FOFC Sportsman of the Year Poll

[Raiders Army]

Poll?

[oykib]

All right, people. Make your picks.

1. Roger Federer (3 Grand Slam titles in tennis, ATP #1)

2. Peyton Manning (49TDs-- broke Dan Marino's 20 year-old record, all-around unbelievable production at QB, almost-certain NFL MVP)

3. Curt Schilling (2nd in AL Cy Young race, 20 wins, gutsy playoff performance, Most recognizable member of the curse-breaking Sox)

4. Barry Bonds (Topped even his own recent historic seasons with another batting title, slugging title, and a record OBP of .609, the next most productive hitter in baseball was closer to your average second baseman than to Bonds, 2004 NL MVP-- his seventh and fourth in a row)

5. Michael Phelps (Six gold medals and two bronze medals at the Athens Olympic games)

6. Lance Armstrong (Won a record sixth Tour de France after... yadda yadda yadda...)

7. Michael Schumacher (Won his Seventh Formula one title and won a record 13 races out of 18 total-- including the first twelve-- on his way to record for points in a season)

8. Martin St. Louis (Led the Tampa Bay Lightning to their first Stanley Cup, 2003-4 NHL MVP)

9. Vijay Singh (PGA number one player, won 9 tournaments-- including the PGA championship)

10. Pat Tillman (died in action in Afghanistan after giving up a lucrative NFL contract to enlist after 9/11)

[sachmo71]

Didn't we do this already?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Didn't we do this already?

That was the nomination thread. Here is the vote thread.

It's an open poll. You can vote for multiple candidates. The poll is open for three days.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by oykib

That was the nomination thread. Here is the vote thread.

It's an open poll. You can vote for multiple candidates. The poll is open for three days.

My bad, sorry.

[moriarty]

Ooops I clicked more than one box.

edit: nevermind, looks like we can vote for more than one.

I voted for Manning, Phelps, and Schumaker.

[tanglewood]

I voted for Federer, Schumacher and Armstrong. All three who are undeinably dominant in their sports.

[oykib]

My list is:

1. Schumacher
2. Bonds
3. Armstrong

No one else on this list comes close to the dominance of these three. They all accomplished something that had never been done in their respective sport.

Bonds and Schumacher were more impressive than Armstrong. But Schumacher beats Bonds because, from all accounts, he's a great human being and he won a championship while setting his records.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by oykib

My list is:

1. Schumacher
2. Bonds
3. Armstrong

No one else on this list comes close to the dominance of these three. They all accomplished something that had never been done in their respective sport.

Bonds and Schumacher were more impressive than Armstrong. But Schumacher beats Bonds because, from all accounts, he's a great human being and he won a championship while setting his records.

Peyton Manning was not as dominant as these 3? How do you figure?

[vtbub]

IMHO, Schumaker is in the frontrunning for our 2005 FOFC Sportsman of the year.

Nice idea, oykib

[oykib]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Peyton Manning was not as dominant as these 3? How do you figure?

He beat-- but did not demolish-- a twenty year-old record. He did it in a league where it was significantly easier to rack up passing stats based on the rules.

Football is ridiculously dependant on system and other personnel for records.

Bonds OBP mark is ten percent better than any mark by any non-Bonds player has ever put up. He was as much better than Pujols, Beltre, or whomever as that player was over the replacement level.

Schumacher won more races in a row to start the season this year than any driver has won races in a season. He set the points and wins record this season.

Armstrong won the Tour de France for the sixth (consecutive) time. This is a feat that most cycling fans thought would be impossible. In total contrast to Manning, who happened to find himself in a situation where the league was changing the rules to increase passing offense, Tour organizers changed the rules specifically to try to take away Armstrong's advantages.

They weren't shy about saying so, either.

I'm actually suprised that Manning is leading. My full list'd go:

1. Schumacher
2. Bonds
3. Armstrong
4. Federer
5. Phelps
6. Manning
7. Singh
8. St. Louis
9. Schilling
10. Tillman


You can evaluate it however you like. But those athlete's accomplishments noticeably outstrip Manning's in my opinion. Federer and Phelps were slightly more impressive to me.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by vtbub

IMHO, Schumaker is in the frontrunning for our 2005 FOFC Sportsman of the year.

Nice idea, oykib

Danke

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by oykib

Football is ridiculously dependant on system and other personnel for records.

True. But how do you reduce Manning's accomplishments because of the offensive system, then turn around and lavish praise on an auto driver (who's success will be almost completey dependent on the quality of his vehicle)?

