweb08]

I think he would have been pretty damn fun to watch consistently.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Trout continues to climb here. He's unreal.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: Peyton Manning, not Tom Brady, is actually the GOAT, according to PFR's Hall of Fame monitor metric
https://www.cbssport...monitor-metric/

[DuffMan]

I loathe Brady, but no way can I say that Manning is better than him.  A great thought exercise would be how many titles would the two had if they had played for their counterpart's team

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Just skimmed over the thread a bit. Good times.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I loathe Brady, but no way can I say that Manning is better than him.  A great thought exercise would be how many titles would the two had if they had played for their counterpart's team

I think he is, if we can bring ourselves to not put everything on titles won in the biggest team sport around. To your point, had circumstances been different for Manning, there's no doubt he'd have a similar, if not even more impressive resume than Brady in terms of titles.

[DuffMan]

I think he is, if we can bring ourselves to not put everything on titles won in the biggest team sport around. To your point, had circumstances been different for Manning, there's no doubt he'd have a similar, if not even more impressive resume than Brady in terms of titles.

While I would say that's probably likely Peyton's playoff numbers make me pause and think that might not be the case.

[You Play to Win the Game]

While I would say that's probably likely Peyton's playoff numbers make me pause and think that might not be the case.

I think his playoff numbers are due to said circumstances though. I think this is a really good argument honestly. I wish more people weren't so quick to discount Peyton just because of rings though. Not saying that's what you're doing though.

[mweb08]

I think Manning was the better QB for his prime, but besides the rings, Brady has really built up an impressive resume on sheer totality with his longevity and durability. 

 

Speaking of rings and primes...how many rings did Brady win in his true prime?

[Mackus]

Is Brady's true prime over?  He seems to still be pretty damn effective.

[DuffMan]

I think Manning was the better QB for his prime, but besides the rings, Brady has really built up an impressive resume on sheer totality with his longevity and durability. 

 

Speaking of rings and primes...how many rings did Brady win in his true prime?

The durability point is a good point to bring up.

[mweb08]

Is Brady's true prime over?  He seems to still be pretty damn effective.

 

I think yes, he's post prime, but the stretch of him an extended prime to where he is now has gone on for a remarkably long time and at very high level for not quite being peak. 

 

The word I just used would be a more clear and correct word choice, though.

 

So we can argue about prime, but if we use the word peak, the answer is 0 titles imo. He won 3 titles pre-peak and now 4 post peak. I would say that he was still in his extended prime for 2014 and 2016. 

 

It's hard to say with Brady though IMO, because while he's ebbed and flowed from really good to great on a year to year basis, he's rarely been the best QB in football in a given year, which is the insane thing about this GOAT and GOAT of GOATs discussion. 

[Mike in STL]

Saw a mind blowing stat yesterday that listed a handful of the best QBs of the era (Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc...) and noted all of them are pretty well below .500 when they attempt 40+ passes in a game. Makes sense, playing from behind, or not a balanced attack and defenses and key in, whatever the case may be.

Can’t remember the exact number but Brady is 70something - 30something, 40 some odd games better than .500 when throwing more than 40 passes.