Finals csrupp vs. quest4#9

[DraftCat]

Welcome to the 1st All-Time MLB Draft in Paddock's.

Voters the goal was to draft a MLB roster of legends that will compete in a hypothetical
7 game World Series. Please vote on who you believe would win out of the two teams.

The Finals is a 3 day vote.


@csrupp.....................................Pitching Rotation:

1. Joe Morgan-2b..........................SP-Tom Seaver
2. Shoeless Joe Jackson-LF.........SP-Kid Nichols
3. Mickey Mantle-CF.....................SP-Bert Blyleven
4. Mel Ott-RF................................SP-DavidCone
5. Jimmie Foxx-1b........................CP- Lee Smith
6. Jim Thome-3b
7. Carlton Fisk-C
8. Francisco Lindor-SS

Bench:
Cody Bellinger-OF
Ronald Acuna JR. -OF
Alex Bregman-IF

@quest4#9 ...............................Pitching Rotation:

1. Jackie Robinson 2b........SP - Nolan Ryan
2. Mike Trout rf....................SP - Doc Gooden
3. Ken Griffey jr cf...............SP - Ron Guidry
4. Mark McGwire 1b...........SP - Jake Arrieta
5. Sammy Sosa lf...............CL - Eric Gagne
6. Edgar Martinez 3b
7. Buster Posey c
8. Peewee Reese ss

Bench
OF Billy Hamilton (LH) - (original, not the reds player)
IF Edgar Renteria- WS MVP
C JT Realmuto- best catcher in MLB

 

[quest4#9]

Two good teams. I did hear a rumor Shoeless Joe had taken some bribe money to throw this one, so should be an easy win jk

Looks to be a battle of mostly old time players vs modern era players.

I want to highlight Trout who has 3 MVPs before the age of 28 and is on pace to end up in the GOAT discussion with Griffey. Prime Griffey before the injuries hit was as good as it gets.

I feel my team is elite offensively (Everyone), defensively at key positions (Griffey, Jackie, Pee Wee, Posey), on the bases (Jackie, Trout, Griffey), and my pitching is based around guys who were dominant in their prime (how we are judging).

Jackie Robinson, Mike Trout, Ken Griffey Jr Sammy Sosa, and Buster Posey all won MVPs

If you think some of these guys were just power hitters, everyone in my lineup had an on base % over .400 and had a batting average over .300 at some point in their career. Several of these guys were intentionally walked constantly to get to easier hitters, which you can’t do here. 20 at bats per game from Trout, Griffey, McGwire, Sosa, Martinez just wouldn’t be fun to deal with as you can’t afford mistakes.

Pitching:

Nolan Ryan -all time MLB strikeout leader (1.7 ERA)
Doc Gooden 24-4 (1.5 ERA)
Ron Guidry 25-3 (1.7 ERA)
Jake Arrieta 26-6 (1.7 ERA)
Eric Gagne 55/55 saves (1.2 ERA)

Just wouldn’t be fun for hitters to face as a group of you look at these guys in their prime season. Quick note on Nolan Ryan, but his records weren't always great because he played on bad teams. Had he played on better teams it's widely considered he'd have been considered in the GOAT pitcher conversation.

(Stats highlighted for their prime season)

 

[JamesIII]

I can't vote for roids in the championship.

 

[quest4#9]

Fair, but I’d rather have the guys cheating for me (with roids) than against me by throwing WS games haha.

We are supposed to judge as they were in their prime season, which is why Bonds was selected second in the draft. If you look at McGwire on the A’s before he used the roids he was still one of the best power hitters in the league. They just amplified his home run total for a couple years.

 

[funKYcat75]

csrupp’s team has some all time greats, but quest’s batting lineup would make rupp’s pitching staff’s life very hard.

