Clash of the Titans!

[PumpsieGreen]

This is a variation of a borrowed thread in current events called "Him vs. Him." I just find it to be a great thread, so I'd like to create my own version, using retired players, just to add some mix and try to even come close to the greatness of the Him vs. Him thread, because I just love comparing players.

Let me start the discussion with a few groups of players, just to get things going, instead of one.

Paul Waner vs. Sam Crawford

Christy Matthewson vs. Pete Alexander

Warren Spahn vs. Tom Seaver

[leecemark]

Crawford, Alexander and Spahn. Crawford had more power than Waner and thats what I'm looking for in a RF. Alexander had equal success for worse teams than Mathewson. Spahn-Seaver is the closest of the 3 for me. I think Seaver was better at his peak, but Spahn lasted enough longer to rate a SLIGHT EDGE.

Al Kaline or Roberto Clemente?

[zman]

My first impulse was to choose Clemente but aside from career batting average, Kaline seems to have an edge in most batting and fielding categories. Not just cumulative records that could be explained by the fact that Kaline's career was a couple years longer either. I saw both of them play in their prime and I think Clemente was more exciting to watch but based on the stats, I'd have to go with Kaline.

Juan Marichal or Furguson Jenkins?

[leecemark]

Jenkins is a personal favorite, but I think Marachial is one of the most underrated greats ever. He gets the nod. Good call on Kaline. I expected the flashier Clement to get the nod, but Kaline had more power and patience and was maybe even better defensively.

Sandy Koufax or Randy Johnson?

[tibber]

the big unit has been able to pitch longer, but i'm not sure he was as dominant as sandy was in his all too brief prime. i'll take sandy.

bob feller or nolan ryan?

[Iron Jaw]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Albert Belle or Dick Allen?

Trouble makers with talent?

Allen over Belle. Richie-Dick-Rich-Richard Allen was a contact hitter with tremendous power.

Jim Gentile or Walt Dropo?

[leecemark]

Feller over Ryan. Bullet Bob missed a some of his best years to the war. Dropo only really had one good year, Gentile gets my vote. Not that I'd especially want either in an all time context.

Joe Gordon or Bobby Doerr

[julusnc]

Ken Griffey Jr (1989 - 2000) vs Barry Bonds (1989 - 2000)

[julusnc]

Jim Palmer vs Greg Maddux

[zman]

Palmer. Maddux has over 500 more strike outs and their other regular season stats are almost identical but in post season play Palmer was 8-3 with a 2.61 ERA. Maddux is 11-14 with a 3.22 ERA.

I hope this next one's not too lengthy.


"Stengel had received a small bird from one of the Dodger pitchers in the bullpen and when he came up to bat, Stengel tipped his hat to the jeering crowd; out flew the bird, to the delight of the fans"


"On July 15, 1973, as California's Nolan Ryan was working on his second career no-hitter, Cash went to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with two outs with a table leg instead of a bat"


Who was the bigger flake? Casey Stengel or Norm Cash?

[PumpsieGreen]

I like Casey, with the exception of that incident, but I cannot get over Cash's idiotic fondness of using a corked bat in his 1961 campaign. That kind of thing just really bugs me.

Also, I would've taken Doerr over Gordon. Better, more consistent player, really. Gordon had better power, though.

Maddux vs. Robin Roberts

[zman]

I'd give a slight edge to Maddux. Prior to this season, Maddux gave up 3625 hits with a 2.89 ERA. Roberts gave up 4582 hits with a 3.41 ERA. Maddux had about 400 more strike outs. Tough call though, Roberts had to pitch for weaker teams and pitched superbly in his only post season start.

Johnny Callison or Rick Monday?

[leecemark]

Callison had a higher peak, but Monday had the better career.