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

True. But how do you reduce Manning's accomplishments because of the offensive system, then turn around and lavish praise on an auto driver (who's success will be almost completey dependent on the quality of his vehicle)?

Let's not forget his teammate likes to slow down so that he can win...

[wade moore]

FWIW, I did not vote for Manning -- I voted for Schilling.. but I don't think "Sportsman of the year" is necessarily best suited to the most "dominant" sportsman..

If there were 3 or 4 other QB's with over 40 TD's, I might buy your pass offense argument more... but he did not JUST break the TD record by 1.. he DEMOLISHED the QB Rating record.. almost 10 points higher than any QB in HISTORY.. that's phenomenal my friend, more phenomenal than 10 OBP points in my book..

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

True. But how do you reduce Manning's accomplishments because of the offensive system, then turn around and lavish praise on an auto driver (who's success will be almost completey dependent on the quality of his vehicle)?

If Manning had absolutely destroyed Marino's record, I would'nt have been left with much to say. But he didn't. He beat it by one.

AFAIC, Marino's 48 in the mid 80s is more impressive than Manning's 49 today. Now if it were Manning's 57, or even 55, I wouldn't have much to say.

For every detracting argument I make against a guy I put a percentage factor on it, more or less. Were the favorable conditions that Manning had compared to Marino make Marino's 48 as compared to Peyton's 49 less impressive. In my opinion, the answer is yes. I can reasonably conclude that it was worth the less than 3% difference.

But my main point is that it's close. It's a comparable season to another all-time season. That's very impressive.

For Schumacher, he has a top car and a top team. But there are other teams with comparable amounts of money to spend on cars and comparable talents to work on them. But he blew them all out of the water. No one has ever had a season close to his 2004, except for him in 2003.

Does Schumacher have the best car and crew that anyone's ever had? If so, by how much? Does it account for the way he made a mockery of the Formula 1 circuit last year?

Manning had a very good season that is comparable to the best seasons of all time. It was, arguably, the best.

With Schumacher's season you can take the arguable out of it. It was head and shoulders better than anything anyone has ever done in his sport. No amount of system advantage can make up the difference.

[Raiders Army]

I think your level of competition has to be brought into this as well. I don't know too much about Formula 1 racing, but to me, the competition in the NFL is much greater. Think about this...how many high schools are there with Football? How many colleges with Football? Peyton Manning being the best QB out there today (won't mention how he chokes in big games), and breaking a 20 year record is something more to me than dominating a weaker sport.

So enlighten me (no sarcasm intended). Is Formula 1 racing more competitive than Football? I do realize these are like apples and oranges, but in order to rank one guy ahead of another you have to compare them.

[spleen1015]

I have no idea if F1 is more competitive, but I don't think you have all of the best guys racing in F1. Like you say, Manning is at the top level of football. I don't know if F1 is the top of auto racing. I know it is probably #1 worldwide, but we have no way of knowing if Jeff Gordon is better than Schumaker because they will never compete against each other.

And like I already said, you don't see Jimmie Johnson pulling over to let Jeff Gordon win.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by wade moore

FWIW, I did not vote for Manning -- I voted for Schilling.. but I don't think "Sportsman of the year" is necessarily best suited to the most "dominant" sportsman..

If there were 3 or 4 other QB's with over 40 TD's, I might buy your pass offense argument more... but he did not JUST break the TD record by 1.. he DEMOLISHED the QB Rating record.. almost 10 points higher than any QB in HISTORY.. that's phenomenal my friend, more phenomenal than 10 OBP points in my book..

It wasn't ten OBP points. It was 10% better. Were talking over fifty points. It's like someone batting .465. The problem with Bonds's accomplishments is that people really don't understand OBP, and don't realize that it's the single most important statistic in baseball!

Had he batted .465 this year, there's no question that he'd win this poll. But OBP is more imprtant than AVG, and he did the same thing to that record as hitting .465 would be to the AVG. record.

BTW, QB rating is an outdated and relatively useless stat. Where would you rate Johnny Unitas among QBs in NFL history? Where is he rated using QB rating?

Here's the top ten in career OBP in baseball (taking out 19th century guys):
1. Ted Williams+ .4817 L
2. Babe Ruth+ .4739 L
3. John McGraw+ .4657 L
4. Billy Hamilton+ .4552 L
5. Lou Gehrig+ .4474 L
6. Barry Bonds (39) .4426 L
7. Rogers Hornsby+ .4337 R
8. Ty Cobb+ .4330 L
9. Todd Helton (30) .4316 L
10. Frank Thomas (36) .4286 R

if you made an adjustment for park, Helton would drop out and Jimmie Foxx would replace him.