 

[csrupp]

Career WAR comparison between they 2 teams:

Morgan: 100.5 Robinson: 61.7
Jackson: 62.1 Trout: 72.8
Mantle: 110.2 Griffey: 83.8
Ott: 110.7 McGwire: 62.2
Foxx: 93.9 Sosa: 58.6
Thome: 72.9 Martinez: 68.4
Fisk: 68.4 Posey: 41.8
Lindor: 27.9 Reese: 68.2

Bellinger: 17.3 Hamilton: 63.3
Acuna: 9.9 Renteria: 32.4
Bregman: 22.4 Realmuto: 18.4

Tom Seaver: 109.9 Ryan: 83.6
Kid Nichols: 116.3 Gooden: 48.3
Blyleven: 94.5 Guidry: 47.8
Cone: 62.3 Arrieta: 23.6

Smith: 28.9 Gagne: 11.7

Starting line up combined WAR:
646.6 - 517.5

Bench WAR:
49.6 - 114.1

Starting Pitchers:
383 - 203.3

Closers:
28.9 - 11.7

Combined team WAR:
1108.1 - 846.4

Starting lineup:
My team has a pretty big advantage in the starting line up with a 129.1 difference in combined career WAR. Stan Musial's had a career WAR of 128.3. That's good for 8th highest among all position players. So the difference between our lineups is like them being equal and then adding Stan Musial to my team.

Bench:

His bench has a higher WAR but by the end of their career Bellinger, Acuna, and Bregman will almost certainly have a higher combined WAR.

162 game average:
Bellinger- 40 HR 104 RBI 105R 14 SB
Acuna- 41 HR 100 RBI 124 R 32 SB
Bregman- 31 HR 100 RBI 108 R 11 SB

Starting Pitchers:
Here is where my team has the massive advantage in this matchup. According to career WAR, I have the 4th, 7th, 12th and 55th best starters in the history of MLB. Quest's starters rank 20th, 113th, 115th, and 428th. This is, as I stated above, a massive advantage.

Closers:

Lee Smith had 478 career saves and was considered the best closer of all-time when he retired. He is still consider a top 5 closer. Again my team has a huge advantage here.

Conclusion:

My team has the better lineup, starting staff, and closer. The argument could be made that my bench is better. My team has a 261.7 higher combined WAR. I like my team.​

 

[csrupp]

csrupp’s team has some all time greats, but quest’s batting lineup would make rupp’s pitching staff’s life very hard.

My lineup is even better. Imagine how hard it would make his pitching staff's life.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

My lineup is even better. Imagine how hard it would make his pitching staff's life.

Yes, his staff is no where near as good as he gives them credit for. I don't like the one year wonder thing.

 

[csrupp]

Yes, his staff is no where near as good as he gives them credit for. I don't like the one year wonder thing.

Agreed.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Now talking about great baseball, I absolutely love watching as much of the LLWS as possible. It's simply fantastic. What got me on that subject was my tv choice last night. I've cut all cords and don't have a pay service at all so I'm limited to Prime TV and free streaming services. Anyway, it kept recommending a movie called The Perfect Game. It was low budget and a bit stiff at times but as unbelievable as the story was, it was actually true. If you love a great baseball story, watch it. You'll ruin it if you look up the 1957 LLWS so only do that if you don't want to watch the movie. I had never heard about what happened that year.

 

[csrupp]

Perhaps the fairest metric to use is JAWS:

Here is how the teams compare:

Morgan: 79.9 Robinson: 56.6

Jackson: 57.3 Trout: 69.2

Mantle: 87.4 Griffey: 68.9

Ott: 82.4 McGwire: 52

Foxx: 75.8 Sosa: 51.2

Thome: 57.2 Martinez: 56

Fisk: 53 Posey: 39.2

Lindor: 27.6 Reese: 55

Bellinger: 17.3 Hamilton: 52.9

Acuna: 9.9 Renteria: 29

Bregman: 22.4 Realmuto: 18.4

Tom Seaver: 84.6 Ryan: 62.2

Kid Nichols: 95.3 Gooden: 46

Blyleven: 72.4 Guidry: 42.9

Cone: 52.8 Arrieta: 25.2

Smith: 24.8 Gagne: 11.8

Starting line up combined JAWS:

520.6 - 448.1

Bench JAWS:

49.6 - 100.3

Starting Pitchers:

305.1 - 176.3

Closers:

24.8 - 11.8

Combined team JAWS:

900.1 - 736.5
​

 

[csrupp]

Again, I have the lineup advantage and a massive advantage in the starting rotation. My bench is much worse using this metric but it is punished for youth not for talent. I also have a gigantic advantage at closer as well.