Bert Campaneris or Davey Conception

[Bill Burgess]

Crawford over Waner - power wins
Matty over Alexander - barest of edges. Killin' me here.
Spahn over Seaver - super consistent over consistent.
Clemente over Kaline - great over almost great.
Marichal over Jenkins - great over extremely good.
Koufax over R. Johnson - Big K NEVER lost a close one. Brief but how sweet it was.
Ryan over Feller - At their best, Nolan was better.
Belle over Allen - near great over headcase.
Gentile over Dropo - huh?
Gordon over Doerr - glove over bat.
Griffey over Bonds - close, but Barry took off, and Griffey fell apart later. (only for 1989-2000).
Maddux over Palmer - Truly great over garden-variety "great".
Maddux over Roberts - No contest. Not even remotely close.
Callison over Monday - Who wants to know?
Campaneris over Conception - about a wash. Both good.

Mack/McGraw
Alston/Anderson
Weaver/Mauch
Speaker/Mays

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

McGraw
Anderson
Weaver in a landslide.
Mays - power wins.

Luis Aparicio or Ozzie Smith

[tibber]

wow, that's a tough one...they're both pretty much equal...maybe ozzie was better defensively. i'll take ozzie.

hoyt wilhelm or phil niekro?

[BoSox Rule]

Koufax: pitched in possibly the best pitcher park ever

Johnson: pitched in the Kingdome

[leecemark]

Dodger Stadium in the 60s with the high mound did kind of stack the odds for Koufax. Johnson has passed him in my book.

Niekro gives you about 3,000 more innings than Hoyt. Thats good enough for me.

Goose Gossage or Hoyt Wilhelm

[tibber]

gossage has more saves, but wilhelm pitched longer and has a better ERA. i'll take wilhelm.

bruce sutter or sparky lyle?

[PumpsieGreen]

Sutter. He was really dominating, the come in and slam the door type. I would've hated to have hit against him with that seriously filthy stuff. He was also an innovator in the pitching world.

Here's a biggie-Mantle vs. Mays

[1984Tigers]

Sutter. Better numbers, for the most part, in 4yrs and 230somthing games less.

George Brett or Mike Schmidt?

[tibber]

mantle over maris. the 61 homers not withstanding, mantle played longer, had more hits, more homers, and a better BA. that said, i do believe maris probably belongs in the hall.

brett over schmidt. not as many homers, but more hits, better BA, and probably equal defensively.

jim palmer or juan marichal?

[PumpsieGreen]

Umm, tibber, it was actually Willie Mays versus Mickey Mantle, not Mantle vs. Roger Maris. I'd actually take Schmidt. He was a key offensive presence, led the NL in home runs 8 times, and had an awesome collection of offensive stats, besides BA.

So, will anyone step up to the challenge and choose the winner of the bout between Mays and Mantle?

Pumpsie

[julusnc]

I feel Mays was one of the top five greatest all around players to ever take the field.

Mantle was also a great all around player but I personally would pick Mays over Mantle for my baseball team.

[julusnc]

I am more of a Schmidt fan than a Brett fan.

Both were awesome third basemen on offensive and defensive.Both were team leaders and led their teams to victory many many times over but Schmidt's homerun power pushes him to the front for me.

[uggh1134]

reggie jackson or willie stargell?

[julusnc]

They were close to the same type of player but I think Reggie edges out Papa Stargell because of the teams he had around him.

Reggie was the best playerin baseball a couple years but Stargell's one MVP was not really deserved.

Mark Grace vs Richie Ashburn

[julusnc]

Gil Hodges vs Steve Garvey

[tibber]

hodges has the power numbers, but garvey has better numbers otherwise. if i had to pick, it'd be garvey.

same question as above.

[Iron Jaw]

Originally posted by 1984Tigers
Mark Grace edges out Ashburn. More power and more post-season numbers.


Hank Greenberg or Jimmie Foxx?

Now that's a tight one. Both tremendous power hitters who could also hit for average.

I'll take Foxx - but I could do a flip flop on this one - and I'm not running for president.