Would that equate to the list of the ten best offensive players in major league baseball history? Not exactly, but pretty close: maybe 6 or seven out of ten.

Lets look at the top 25 in career QB rating in the NFL:

1 Steve Young 15 4149 2667 64.4 33,124 7.98 232 5.6 107 2.6 96.8 
2 Joe Montana 15 5391 3409 63.2 40,551 7.52 273 5.1 139 2.6 92.3 
3 Brett Favre 12 5993 3652 60.9 42,285 7.10 314 5.2 172 2.9 86.8 
4 Dan Marino 17 8358 4967 59.4 61,361 7.34 420 5.0 252 3.0 86.4 
5 Peyton Manning 5 2817 1749 62.1 20,618 7.32 138 4.9 100 3.5 85.9 
6 Rich Gannon 15 3913 2367 60.5 26,945 6.88 171 4.4 98 2.5 85.3 
7 Mark Brunell 10 3561 2142 60.2 25,309 7.11 142 4.0 86 2.4 85.1 
8 Brad Johnson 11 2831 1747 61.7 19,428 6.86 114 4.0 74 2.6 84.6 
9 Jim Kelly 11 4779 2874 60.1 35,467 7.42 237 5.0 175 3.7 84.4 
10 Roger Staubach 11 2958 1685 57.0 22,700 7.67 153 5.2 109 3.7 83.4 
11 Neil Lomax 8 3153 1817 57.6 22,771 7.22 136 4.3 90 2.9 82.7 
12 Sonny Jurgensen 18 4262 2433 57.1 32,224 7.56 255 6.0 189 4.4 82.625 
13 Len Dawson 19 3741 2136 57.1 28,711 7.67 239 6.4 183 4.9 82.555 
14 Ken Anderson 16 4475 2654 59.3 32,838 7.34 197 4.4 160 3.6 81.9 
15 Bernie Kosar 12 3365 1994 59.3 23,301 6.92 124 3.7 87 2.6 81.8 
16 Danny White 13 2950 1761 59.7 21,959 7.44 155 5.3 132 4.5 81.715 
17 Steve McNair 8 2780 1634 58.8 19,422 6.98 108 3.9 76 2.7 81.7 
18 Neil O'Donnell 13 3202 1847 57.7 21,458 6.70 118 3.7 67 2.1 81.6 
19 Troy Aikman 12 4715 2898 61.5 32,942 6.99 165 3.5 141 3.0 81.6 
20 Dave Krieg 19 5311 3105 58.5 38,147 7.18 261 4.9 199 3.7 81.499 
21 Randall Cunningham 16 4289 2429 56.6 29,979 7.00 207 4.8 134 3.1 81.474 
22 Boomer Esiason 14 5205 2969 57.0 37,920 7.29 247 4.7 184 3.5 81.1 
23 Jeff George 11 3925 2275 58.0 27,434 6.99 154 3.9 110 2.8 80.909 
24 Warren Moon 17 6823 3988 58.5 49,325 7.23 291 4.3 233 3.4 80.9 
25 Steve Beuerlein 14 3265 1861 57.0 23,657 7.22 145 4.4 107 3.3 80.9 

Which number was Johnny U., again? Was that before or after Jeff George?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I think your level of competition has to be brought into this as well. I don't know too much about Formula 1 racing, but to me, the competition in the NFL is much greater. Think about this...how many high schools are there with Football? How many colleges with Football? Peyton Manning being the best QB out there today (won't mention how he chokes in big games), and breaking a 20 year record is something more to me than dominating a weaker sport.

So enlighten me (no sarcasm intended). Is Formula 1 racing more competitive than Football? I do realize these are like apples and oranges, but in order to rank one guy ahead of another you have to compare them.

This is really a reply to you and spleen and others. But...

How many countries play American football? How many guys who can run fast or throw hard in those countries (all two of them) play football? How many guys who are strong and can hit hard?

It's silly to get into thes types of arguments. There are a sufficient number of top-level athletes interested in football to say that the NFL, which is the top level of the sport, is truly competetive at a high-level.

There are also a sufficient number of drivers interested in competetive race car driving to say that F-1, which is the top level of the sport, is truly competetive at a high level.