I simply can't find any justification for not voting for my team. The fact that the voting is even close seems crazy to me. My overall team advantage is 163.6. Think about that for a minute.

Career JAWS:
Johnny Bench-61.2
Willie Mays-114.9
Babe Ruth-123.5
Barry Bonds-117.7
Walter Johnson-126.9
Roger Clemens-102.6

The difference in JAWS between our 2 teams is roughly the equivalent of 2 of the all time greatest. In other words, if the 2 teams were equal before adding those players, you could add Bench and Clemens.

Folks that's a massive advantage. Don't fall for the name recognition of his line up and the one hit wonders on his pitching staff. Do the right thing, vote for my team.​

 

[quest4#9]

@csrupp props for all of the research metrics etc. I would use that too on your end.

With all due respect you are posting a lot of numbers, but they are career numbers.

The entire point of this is to take a player’s prime. Someone voting can come in and say they don’t like the one hit wonders, but our draft was based upon a player’s prime. If it was to be based upon career accolades then I would have drafted a different set of players. We are just placing these players on the same field in their prime, not voting on whether they should be in the HOF.

Additionally your numbers are pretty much all skewed, because the game just wasn’t as good in those years as it is now. Players got bigger, faster, stronger.

If anyone thinks that a bunch of guys from the 1930s are this much better than than the modern day players, then I got prime beach real estate in Kentucky to sell you.

These numbers are most evident by the fact that your own player Acuna’s career WAR is just 9.9 while Mel Ott who isn’t really considered that amazing of a player is 110.7. Does anyone really think Mel Ott is 10 x the baseball player Acuna, Bregman, and Bellinger are?

Of course Doc Gooden’s career #s aren’t good. He was the best 20 year old ever going 24-4 (1.5 ERA) then ran into drug issues. I’d love to hear his WAR in his Cy Young season.

Even my own Billy Hamilton's is probably great and I noted years he hit over .400, but I'm not going to stick him in my starting lineup because I know those stats just aren't worth much.

If you went and grabbed Mel Ott and put him in the modern game, he would simply not be close to the baseball player Mike Trout is. Does anyone really think Mel Ott would be by far and away the best player of this generation, which is what your stats suggest?

 

[quest4#9]

Jimmie Foxx

 

[quest4#9]

Mel Ott

 

[quest4#9]

Ken Griffey jr

 

[quest4#9]

Mike Trout

 

[quest4#9]

Give me the two guys on the bottom over your two top two career WARs. Don’t really care what the numbers suggest.


We aren’t allowing bumps for how good these players were for their era. You have to put these guys on the same field, and quite frankly it would be like sticking Bob Cousy up against Lebron James and Giannis. I’m sure Bob Cousy has some nice metrics.

 

[quest4#9]

Finally a guy who never hit more than 7 homers in a season and didn’t always wear shoes !

Joe Jackson

 

[quest4#9]

It’s not about name recognition for my team. People get name recognition for a reason by the way (being good). It’s simply recognizing that Mike Trout probably has a WAR of 100000 if he plays in Mel Ott’s era.


I’ve seen many times The CATS don’t look amazing by some metric and the NCAA gives us a 4 seed when everyone in the world can see we should be higher.

So I guess it comes down to whether you trust these ridiculously skewed stats @csrupp is using (which came 90 years ago with way weaker pitching) or your eyes.

 

[Drcats2025]

Finally a guy who never hit more than 7 homers in a season and didn’t always wear shoes !

Joe Jackson

Lmao.

 

[Drcats2025]

I’m changing my vote to quest. These career number arguments mean NOTHING in a draft about players at their best. It was specified in the rules when we did the draft. I’m still open to my mind changing but as of now, quest presents the better argument, and it’s so close for me that that’s the difference right now.

 

[quest4#9]

Thank you @drcats2013 . I hope you flip back to him if he can present a better argument. But thank you for seeing my point. Career WAR is a useless stat in the context of sticking these baseball players in their prime on one field.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

@csrupp props for all of the research metrics etc. I would use that too on your end.