Dave McNally or Ron Guidry

[abolishthedh]

Ron Guidry. Louisiana Lightnin' is one of my favorite alltime pitchers. One reason for this is that he was a team guy. There were a few years in the early 1980s when he volunteered to go the pen for the sake of the team when Righetti was hurt. This hurt is overall career totals, and cemented his spot in the minds of the fans.

McNally was more consistent than I had remembered, and he had four straight 20 win seasons plus a fabulous 1968. Yet, Guidry's fabulous 1978 was an alltime pitching season and his consistency suffered because he was a team guy.

Seaver or Clemens? (assuming this would be Clemens' last year)

[uggh1134]

clemens always gets great run support, so i'll take seaver.

frank white or omar vizquel? (if omar retired today)

[tibber]

omar has been better with the bat. and besides, he's a shortstop.

i guess no one liked my marichal vs. palmer question. :(

[PumpsieGreen]

I'm actually going to go against normalcy and choose Marichal, a player who in my eyes was better than Bob Gibson and the most underrated starting pitcher ever.

Roger Clemens vs. Randy Johnson

[julusnc]

Roger Clemens has had a long successful career.He won 20 games 18 years ago and stands to win 20 this year. Longevity in some just pads their stats but Clemens is still pitching at a dominating level.

Randy Johnson is a fantastic pitcher and will be remembered in history as a power pitcher supreme and as a Hall of Famer but his late start harnessing his control puts him way behind Clemens as Clemens is arguably the best post WW II pitcher.

Both are Hall of Famers but I will always go with The Rocket over The Big Unit.

[julusnc]

Carl Hubbell vs. Hal Newhouser

[leecemark]

I',m a big Newhouser fan, but Hubbell was clearly better. He did it longer and you have to discount Hal at least a little for his war years. Hubbell is the most underated of the great pitchers. He, not Dean, was the best NL pitcher of the 30s.

Dizzy Dean or Hal Newhouser

[1984Tigers]

Newhouser just as good as Dean over a longer period. Plus back-to-back MVPs. Just not as well known or popular as Dean.

1984 Tigers or 1968 Tigers?

[prof93]

Sadaharu Oh V. Ruth



SADAHARU OH
Sadaharu Oh, a Japanese professional baseball player,
known for his wo
rld lifetime record of 868 home runs.
He hit at least 30 home runs each season for 19 consecutive years.
Oh was not a one dimensional player; he also won five batting titles,
13 RBI titles, two triple crowns and nine gold gloves
as well as 15 homerun titles. This led to nine MVP awards.
In 1964 he hit 55 home runs in one season, setting the Japanese record

When you ask who was the best offensive player in BASEBALL history or perhaps who is the greatest player ever in BASEBALL, give a look to Oh.

Don’t forget that these standards were achieved in seasons of no more than 140 games, and usually of 130 games.

Another way of looking at things is to consider career marks. Here Oh is 14th in batting average, 1st in runs scored, 3rd in hits, 1st in homers, 1st in RBI, 1st in walks, 3rd in doubles, 4th in at bats, 1st in slugging percentage, 1st in total bases, and 2nd in plate appearances. Not only that, but his first place finishes are often by large margins: 311 runs scored, 211 homers, 182 RBI, 547 total bases, 43 points of slugging average, and 915 walks. On base percentage would also be among the firsts if only the Japanese baseball encyclopedia listed it, but it doesn’t. However, a .445 on base percentage is an excellent mark in a good professional league.

If you want to check out Oh’s actual record, whether it be in regular season, the Japan series, all-star games, or in exhibitions against major leaguers, you can do so at:

http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/ohsactuals.htm



B. Japan Series
Oh’s dominating regular season performances helped his teams win the Central League 14 times, thereby earning a berth in the Japan Series against the best team from the other Japanese league, the Pacific League. Oh’s teams won 11 of those series, and he was the MVP of the series once. He played in 77 Japan Series games and hit .281 with 29 homers in 242 at bats with an on base percentage of .465 and a slugging percentage of .665. He scored 58 times and drove in 63 runs. Clearly, his performance against the best teams the Pacific League had to offer in those 14 seasons was dominant as well.



