Polls: Do they mean anything?

[Bill Burgess]

A question has come up in the History Forum, whether or not polls mean anything, and if so, what?

So, I'd like to discuss polls, and their relevance to us. And fittingly enough, I will add a poll here, in a little while.

[Bill Burgess]

Here is how the question came about.


Folks polls mean nothing.

Nothing? How can that be?

Polls can mean something, depending on what level they are on, is there a concensus, and how long the consensus lasts.

The fact that Buck Ewing was believed to be the greatest player ever, from 1875 to 1900, and Wagner was considered the best from 1900 to 1912, Cobb from 1912 to 1960, certainly meant something.

That Babe Ruth has won most polls since 1975 has established his name to where it influenced most fans. If Ruth were losing most polls since 1975 to Cobb, that too would mean something.

It depends. SABR and Fever are in agreement that Babe Ruth is the best. That means something to many, many people.

A single poll here might not be important, but that is not the same thing as saying that NO polls mean anything.

Words are important. They have consequence. One must be careful how we use them, lest extremist opinions slip by our lips.

Polls are simply a tool to ascertain opinions. I enjoy polls because I respect the opinions of Csh, Ubi, Brian McKenna, Leecemark, Jalbright, Classic, and many, many others. I learn from their opinions. Polls can have entertainment value, and educational value, if the right members participate.

I find the polls interesting, but I don't find them particularly meaningful. I hope you aren't suggesting what SABR or Fever members think should have any real standing. The only people who care what SABR thinks are SABR members. The only people who care what Fever thinks are Fever members. In each case, only a minority of the membership cares.

When I sid polls mean nothing I am talking about Baseball fever polls exclusively. I am not saying that Fever is unique in this regard, there are many other polls that are meaningless as well. Nor was I saying the threads that house polls are meaningless. Discussion is good, it is always good, but the polls at the top of a page are meaningless.

And when I say that polls mean something, I am not referring to any poll in particular.

I agree that no one is bound to accept the results of polls. Look at me. I disagree with all the polls that annoint Babe Ruth as the best. But I happen to agree with the ones from 1912-1962 that proclaimed Ty Cobb was the best.

When I say that the polls since 1975 mean something, all I am trying to say is that I believe those polls have influenced many generations of fans into believing that Babe Ruth was the best. If a poll influences people, it has meaning. Maybe it has what I believe to have 'good, accurate meaning', or not.

Many Fever members are also SABR members. I've been a member since 1992.

I agree that no particular poll on Fever means anything. All our polls that proclaim Ruth to be the best mean nothing to me.

But they might mean something to someone else.

[Bill Burgess]

An example of a poll that was universally criticized was the 1999 MLB's All-Century Team, which I show below. It was generic fans who voted, and the results clearly reflect it.

1999 MLB's All-Century Team; Fan Survey/Poll
Announced October 23, 1999

1B - Gehrig (1,207,992 votes), McGuire (517,181),
2B - J. Robinson (788,116), Hornsby (630,761),
SS - Ripken (669,033 votes), Banks (598,168), Wagner (526,740),
3B - Schmidt (855,654), B. Robinson (761,700),
LF - Williams (1,125,583), Rose (629,742 votes), Musial (571,279),
CF - Mays (1,115,896), DiMaggio (1,054,423), Mantle (988,168), Cobb (777,056) Griffey (645,389),
RF - Ruth (1,1,158,044 votes), Aaron (1,156,782)
C - Bench (1,010,403), Berra (1,010,403),
RHP - Ryan (992,040), Young (867,523), Clemens (601,244), Gibson (582,031), W. Johnson (479,279), Mathewson (249,747)
LEP - Koufax (970,434), Grove (142,169), Spahn (337,215),

In this fan survey, a special panel had to add Wagner, Mathewson, Grove, Spahn, Musial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting poll was SABR's 1999 poll, of who their members felt the greatest player was. Interestingly enough, only 865 of their 7,000 members even cared enough to submit ballots. Which showed how little their members cared about the poll!!

In 1999, SABR ran a poll, and here are their results. SABR published these results in 'The SABR Bulletin, July-August 1999, pp. 9.