With all due respect you are posting a lot of numbers, but they are career numbers.

The entire point of this is to take a player’s prime. Someone voting can come in and say they don’t like the one hit wonders, but our draft was based upon a player’s prime. If it was to be based upon career accolades then I would have drafted a different set of players. We are just placing these players on the same field in their prime, not voting on whether they should be in the HOF.

Additionally your numbers are pretty much all skewed, because the game just wasn’t as good in those years as it is now. Players got bigger, faster, stronger.

If anyone thinks that a bunch of guys from the 1930s are this much better than than the modern day players, then I got prime beach real estate in Kentucky to sell you.

These numbers are most evident by the fact that your own player Acuna’s career WAR is just 9.9 while Mel Ott who isn’t really considered that amazing of a player is 82.4. Does anyone really think Mel Ott is 9 x the baseball player Acuna is?

Of course Doc Gooden’s career #s aren’t good. He was the best 20 year old ever going 24-4 (1.5 ERA) then ran into drug issues. I’d love to hear his WAR in hit Cy Young season.

Even my own Billy Hamilton's is probably great and I noted years he hit over .400, but I'm not going to stick him in my starting lineup because I know those stats just aren't worth much.

If you went and grabbed Mel Ott and put him in the modern game, he would simply not be close to the baseball player Mike Trout is. Does anyone really think Mel Ott would be by far and away the best player of this generation, which is what your stats suggest?

Why do you keep bringing this up? The modern game, old game, you can't compare the 2. That has never been a valid argument. As for "the entire point of this was to take a players prime", actually, the entire point was to take a legend in his prime. That was my complaint with your pitchers, there isn't a legend in the bunch except Ryan. The rest don't even meet the object of the draft, they are one year wonders. We all could have found endless one year wonders with absurd numbers that didn't keep those numbers in subsequent years but they were not legends of the game.

 

[Drcats2025]

Thank you @drcats2013 . I hope you flip back to him if he can present a better argument. But thank you for seeing my point. Career WAR is a useless stat in the context of sticking these baseball players in their prime on one field.

I certainly have no bias in this. It’s a very close matchup. I wasn’t sure when I voted for csrupp initially but mainly wanted to see the score lol. Again, I’m still open to changing my mind. I’m about 55% sold on @quest4#9 right now

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I’m changing my vote to quest. These career number arguments mean NOTHING in a draft about players at their best. It was specified in the rules when we did the draft. I’m still open to my mind changing but as of now, quest presents the better argument, and it’s so close for me that that’s the difference right now.

Legends was specified in the rules of the draft. Name the legends on Quests pitching staff. It's a short list.

 

[Drcats2025]

Why do you keep bringing this up? The modern game, old game, you can't compare the 2. That has never been a valid argument. As for "the entire point of this was to take a players prime", actually, the entire point was to take a legend in his prime. That was my complaint with your pitchers, there isn't a legend in the bunch except Ryan. The rest don't even meet the object of the draft, they are one year wonders. We all could have found endless one year wonders with absurd numbers that didn't keep those numbers in subsequent years but they were not legends of the game.

That’s all a matter of interpretation though. I take Doc Gooden pre drugs over kidd Nichols, who never even had a sub 2 ERA season in a time where almost everyone had one. Hell I didn’t even know who the guy was until I looked him up.

 

[Drcats2025]

Legends was specified in the rules of the draft. Name the legends on Quests pitching staff. It's a short list.

Where are all these legends on Rupps staff? I’m sorry, I’m not seeing them.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

That’s all a matter of interpretation though. I take Doc Gooden pre drugs over kidd Nichols, who never even had a sub 2 ERA season in a time where almost everyone had one. Hell I didn’t even know who the guy was until I looked him up.

Doc Gooden is not a legend. He could have been, but he had one really good season and died from there. That is not a legend and you know it.

 

[quest4#9]

@BigBlueFanGA If that was the case, then why did @csrupp draft Acuna Jr, Bregman, and Bellinger who are all active players?