C. Japan’s All-Star Games
Japanese baseball has a two or three game All-Star format. Oh was in those series in 20 of his 22 seasons for a total of 58 games. While he was the MVP of three of those 58 games, his performance in 188 at bats in those games was not Hall of Fame quality. We only have aggregate totals for his All-Star games, and he did hit 13 homers with 33 walks with a slugging percentage of .463. However, his batting average was only .213, though the walks got his on base up to .330. This performance is one piece of evidence weighing against Oh’s candidacy for Cooperstown. However, it is only 188 at bats in an average of 11 plate appearances per year. Also, it seems that All-star games favor pitchers, because in the major league all-star games the hitters have averaged under .250 despite being undeniably much better than that against normal opposition. All things considered, this single piece of evidence does not deserve great weight.



D. Exhibitions Against Major Leaguers
Oh played 110 exhibition games against major leaguers, either in October or November or during spring training. He had 338 at bats and hit for a .260 average with 88 walks for a .413 on-base percentage. He also slugged 14 doubles, no triples and 25 homers among his hits, for a .524 slugging average. (I’ll list the pitchers he took out of the park below). These numbers include a 6 for 54 in 1971 against the Orioles, and an 0 for 12 in 1960. We won’t make any discount for the 1971 performance, as it may or may not represent a slump, but it would be appropriate to eliminate the 1960 results, since we do not project Oh to have been ready for the majors at that time. If you eliminate the 1960 results, his average will rise to .270, his on base percentage to .414, and his slugging percentage to .543. It is likely this performance came at least mostly in parks which were not of major league dimensions. However, it is a dominant performance against pitching which appears be above the average of pitching he would have faced in the majors, for reasons which will be demonstrated when we list the MLB pitchers Oh hit his homers against.

The pitchers (and the year) Oh hit his homers off of were (lefties are denoted with an asterisk , and if a pitcher gave up multiple homers to Oh, the number appears in parentheses): Hank Aguirre, 1962*; Nick Willhite, 1966* (2); Alan Foster, 1966; Joe Moeller, 1966; Jim Brewer, 1966*; Steve Carlton, 1968*; Dick Hughes, 1968; Nelson Briles, 1968; Ray Washburn, 1968; Larry Jaster, 1968*; Wayne Granger, 1968; Frank Reberger, 1970; Frank Linzy, 1970; Pat Dobson, 1971; Jim Palmer, 1971; Dick Hall, 1971; Jerry Cram, 1974 (2); Jerry Koosman, 1974*; John Matlack, 1974 (3)*; Tom Seaver, 1978; and Tom Hume, 1978. Further, the same data tells us Oh was pulling even this group of pitchers: 4 to left, 1 to left center, 3 to center, 5 to right center, and 12 to right.

If you looked at the teams Oh played against, you’d think he should have faced some pretty good pitching. The teams Oh and the Giants faced, when their various records are weighted by games against Oh and the Giants, is 92-70 when projected to a major league schedule. They had three league champions among them. The list of pitchers Oh homered off of supports the belief he was facing good major league pitching. For those of you who need more proof, let’s look at the median (the middle of the group) pitchers Oh homered against. Since we don’t have the full record, it only seems fair to be conservative in our estimate. We’ll use the pitcher’s ERA the actual year the homer occurred unless the pitcher had less than 50 IP. In that case, we take the ERA for both the season the homer occurred and the next season as well. If a pitcher remains under 50 IP after adding in a second season, so be it (Dick Hall and Jerry Cram wound up with less than 50 IP under these rules). Oh hit two against guys with ERAs of 5 or more, and there were only 4 more homers off of a pitcher with an ERA over 4. Anyway, the median lefty yielding a homer had a 2.92 ERA, the median righty yielding a homer had a 2.80 ERA, and the overall median pitcher yielding a homer had a 2.85 ERA. The average ERA was 3.55 in the majors during the period 1962-1975, and the lowest it got for any season for the whole majors was 2.98 in 1968. Thus, one can reasonably say in the exhibitions against major leaguers, Oh got his homers off a better than average group of major league pitchers. When all factors are considered, this segment of data outweighs the All-Star data and keeps Oh’s record the way we would expect a HOFer’s record in his circumstances to be.