--Position Players-----------------Pitchers
1. Ruth -----2,743-----------------W. Johnson----591
2. Cobb------1,135-----------------Grove---------139
3. Mays--------964-----------------Mathewson-----118
4. Williams----711-----------------Young---------112
5. Wagner------611-----------------Joss-----------53
6. Gehrig------375-----------------Koufax---------52
7. Aaron-------270-----------------N. Ryan--------37
8. DiMaggio----213-----------------Maddux---------29
9. Mantle------115-----------------Spahn----------26
10. Musial-----102-----------------Alexander------20
11. Hornsby-----82
12. J. Robinson-58
13. Clemente----44
13. J. Jackson--44
15. Rose--------42
16. Bonds-------37
17. Lajoie------36
18. Foxx--------23
19. McGwire-----22
20. Bench-------20
20. Griffey-----20

[Bill Burgess]

But our polls do achieve one great thing. They stimulate discussion. And discussion is the very best friend of learning.

I have learned tons of great stuff since I arrived on our fair shores in 2003. And it was due to our members good knowledge that allowed me to grow into the fan I am today.

I no longer argue that Sisler was the best first-baseman. He is still my first-baseman on my A Team, but no longer do I say he was better than Gehrig.

And that's not all I've learned. I no longer place Buck Ewing 3rd all time on my all time list. I no longer put Sisler 4th on my all time list. I had to move them out of my Top 20, all due to learning from our members.

I had to put Babe Ruth into my Top 10. So, discussion, which comes from polls, has helped me to grow, mature and evolve as a good fan should.

When I arrived here, my Top 10 All Time list looked something like this.

1. Cobb
2. Wagner
3. Buck Ewing
4. Sisler
5. Joe Jackson
6. Oscar Charleston
7. Speaker
8. Mays
9. Hornsby
10. Collins
11. Gehrig
12. J.Robinson
13. Ruth
14. Bonds
15. Lajoie

So, I've come a long way, baby.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But our polls do achieve one great thing. They stimulate discussion. And discussion is the very best friend of learning.

I have learned tons of great stuff since I arrived on our fair shores in 2003. And it was due to our members good knowledge that allowed me to grow into the fan I am today.

I no longer argue that Sisler was the best first-baseman. He is still my first-baseman on my A Team, but no longer do I say he was better than Gehrig.

And that's not all I've learned. I no longer place Buck Ewing 3rd all time on my all time list. I no longer put Sisler 4th on my all time list. I had to move them out of my Top 20, all due to learning from our members.

I had to put Babe Ruth into my Top 10. So, discussion, which comes from polls, has helped me to grow, mature and evolve as a good fan should.

When I arrived here, my Top 10 All Time list looked something like this.

1. Cobb
2. Wagner
3. Buck Ewing
4. Sisler
5. Joe Jackson
6. Oscar Charleston
7. Speaker
8. Mays
9. Hornsby
10. Collins
11. Gehrig
12. J.Robinson
13. Ruth
14. Bonds
15. Lajoie

So, I've come a long way, baby.

We can still have great discussions without polls, though. Frankly, I rarely vote in polls because I find them generally uninteresting. I don't really care how people vote. I am more interested in the thought process on how they voted. That's where the great discussion comes from. But we are getting to the point of having polls like "Greatest clutch hitter in Tuesday road games when eating turkey sandwiches!".

Ranking Ruth or Cobb or Wagner or Bonds or Mays or whomever the "greatest ever" is meaningless. These players played in different eras against different players so trying to determine who is the "greatest" is a fool's errand IMO. Ruth dominated his era and his era only as an example. To emphatically assert that he would have dominated in any other era as well is an unprovable assertion.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Polls are starting points for discussion. The discussion, not the poll, is the important thing.

[KCGHOST]

I think polls give us strong reference points for discussion. If you notice more people vote in the polls than discuss them. You can argue that BBF and other forum like polls are merely for entertainment but there are those that are extremely meaningful even when they are wrong. The recent "poll" of the 10+ year members of the BBWAA for instance.

[RuthMayBond]

A question has come up in the History Forum, whether or not polls mean anything, and if so, what?
There's only one way to find out ...
... take a poll

[108stitches]

Polls are relevant in that they give you a point of reference in your discussion. In a poll, I look at my choices and I am already thinking why this or why that.

[Bill Burgess]

We can still have great discussions without polls, though.
Well, yes, this is true. We don't have to have a poll to have great discussions. However, if we didn't ever poll, I would not know if a lot of things. Please allow me to explain, Adam.

When I arrived here in 2003, Ty Cobb wasn't doing so well in Fever polls. Most members had him out of their Top 5.

After a long while, and a lot of hard discussion, and posting deep context on Cobb, the members started to respond to my arguments.