Both the NFL and F-1 draw on pools of millions of competitors to filter out the best for the highest level of competition.

The kind of road you're going down would mean that this award should always go to a soccer player, a track star, or a cricket player, as they would be the "most competetive" sports.

[BreizhManu]

Hey I'm a F1 fan and I hate Schumacher but I'm the first to recognize he is probably the best driver in the history of the sport.

I voted for him, Armstrong (winning his record 6th Tour does not put him ahead of Merckx or Hinault among the greatest but he is close behind them) and Federer (because of the level of competition he was facing).

[spleen1015]

I'm not trying to prove you or anyone else wrong. I'm telling you why I picked who I picked and didn't pick.

[spleen1015]

Dola...

I can't believe Phelps isn't getting more votes. The guy won 6 gold medals, 8 total. No one has won 8 medals before!

[oykib]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Dola...

I can't believe Phelps isn't getting more votes. The guy won 6 gold medals, 8 total. No one has done that before!

Spitz won Seven Gold Medals. I think Phelps is downgraded because he lost head-to-head against Thorpe twice. A great American swimmer can rack up a lot of medals on relays because of the depth of american swimming.

I'm more concerned with how he did in individual events. As an individual athlete, he's not in the Jesse Owens, Mark Spitz, Carl Lewis, Greg Louganis, or Jackee Joyner-Kersee class.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by oykib

Spitz won Seven Gold Medals. I think Phelps is downgraded because he lost head-to-head against Thorpe twice. A great American swimmer can rack up a lot of medals on relays because of the depth of american swimming.

I'm more concerned with how he did in individual events. As an individual athlete, he's not in the Jesse Owens, Mark Spitz, Carl Lewis, Greg Louganis, or Jackee Joyner-Kersee class.

I modded my post to be more in line with what I meant it to be. I see your point on Phelps.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm not trying to prove you or anyone else wrong. I'm telling you why I picked who I picked and didn't pick.

Same here. I just like arguing.


Seriously, it's having discussions like this that help us fine tune our ability to evaluate athletes. I think that these kinds of fights are the reason to have polls like this in the first place.

I like how it hasn't devolved into name-calling silliness and everyone, so far, has made attempts to back up thier arguments with evidence.

[sabotai]

How big of an impact on OBP was Bonds' 120 intentional walks?

[sabotai]

dola,

And if anything, with the rules in football becoming more and more passing freindly, QB Rating is growing in importance. It's useless for rating guys like Jonny U because it was a totally different game back then. But now it is a pretty good indication of a passer's ability to pass.

[Samdari]

I really must protest Armstrong even being on this list, at least the misleading list of his accomplishments for 2004.

He won ONE tour-de-france this year. The five he won previously should not be considered when trying to award was the best sportsman THIS YEAR.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I really must protest Armstrong even being on this list, at least the misleading list of his accomplishments for 2004.

He won ONE tour-de-france this year. The five he won previously should not be considered when trying to award was the best sportsman THIS YEAR.

It puts his accomplishment in context. Otherwise, you couldn't really account for historical records at all.

For instance, was Vijay really deserving? Or did the fact that he had the skill and nuts to knock Tiger off his perch really the reason that people made such a big deal about him? That's all about context.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by oykib

This is really a reply to you and spleen and others. But...

How many countries play American football? How many guys who can run fast or throw hard in those countries (all two of them) play football? How many guys who are strong and can hit hard?

It's silly to get into thes types of arguments. There are a sufficient number of top-level athletes interested in football to say that the NFL, which is the top level of the sport, is truly competetive at a high-level.

There are also a sufficient number of drivers interested in competetive race car driving to say that F-1, which is the top level of the sport, is truly competetive at a high level.

Both the NFL and F-1 draw on pools of millions of competitors to filter out the best for the highest level of competition.

The kind of road you're going down would mean that this award should always go to a soccer player, a track star, or a cricket player, as they would be the "most competetive" sports.

I agree and thank you for the information. I didn't want it to devolve into the "most competitive" sport, but it should factor into the decision-making.

[Raiders Army]

Dola, just a jab, but how much of Bonds' OBP were intentional walks? If he was taking roids, wouldn't that negate some of his OBP?

Regardless, he, like most of the guys on the poll, are deserving of being FOFC Sportsman of the Year.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I agree and thank you for the information. I didn't want it to devolve into the "most competitive" sport, but it should factor into the decision-making.