Davey Johnson (the only man to have been a teammate of Oh and Aaron)[from the Sporting News, January 7, 1978, page 37] : Oh would have hit 700 homers over here. He would be a good hitter anywhere in the world. Quality is still quality.



Davey Johnson again, this time from Deford’s Sports Illustrated article: You couldn’t find a better [fielding] first baseman



Tom Seaver: He sure hit me. He was a superb hitter. He hit consistently, and he hit with power. If he played in the United States, he would have hit 20-25 home runs a year, and what’s more, he’d hit .300. He’d be a lifetime .300 hitter. He had tremendous discipline at the plate. He knew the strike zone extremely well . . . .He could pull your hard stuff, and you couldn’t fool him off-speed.



Hal McRae: Oh had tremendous patience as a hitter . . . He had good power. I don’t know how many he would have hit here . . . start with 20 (a year) . . . at least. He was a great all-star. He’d have been a Hall of Famer.



Pete Rose: There’s no question in my mind he wouldn’t have hit 800 home runs if he’d played here, but if he played in a park tailored to his swing, he’d have hit his 35 [homers] a year. . . He’d hit .300, I’ll tell you that.



Don Baylor: Oh could have played anywhere at any time. If he played in Yankee Stadium, being the left handed pull hitter he is, I have no doubt he’d hit 40 home runs a year.



Frank Howard: You can kiss my ass if he wouldn’t have hit 30 or 35 home runs a year and hit anywhere from .280 to .320 and drive in up to 120 runs a year. The point being, he rates with the all-time stars of the game.



Greg Luzinski: There’s no question he’d have been a great player in the United States, that he was a super talent.



Brooks Robinson: He could have played right here in the big leagues with the best players in the world. He would have hit here. Not as many home runs, but he would have hit his share and hit for average. He was just an outstanding hitter.



Frank Robinson: I’m sure he would have hit in the 30’s (of homers per year) and probably in the low 40’s. . . . Thirty home runs a year add up to over 600 home runs, and he’d do that if he played the same number of years here that he played there.



Don Drysdale: He would have hit for average and power here. In a park tailored to his swing, there’s no telling how many he would have hit. . . . He was always ready for anything we threw him. We were all impressed.



Any player who gets reviews like this from a group like this and nobody is willing to say he wasn’t a fine player, well, that’s impressive. We’re now done with part one of the case for Oh, and part two is at: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/a...albright13.html

[leecemark]

Those are some fine tributes to Oh and I'll agree he would have been a good major leaguer. I didn't see even the most generous of the comments suggesting he was anywhere near as good as Ruth though. And I wouldn't give much credibility to them if they did. To answer the previous question, the 1984 Tigers were deeper than the 1968 team and probably better over a season. The top guys on the 68 team were better and I'd pick them if we're talking a playoff.

Nap Lajoie vs Eddie Collins

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

Nap Lajoie vs Eddie Collins:

Collins over Lajoie. Tough in some ways. Lajoie was the preferred all time 2B, before Collins and many stayed with him.

Lajoie hit for more power and in a less productive period, but his league was suspect initially, and his big year had come in the minor league, Western league the previous season.

Collins hit for higher averages and lasted longer. Plus he was much faster, ran much better and in my opinion, was much the preferred fielder. It was said that Lajoie's lack of reflexes rendered him slow going to his right into the hole. Collins was additionally thought of as one of the smartest players ever, and managed, although Nap managed also. Tough, close call. Thanx.

Bill Burgess

[abolishthedh]

Bret Saberhagen or Orel Hershiser?

[leecemark]

They were about equal talents, with Saberhagen maybe slightly better. Hershieser had quite a few more healthly seasons though and I'd have to take him.

