Hypothetical:  Joe Phenom comes up his rookie year, bats .410 with 80 HR and 150 SB without being caught, 9.0 Range Factor, 0 Errors, plays every inning of every game all season.  No question, the best season ever.  In the off-season, he has a snowmobile accident and never plays baseball again (don't worry, he's fine; just tore up both knees).  Is he not the best shortstop ever?  I can see the argument that he may not qualify for the HOF, given only one year of service.  But is there anybody you would take over him for that mythical 'one game to win it all'?

My point is not that you should look at one-season wonders when considering the 'best' (unless someone was to have a season like the ill-fated Mr. Phenom above).  My points are these: excluding players like Wagner, Banks, Rose, etc., from 'best ever' discussions because they didn't have 70% of their games played (or whatever arbitrary number) at a single position does a disservice to some of the greatest players ever.  Hey, you don't want Wagner on your team?  I'll take him!  Also, how do you account for someone like A-Rod?  If he had gone to just about any other team than the Yankees, he'd still be a shortstop - and would be on the short list of Greatest Ever.  If you decide that 68% is your cutoff and you're taking Wagner as your SS, I'll be happy to put A-Rod there.  Simply put, if someone has demonstrated over time that they can play a position and perform well doing so, they should be considered.

Hope the tone has not come off as too argumentative ...

As an aside to this, my ex-father-in-law was a dedicated NL man, and I'm AL (although I hate the DH - I predate it by a bit).  We'd have the usual raging debates after a few drinks about which league was better and it invariably evolved into a comparison of all-time best line-up for that one magical game.  I'd usually win, because I'd have Babe Ruth as Pitcher.

Anyone who puts Jeter ahead of Ripken is a homer or a dumbass. If we're talking best ever, that means whole career, not "one game for all the marbles". Which means I'm not factoring rings in at all. Ripken was the best player on his team for the majority of his seasons, so clearly it wasn't his fault the O's didn't win more WS during his time.

SS is a premium position and defense weighs a lot. For Jeter's career, he has a .976 fielding % and a 4.10 RF/9, vs league averages of .972 and 4.54.  Ripken had a .979 fielding % and 4.73 RF/9 vs league averages of .969 and 4.69. Offensively, he's one of 7-8 players with 3,000 hits, 400 HR and 600 doubles. Their slugging percentages are nearly equal and Jeter has a marginal edge in OPS+, but Jeter's career WAR of 67.8 doesn't even sniff Ripken's at 90.9.  As of right now Ripken has 514 more games, but it's doubtful Jeter would make up 23.1, even if he plays that much longer. Ripken had 3 seasons with a WAR of 8.0 or higher - Jeter has none.

Take away Jeter's rings and PS performances (which are impressive, but really shouldn't factor too heavily into a "best ever" career assessment) and it's not even a discussion.

Uh, did you just call anyone who takes Jeter over Ripken a "homer" and then go about polishing Ripken's balls?

And, FWIW, I'm not sure A-Roid is playing SS for anyone after a couple of seasons in Texas.   He "grew".

Posted by pinotfan on 6/10/2012 11:19:00 PM (view original):
Hypothetical:  Joe Phenom comes up his rookie year, bats .410 with 80 HR and 150 SB without being caught, 9.0 Range Factor, 0 Errors, plays every inning of every game all season.  No question, the best season ever.  In the off-season, he has a snowmobile accident and never plays baseball again (don't worry, he's fine; just tore up both knees).  Is he not the best shortstop ever?  I can see the argument that he may not qualify for the HOF, given only one year of service.  But is there anybody you would take over him for that mythical 'one game to win it all'?

My point is not that you should look at one-season wonders when considering the 'best' (unless someone was to have a season like the ill-fated Mr. Phenom above).  My points are these: excluding players like Wagner, Banks, Rose, etc., from 'best ever' discussions because they didn't have 70% of their games played (or whatever arbitrary number) at a single position does a disservice to some of the greatest players ever.  Hey, you don't want Wagner on your team?  I'll take him!  Also, how do you account for someone like A-Rod?  If he had gone to just about any other team than the Yankees, he'd still be a shortstop - and would be on the short list of Greatest Ever.  If you decide that 68% is your cutoff and you're taking Wagner as your SS, I'll be happy to put A-Rod there.  Simply put, if someone has demonstrated over time that they can play a position and perform well doing so, they should be considered.

Hope the tone has not come off as too argumentative ...

"excluding players like Wagner, Banks, Rose, etc...."

My point exactly. And how does one deal with separate outfield positions? There is certainly a bigger difference between shortstop and first than between left field and right field, but in ranking a player at a single position, is it right to expect a minimum percentage at an outfield spot? Babe Ruth played less than half his games (not including as a pitcher) in right field, and under 51% of his outfield games. He is usually ranked as a right fielder, and to keep him out of the running would not make sense.