True. And in that case we probably dropped the ball by not nominating Justin Gatlin.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by oykib

For instance, was Vijay really deserving? Or did the fact that he had the skill and nuts to knock Tiger off his perch really the reason that people made such a big deal about him? That's all about context.

Winning 9 tournaments is deserving in and of itself, regardless of who was #1 before him. That is something we know by viewing it in context - it is one of the best golf seasons in the last 25.

There is a difference between viewing this year's accomplishments in context and giving him credit for what he did before this year. By saying Lance won his sixth straight, we are awarding him athlete of the year for what he has accomplished in the past five. If we are going to list Armstrong's five previous tour wins, we need to include all of Vijay's tourney and money wins from the past six years, all of Michael Phelps' major races won, all of Bonds' home runs, etc.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I really must protest Armstrong even being on this list, at least the misleading list of his accomplishments for 2004.

He won ONE tour-de-france this year. The five he won previously should not be considered when trying to award was the best sportsman THIS YEAR.

If thats the case, then Pat Tillman *REALLY* doesn't belong on this list. What sports accomplishment did he have in 2004?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

If thats the case, then Pat Tillman *REALLY* doesn't belong on this list. What sports accomplishment did he have in 2004?

I agree. The list he belongs on dwarfs "sportsman of 2004" in importance and honor.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I agree. The list he belongs on dwarfs "sportsman of 2004" in importance and honor.

Agreed. I only voted for him, because what he did was much more important than the rest of these guys combined (well, except the Schumacher donation).

As for Bonds, does "Sportsman" include sportsmanship? If that the case, then being a performance enhancing drug pusher should leave him off this list.

[MIJB#19]

I won't vote for Lance Armstrong in the "Sportsman of the Year" poll. He wasn't even the best in his sports the past year! What the Italian "rookie" rider Damiano Cunego did in 2004 was far more impressive. Now if this were a "Livetime achievement" poll, I wouldn't even doubt Armstrong, he'd be on my top 10 list of all time sports greats.

Schumacher and Federer are in a different class they really dominated their sport all year/season. Manning has something that looks like it, although he's a team sports guy, so harder to compare. Phelps dominated the swimming in the Olympics, although winning mostly the second tier swimming events, he DID dominate.
If we're doing 3 ticks, then I'll go with Federer, Phelps and Schumacher.

[oykib]

bump

It looks like Manning wins going away in this one. Let's see what he can do today.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by oykib

The problem with Bonds's accomplishments is that people really don't understand OBP, and don't realize that it's the single most important statistic in baseball!

The most important statistic in baseball is winning. Giants did well this year, but they didn't even make the playoffs.

Bonds had an historic season, but OBP loses some of its grandeur when you consider that Bonds was pretty much intentionally walked in a lot of meaningless situations.

And I can't tell you how dominant a racecar driver would have to be to win a vote for sportsman of the year from me, especially F1 in which the driver is essential ballast and the scientist back in the lab putting the speedy death trap together is the real wizard. I'd vote Greg Raymer sportsman of the year before voting for a driver. But that's just me.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The most important statistic in baseball is winning. Giants did well this year, but they didn't even make the playoffs.

Bonds had an historic season, but OBP loses some of its grandeur when you consider that Bonds was pretty much intentionally walked in a lot of meaningless situations.

And I can't tell you how dominant a racecar driver would have to be to win a vote for sportsman of the year from me, especially F1 in which the driver is essential ballast and the scientist back in the lab putting the speedy death trap together is the real wizard. I'd vote Greg Raymer sportsman of the year before voting for a driver. But that's just me.

You can call winning a statistic. But it is not an individual player's stat (although they do try to attach it to pitchers). A single position player can't control it, though.

The single stat with the highest correlation to winning is OBP. The next most important using thos criteria is slugging. Bonds was ridiculously far ahead of the pack as far as those stats go.

I can see how the top guys in this poll were way ahead of him. But there's no way in hell that Curt Schilling should have gotten twice as many votes as he did-- let alone even be in this poll. But it's funny how half the guys who-- probably rightfully-- hate on Derek Jeter for being overhyped put Schilling on such a pedestal.

Schilling wasn't the best pitcher in the league this year. He wasn't the best pitcher in the playoffs. He wasn't the MVP of his team either in the regular season or the playoffs. I just can't see putting him up there. Manny Ramirez or Daid Ortiz, yeah. But Schilling, that's just more brainwashed foolishness.

I'm impressed with the ankle and all. But plenty of guys are performing with injuries that need surgery at that time of year. Although it's not as hyped as football (likely, because the injuries aren't usually as serious), nearly all baseball players are playing with pain by the time the playoffs roll around.