The goal was to select any player from any generation in their prime to compete in a World Series. That was specified when we drafted. Doc Gooden you obviously have to take before the drugs, and you obviously take Griffey from the 90s, not gimpy Reds Griffey.

 

[Drcats2025]

Doc Gooden is not a legend. He could have been, but he had one really good season and died from there. That is not a legend and you know it.

I never said he was a “legend”. What the hell has you so caught up in this “legend” stuff? Kidd Nichols stats from 1890 don’t impress me over doc’s dominant year in the 1980’s.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Where are all these legends on Rupps staff? I’m sorry, I’m not seeing them.

All but David Cone and Smith are in the HOF. That automatically makes you a legend. Lee Smith is clearly a legend, HOF or not. Your turn.

 

[quest4#9]

Fairly sure he’s trolling?

Look @csrupp, the WAR stat can at least be useful in this if you want to go find the WAR of each player’s best season. I will still argue that the game has improved.

But the cumulative WAR you developed just is a useless stat in this when your bench players (the active players) show so low when obviously they are great players. TBH I take your bench players over Ott if we placed them on the same field.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

@BigBlueFanGA If that was the case, then why did @csrupp draft Acuna Jr, Bregman, and Bellinger who are all active players?

The goal was to select any player from any generation in their prime to compete in a World Series. That was specified when we drafted. Doc Gooden you obviously have to take before the drugs, and you obviously take Griffey from the 90s, not gimpy Reds Griffey.

You're taking a chance on active players. Some have the stats and career length to see they may make the HOF or be of special note in the game. But that's clearly a risk. No, legend was always in the description. In my view, I'd ignore anyone drafted that doesn't fit that description.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Fairly sure he’s trolling?

Look @csrupp, the WAR stat can at least be useful in this if you want to go find the WAR of each player’s best season. I will still argue that the game has improved.

But the cumulative WAR you developed just is a useless stat in this when your bench players (the active players) show so low when obviously they are great players. TBH I take your bench players over Ott if we placed them on the same field.

You aren't putting the actual men on the field together, you're putting their stats on the field. That takes away the era argument and its the only way to view such a draft.

 

[quest4#9]

If this is just about drafting legends and career WAR then I would like to go reselect some bum who none of us drafted named Cap Anson who played in the late 1800s and had a higher career WAR than Ken Griffey Jr and Mike Trout.

I am sure by @csrupp argument that quantifies him as the best player on my team. Anyone heard of Cap Anson?

 

[quest4#9]

Here’s another good one. Robin Roberts, higher career WAR than Ken Griffey, once went 1-10 as a pitcher.

 

[Drcats2025]

All but David Cone and Smith are in the HOF. That automatically makes you a legend. Lee Smith is clearly a legend, HOF or not. Your turn.

My turn? Lol. You need to relax and not get too wound up. You’ve been sick as is. Hope you’re feeling better man.

This is all a matter of interpretation and I interpret it differently than you. Kidd Nichols stats for his era are underwhelming to me. Bert Blyleven had 2 all star appearances. Doc had 4 in his first 5 years and a Cy young. You cannot rationally argue he or Nichols over what Prime Doc was. We get them at their best.

 

[quest4#9]

Putting stats on the field?? Whattt hahaha.

If that's the case, then I’d like to go back and reselect Tip Oneill, Hugh Duffy, and Ross Barnes who all hit over .440 in the 1800s. Anyone heard of these guys?

Just all evidence that pitching and defense has improved immensely by the years as players got bigger, faster, stronger.

 

[quest4#9]

My turn? Lol. You need to relax and not get too wound up. You’ve been sick as is. Hope you’re feeling better man.

This is all a matter of interpretation and I interpret it differently than you. Kidd Nichols stats for his era are underwhelming to me. Bert Blyleven had 2 all star appearances. Doc had 4 in his first 5 years and a Cy young. You cannot rationally argue he or Nichols over what Prime Doc was. We get them at their best.

And if someone is sick, hope you do feel better. This is all in good fun. I could easily make an argument for @csrupp team as well, but my job is to argue my team. Obviously it's two really good teams to reach the final.