As an Astros fan, I don't have a shortstop whose balls I can slobber over. But I do play favorites. If two players are close enough that I can't separate them with analysis, I go with my favorite. And if I don't have a favorite, I go with the funniest name. When dealing with a top five or ten list, I never get to that last approach.

As for right fielders, a top five:

Ruth
Aaron
Robinson
Ott
Kaline

The "problem" you have with "This is what I remember" is that it's very period-specific.    I remember Pete Rose playing a little 3B but mostly as a 1B.   But a quick check shows that he played 2B as much as he did 3B and OF more than anything.    So, if ranking him at a position, where does one start?     For me, and my memory, it's 1B.    And I don't think he's a top 10 1B.   Or 3B/OF for that matter.     But the all-time hits leader has to be top 50 of all-time, right?   Where does he fit?

I don't remember anything about Rose, Banks, Musial, Carew, or others who split positions. They were before my time. I refer to the position I associate a player with just from what I've read of him, and if that fails, where the consensus tends to place that player. The second is to deal with truly versatile players like Rose. I usually see him placed in left field, but I could not take issue with someone ranking him elsewhere.

I think one could argue Rose is not quite top 50, but even then, he's close enough that complaining about him being ranked that high would be foolish.

Mike, who are your top ten shortstops, assuming you can only put Jeter on the list once?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/8/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):

'roids killed Nomah's career.

Fastball to the wrist and Mia Hamm did!

I don't know who you could only list Jeter once.   That seems insane.

In no particular order(because that would be too much work and I'm just spitballing off the top of my head):

Jeter, Smith, Ripken, Wagner, Larkin. Boudreau(SLB stud), Banks(yeah, yeah, I contradict myself), Trammell.   I could stop here but that's only 8.   Pick 2 to finish it off:   Tony Fernandez, Larry Bowa, Pee Wee Reese, Luke Appling and, in an ode to the glove guy, Mark Belanger.   There's another guy, he played forever(and may still be playing) as a glove guy but I can't think of his name.

Posted by 1899_spiders on 6/10/2012 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Ranking players by position is very popular. There are examples all over the internet. And Ernie Banks is ranked as a shortstop on all I have seen. He played enough games at short to make ranking him there reasonable, and his performance at that position is what made him memorable. People think of Banks as a shortstop, not a first baseman. I agree with the_jsa that there needs to be a minimum number of games to keep things from getting out of hand, but once I get past that point, I'm going with my gut. It's similar to deciding which team to associate a player with. Eddie Collins played more games with the White Sox, but he was at his best with the Athletics. So I connect him with the Athletics.

If you're going to count Banks, you have to count Arod.  In that case, the top three are probably Wagner, Arod, & Ripken.  

With Banks, Vaughan, Jeter, Trammell, Smith, Larkin, Yount, and Appling filling out the rest of the top tenish SS of all time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2012 1:42:00 PM (view original):
I don't know who you could only list Jeter once.   That seems insane.

In no particular order(because that would be too much work and I'm just spitballing off the top of my head):

Jeter, Smith, Ripken, Wagner, Larkin. Boudreau(SLB stud), Banks(yeah, yeah, I contradict myself), Trammell.   I could stop here but that's only 8.   Pick 2 to finish it off:   Tony Fernandez, Larry Bowa, Pee Wee Reese, Luke Appling and, in an ode to the glove guy, Mark Belanger.   There's another guy, he played forever(and may still be playing) as a glove guy but I can't think of his name.

Vizquel

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/11/2012 12:20:00 AM (view original):
Anyone who puts Jeter ahead of Ripken is a homer or a dumbass. If we're talking best ever, that means whole career, not "one game for all the marbles". Which means I'm not factoring rings in at all. Ripken was the best player on his team for the majority of his seasons, so clearly it wasn't his fault the O's didn't win more WS during his time.

SS is a premium position and defense weighs a lot. For Jeter's career, he has a .976 fielding % and a 4.10 RF/9, vs league averages of .972 and 4.54.  Ripken had a .979 fielding % and 4.73 RF/9 vs league averages of .969 and 4.69. Offensively, he's one of 7-8 players with 3,000 hits, 400 HR and 600 doubles. Their slugging percentages are nearly equal and Jeter has a marginal edge in OPS+, but Jeter's career WAR of 67.8 doesn't even sniff Ripken's at 90.9.  As of right now Ripken has 514 more games, but it's doubtful Jeter would make up 23.1, even if he plays that much longer. Ripken had 3 seasons with a WAR of 8.0 or higher - Jeter has none.

Take away Jeter's rings and PS performances (which are impressive, but really shouldn't factor too heavily into a "best ever" career assessment) and it's not even a discussion.

Regarding your WAR argument, it should be noted that Ripken played in an era where there weren't shortstops like him and replacement level was lesser quality than replacement level now. Had Ripken played now, I imagine the difference between the 2 players would be smaller.

Vizquel??? Even in his best year he wasn't the league's best shortstop (or second best), he was never among the best players in the league, he was a good defensive shortstop with a below average bat. Nomar deserves to be on this list before Viquel.