[oykib]

Dola-

Actually, three times as many votes.

[Raiders Army]

I'm on the winning side of the thread. A single player determining the outcome of a game? It's possible and probable. Look at Curt Schilling, who determines the outcome of every play for half of the game in baseball, and compare that to Derek Jeter or Barry Bonds who determine it for what...10% of the time in baseball? How about intangibles? For the locker room, wouldn't you rather have Curt Schilling in there than Barry Bonds?

Is Tom Brady a better quarterback than Peyton Manning? For right now, I'd have to say yes, since he wins the big games. Was John Elway a better quarterback than Dan Marino? Maybe, because they both were winners....but they're both definitely better than Jeff George. Isn't that what you argued above? IMHO, winning is the best statistic.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm on the winning side of the thread. A single player determining the outcome of a game? It's possible and probable. Look at Curt Schilling, who determines the outcome of every play for half of the game in baseball, and compare that to Derek Jeter or Barry Bonds who determine it for what...10% of the time in baseball?

But 10% of every game is the same as 50% of every fifth game, which is all a starting pitcher plays.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm on the winning side of the thread. A single player determining the outcome of a game? It's possible and probable. Look at Curt Schilling, who determines the outcome of every play for half of the game in baseball, and compare that to Derek Jeter or Barry Bonds who determine it for what...10% of the time in baseball? How about intangibles? For the locker room, wouldn't you rather have Curt Schilling in there than Barry Bonds?

Is Tom Brady a better quarterback than Peyton Manning? For right now, I'd have to say yes, since he wins the big games. Was John Elway a better quarterback than Dan Marino? Maybe, because they both were winners....but they're both definitely better than Jeff George. Isn't that what you argued above? IMHO, winning is the best statistic.

If you belive that any starting pitcher, in a league that doesn't hi, who pitches every fifth day is as valuable as the most valuable position player more than one season out of twenty or so, you are just wrong.

And the starting pitcher is not responsible for half the game. he still needs guys to play defense. The best starting pitchers in histoy still only struck marginally over a third of the guys they face. That leaves nearly two-thirds of the game to the defense.

Even if you don't believe in DIPS, the pitcher couldn't possibly have controll over all of those balls in play-- not even half. Even giving him half, he's suddenly responsible for only a third of the complete games he pittches. And he only pitches every fifth day.

Barry Bonds was probably about twice as valuable-- if not more-- than Schilling this year. And if you want to give me the bad apple routine, David Ortiz was more valuable both in the regular season and, likely, in the playoffs.

Curt Schilling ain't Bob Gibson and 2004 wasn't 1968.

[Raiders Army]

Maybe I should have said that the pitcher affects the outcome of every play for half of the game instead of determining...but I still stand by that.

Besides, three times as many people voted for Curt Schilling than Barry Bonds, so what do I know?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Maybe I should have said that the pitcher affects the outcome of every play for half of the game instead of determining...but I still stand by that.

Besides, three times as many people voted for Curt Schilling than Barry Bonds, so what do I know?

I realize that you said that in jest. But that's what I didn't understand about this poll. I get Peyton Manning. I disagree But there are valid logical arguments for him to win.

Shilling failed not just to be the best player in baseball-- he wasn't even the best on his own team. Taken as a pitcher he wasn't the best one of those either.

I can see a way to modify an evaluation based on character and circumstance. But I can't see how that adds up to as much as performance.

How much of an edge should we give gutty, character guys on championship teams? 10%? 25%?

Because you'd have to make it about 100% before you can even talk about him in the class of Barry Bonds.

You'd have to give him a 10% edge to reach David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez. Does he really get that advantage over Ortiz? Maybe, I read the series wrong as a Yankee fan. But Ortiz was the Red Sox in that series.

You go back to every situation that the Yankees had a chance to put that series away and it was David Ortiz that stopped them. And he was better than Schilling in the regular season too.

I suppose whether Ortiz or Ramirez were clearly better is arguable. But my main point is not. If we know that there were at least a handfull of players that were clearly superior to him, and there were guys on his own championship team that were at least as good, how is Schilling the greatest Sportsman in the world for 2004?

It just makes no sense to me.

The other arguments are really one sport vs. another sport-- i.e. apples vs. oranges. But Schilling vs Bonds or Schilling vs. unnominated MLB players are apples vs. apples-- and in both cases Schilling is the obvious loser.