But without polling, I would never have found out if I had made an impact. It would have been possible for people to think better of Cobb, and not seen him as such a poster boy of racism, and spiking people for the heck of it, but still not uprated him.

But by polls, I now know that 70 people rank Ty #1, and 30 others rank him #2, etc.

I would not have found that out without repeated polling. Same with Wagner. We now know that most members rank him in their Top 5, along with Mays. So, polling has informed me of needful things and I just can't see how else I would have learned how you guys think.

Ranking Ruth or Cobb or Wagner or Bonds or Mays or whomever the "greatest ever" is meaningless. These players played in different eras against different players so trying to determine who is the "greatest" is a fool's errand IMO.
Which is exactly why we take perverse pleasure in it!

When we were kids, we argued over whether Superman could beat up Batman. Now we argue over Ruth/Cobb.

Is it important? Naw. Is it fun? Oh, you betcha! And fun is important.

We've come a long way, baby!

[redlegsfan21]

But our polls do achieve one great thing. They stimulate discussion. And discussion is the very best friend of learning.

I have learned tons of great stuff since I arrived on our fair shores in 2003. And it was due to our members good knowledge that allowed me to grow into the fan I am today.

I no longer argue that Sisler was the best first-baseman. He is still my first-baseman on my A Team, but no longer do I say he was better than Gehrig.

And that's not all I've learned. I no longer place Buck Ewing 3rd all time on my all time list. I no longer put Sisler 4th on my all time list. I had to move them out of my Top 20, all due to learning from our members.

I had to put Babe Ruth into my Top 10. So, discussion, which comes from polls, has helped me to grow, mature and evolve as a good fan should.

When I arrived here, my Top 10 All Time list looked something like this.

1. Cobb
2. Wagner
3. Buck Ewing
4. Sisler
5. Joe Jackson
6. Oscar Charleston
7. Speaker
8. Mays
9. Hornsby
10. Collins
11. Gehrig
12. J.Robinson
13. Ruth
14. Bonds
15. Lajoie

So, I've come a long way, baby.

I'm curious how a top 10 list has 15 items.

[STLCards2]

If polls ask enough people (sample size) the right questions (free of bias) than the poll can tell you a whole lot.

If 25 decidedly pro-stat guys are asked if bert Blyleven is better than Herb Pennock, then the poll is not worth a whole lot. If it asks 200 BBF members of all "shapes and sizes", then I would trust it is a consensus of the website. There haven't been too many polls at BBF that have large enough sample sizes to be a true representation of what BBF as a whole thinks - but there have been a few.

[Bill Burgess]

I'm curious how a top 10 list has 15 items.
Magic of numbers, my sabremetric friend.

[Bill Burgess]

There haven't been too many polls at BBF that have large enough sample sizes to be a true representation of what BBF as a whole thinks - but there have been a few.
It is not important to know what ALL of Fever thinks, only the right members.

Many members never visit History Forum, because we are not their interest. Fine.

But if a good sampling of History Forum members give a consensus, I look to see if the voters are our more-informed guys.

Here are some numbers of some of our polls.

Numbers that have voted in poll surveys.---------------------My. 07?--5-23-08---7-5-08---Jan.22, 09
Jackson's Innocence ------------------------------------------------------------ 232-------302
How many of the following players SHOULD get into the Hall of Fame? - 171---183---184-------190
Greatest Player Poll----------------------------------------------- - 105---107---109-------137
Which Players Do You Call 'Great'? Part 2--------------------------- - 105---116---118-------120
Which Players Do You Call 'Great'? Part 1--------------------------- - 101---111---113-------114
Pete Rose/Reggie Jackson----------------------------------------- - 105---105---105-------106
Was Reggie Jackson a Great Player?--------------------------------- - 97----97---100-------103
Multi-Subject Poll/Survey------------------------------------------- - 83----92---93----------96
Fever's Top 5 Hitters---------------------------------------------- - 79----81---82-----------95
Magical Players----------------------------------------------------- - 91----93---94---------95
Cobb/Hornsby: Hitting ONLY--------------------------------------- - 64----85---86-----------88
Cobb/Mays-------------------------------------------------------- - 82----83---83----------85
Wagner/Mays----------------------------------------------------- - 53---65---66-----------67
Sabremetrics/Traditional Opinions---------------------------------- - 63---65---65-----------66
Attendance/Popularity--------------------------------------------- - 57---66---66-----------66
Bill James & Historical Opinion-------------------------------------- - 45---46---46-----------56
True Sluggers----------------------------------------------------- - 40---41---41-----------43
Wagner/Greenberg: As Sluggers------------------------------------ - 36---36---36-----------37
Reserve Clause/Bargaining----------------------------------------- - 29---34---34-----------34
Cold Case Files---------------------------------------------------- - 17---20---21-----------25
Value Comparison------------------------------------------------- - 17---18---18-----------20

[STLCards2]

It is not important to know what ALL of Fever thinks, only the right members.

Many members never visit History Forum, because we are not their interest. Fine.

But if a good sampling of History Forum members give a consensus, I look to see if the voters are our more-informed guys.

Here are some numbers of some of our polls.



I hear what you are saying Bill, but you run the risk of skewing results by handpicking participants. It is no secret that the "more-informed" members will tend to vote certain ways compared to "less-informed members." By posting in forumns that you know will attract specific poll-takers at the exclusion of others, you get inaccurate results. It would be like me placing a "Are the Cardinals the best NL team ever" poll in the Cardinals forumn. The results would look a lot different in the Dodgers forumn. Since BBF members and their beliefs do not spread throughout the site evenly (not as many St. Louis Browns fans post on the Saber page as on the Old Time baseball page) we don't get too many accurate results.

And who is to decide who the "right" members are? If you always decide who the right members are, you can logicaly ignore any poll response if the "righ members" are in the minority. You end up creating a system in which you cannot fail. If the poll breaks in my favor - I am right! If it doesn't, I will look to see how the "right" people voted, and I will still be right, because me and the "right" people agree a majority of the time. The purpose of a poll is to see what the general poulation feels, not to prove you are right. That is where debates come in. The great thing about BBF is that its memebers range across the scale from "Koufax is the greatest pitcher ever" to "Jimmy Wynn is an easy HOF choice." If everybody (or at least a large enough random sampling) participated in a non-biased poll, you would end up with a general consensus.

When you say you review poll responses by "right" members, it makes it seem like you are looking for evidence that your viewpoints - not an accurate representation of truth.

[DownUnderDodger]

Polls are starting points for discussion. The discussion, not the poll, is the important thing.
Very true, however many people vote in a poll without giving any reason, or discussion point as to why they voted that way.

Polls can be meaningful if there is good discussion as a result, however they can lose their meaning if people just vote for the sake of voting. But in saying that, there are some polls which are purely seeking statistics. I liken the poll here at BBF asking people to advise if they have ever been to WS game. That is really a yes or no answer, and while it is interesting to read what games some BBFers have attended it is more or less a fact finding/statistical poll, even though it has generated some interesting discussion in relation to certain games BBFers have attended.

[Bill Burgess]

I hear what you are saying Bill, but you run the risk of skewing results by handpicking participants. It is no secret that the "more-informed" members will tend to vote certain ways compared to "less-informed members." By posting in forumns that you know will attract specific poll-takers at the exclusion of others, you get inaccurate results. It would be like me placing a "Are the Cardinals the best NL team ever" poll in the Cardinals forumn. The results would look a lot different in the Dodgers forumn. Since BBF members and their beliefs do not spread throughout the site evenly (not as many St. Louis Browns fans post on the Saber page as on the Old Time baseball page) we don't get too many accurate results.

And who is to decide who the "right" members are? If you always decide who the right members are, you can logicaly ignore any poll response if the "righ members" are in the minority. You end up creating a system in which you cannot fail. If the poll breaks in my favor - I am right! If it doesn't, I will look to see how the "right" people voted, and I will still be right, because me and the "right" people agree a majority of the time. The purpose of a poll is to see what the general poulation feels, not to prove you are right. That is where debates come in. The great thing about BBF is that its memebers range across the scale from "Koufax is the greatest pitcher ever" to "Jimmy Wynn is an easy HOF choice." If everybody (or at least a large enough random sampling) participated in a non-biased poll, you would end up with a general consensus.

When you say you review poll responses by "right" members, it makes it seem like you are looking for evidence that your viewpoints - not an accurate representation of truth.
1. I never try to pre-arrange the results of a poll. I only post my polls in History, because if I did one in Current Events, or Statistics, it'd be transferred back to History.

2. I always make sure we can see who voted because otherwise, it's boring. But I don't 'review' it. I only see how people voted.

When I refer to the 'right members', I am only meaning those who I know and have said things I believe are pretty good stuff.

If I don't know someone, I don't judge them. Just don't know them. I wouldn't know how to 'skew' results. The results are what they are.

[STLCards2]

1. I never try to pre-arrange the results of a poll. I only post my polls in History, because if I did one in Current Events, or Statistics, it'd be transferred back to History.

2. I always make sure we can see who voted because otherwise, it's boring. But I don't 'review' it. I only see how people voted.

When I refer to the 'right members', I am only meaning those who I know and have said things I believe are pretty good stuff.

If I don't know someone, I don't judge them. Just don't know them. I wouldn't know how to 'skew' results. The results are what they are.

I see what you are saying. In your previous post, it sounded like you were saying that you only took into consideration the votes of those you deemed worthy of considering. That would be a way to always feel you are right, since who you deem as being reliable could change based upon their repsonse.

I know see where you are coming from better.

[Bill Burgess]

That would be a way to always feel you are right, since who you deem as being reliable could change based upon their response.
Ha ha. Well, of course I always think I'm right! If I didn't, I'd change my opinion.

But really, I've changed a lot of my opinions due to the excellent input of everyone here. I've revised lots and lots of stuff I used to believe.

Just because I haven't changed my opinions of Cobb, Wagner and Ewing doesn't mean I haven't changed my opinions on Sisler, Joe Jackson and lots of stuff. I enjoy having enlightenments and 'benign OMG moments' when the light-bulb goes on above my noggin.

Live for those moments.

[parlo]

It is important to remember that these are very unscientific polls, and are really just conversation starters, and entertainment.
The All Century Team poll was seriously flawed as well. People applying for a MasterCard, who shop at WalMart, were considered a cross section of the population. That is not exactly a Zogby or a Quinnipiac poll.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

An example of a poll that was universally criticized was the 1999 MLB's All-Century Team, which I show below. It was generic fans who voted, and the results clearly reflect it.

1999 MLB's All-Century Team; Fan Survey/Poll
Announced October 23, 1999

1B - Gehrig (1,207,992 votes), McGuire (517,181),
2B - J. Robinson (788,116), Hornsby (630,761),
SS - Ripken (669,033 votes), Banks (598,168), Wagner (526,740),
3B - Schmidt (855,654), B. Robinson (761,700),
LF - Williams (1,125,583), Rose (629,742 votes), Musial (571,279),
CF - Mays (1,115,896), DiMaggio (1,054,423), Mantle (988,168), Cobb (777,056) Griffey (645,389),
RF - Ruth (1,1,158,044 votes), Aaron (1,156,782)
C - Bench (1,010,403), Berra (1,010,403),
RHP - Ryan (992,040), Young (867,523), Clemens (601,244), Gibson (582,031), W. Johnson (479,279), Mathewson (249,747)
LEP - Koufax (970,434), Grove (142,169), Spahn (337,215),

In this fan survey, a special panel had to add Wagner, Mathewson, Grove, Spahn, Musial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting poll was SABR's 1999 poll, of who their members felt the greatest player was. Interestingly enough, only 865 of their 7,000 members even cared enough to submit ballots. Which showed how little their members cared about the poll!!

In 1999, SABR ran a poll, and here are their results. SABR published these results in 'The SABR Bulletin, July-August 1999, pp. 9.


--Position Players-----------------Pitchers
1. Ruth -----2,743-----------------W. Johnson----591
2. Cobb------1,135-----------------Grove---------139
3. Mays--------964-----------------Mathewson-----118
4. Williams----711-----------------Young---------112
5. Wagner------611-----------------Joss-----------53
6. Gehrig------375-----------------Koufax---------52
7. Aaron-------270-----------------N. Ryan--------37
8. DiMaggio----213-----------------Maddux---------29
9. Mantle------115-----------------Spahn----------26
10. Musial-----102-----------------Alexander------20
11. Hornsby-----82
12. J. Robinson-58
13. Clemente----44
13. J. Jackson--44
15. Rose--------42
16. Bonds-------37
17. Lajoie------36
18. Foxx--------23
19. McGwire-----22
20. Bench-------20
20. Griffey-----20



Thats why some of the results for the All Century team are what they are Bill.
You have some luke warm fans, casual fans and I am sure some who really know the game, the history. If the voting was the result of only the more knowledgeable fans that counted, for sure the results at some positions would be much different

[TonyK]

Poles are good. I am a Pole.

I think Polls should have their own Subject Area.

[Bill Burgess]

I am a Pole.
Name your first child Bean. Go rogue.

[TonyK]

Name your first child Bean. Go rogue.

What sounds better...Pole Bean or Bean Pole? Hey, another poll!