Ernie Banks or Robin Yount

[tibber]

pretty close, but i'd choose yount overall.

quick question: why didn't oh ever play here? was he ever offered a a chance to do so? did he want to?

anyway: early wynn or gaylord perry?

[Iron Jaw]

Early and Gaylord - both pitchers with longivity. I'll take Gaylord - slightly.


Brooks Robinson versus Eddie Mathews

[1984Tigers]

Robinson


Lou Whitaker or Ryne Sandberg?

[leecemark]

1984, I couldn't disagree more strongly on the Robinson-Mathews question. Robinson great fielder, okay hitter. Mathews great hitter, okay fielder. I'll take the bat every time. But getting to your question, I've got to go with Sandberg. Whitaker was a very good player, maybe a borderline Hall of Famer. Sandberg was a great player. He should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. Sandberg was at least a little bit better as a hitter, a fielder and a baserunner. Doesn't leave much for Sweet Lou.

Ron Santo or Brooks Robinson

[julusnc]

Santo was a superior hitter than Brooks by a longshot.

Santo and Brooks were even with the glove.

Brooks will always be remembered for his glove work in one World Series that he did dominate with defense but some say his defense was not as good as Clete Boyer.

The edge goes to Santo and it is a crying shame Mr Santo has not been put into the Hall of Fame.

[leecemark]

I'll agree Santo was a better hitter than Robinson, althought the contrast is not as stark as between Mathews and Robinson. Some of the difference between Santo and Robinson is park factor with Wrigley being a very good hitters park and Memorial Stadium a pitchers park. The biggest offensive edge for Santo was he was a much more selective hitter. I can't agree they were equal with the glove. Robinson won 11 straight Gold Gloves before "becoming Famous for his work in the 1970 World Series". Santo was a very good fielder, but Robinson was clearly better (and so was Clete Boyer). Had they stuck to giving out one Gold Glove for both leagues or had Santo been in the Al his 5 GGs would almost certainly have turned to zero. Robinson also had a significantly longer career than Santo.
Having said all that in defense of Brooks, I have to say that I agree Santo was a better overall player and it is a shame he is still waiting for his invite to the Hall. They are pretty close in value though and I could see it either way.

Homerun Baker or Ron Santo

[Bill Burgess]

julusnc,

Santo on even terms with Brooksie with the leatherwork? Seriously? I saw Brooksie with my own eyes on TV, and could hardly believe my eyes.

After him, 3B glovework would go to Ossie Bluege, Billy Cox (Brooklyn). Schmidt & Traynor were in there, and maybe Clete Boyer. But Santo? What are you basing it on?

Bill Burgess

[julusnc]

Bill,

I just dont like Brooks.He was awesome yes but I feel Santo was the better all around player.

Santo may not be as good on defense as Brooks but as long as I think he was its all good :)

Santo should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Iron Jaw]

Ted Simmons versus Gary Carter

[tibber]

simmons was better with the bat (although carter had more power.) carter was better with the glove. if you held a gun to my head i'd pick simmons, but it's close.

frank robinson or carl yastrzemski?

[leecemark]

Robbie put up better numbers despite playing in much worse hitters parks. He is an easy pick for me.

Mel Ott or Reggie Jackson

[PumpsieGreen]

Ott was a more powerful, capable player than Jackson. Mel's in my top 20 hitters all time, and Reggie's in my top 60, so I'll go with the more dimentional, powerful player over the one dimentional whiffer.

Mickey Cochrane vs. Roy Campanella

[leecemark]

Pumpsie, Ott has some advantages over Reggie, but being more powerful was definately not one of them. Outside the Polo Grounds Ott would have been about a 20 -25 HR a year guy.

I'll take Cochrane over Campanella. A little more consistent and played a little more.

Willie Stargell or Ralph Kiner

[wlh99raiders]

in their prime, Mays vs. Mantle vs. Snider, who was the best cf in new york?

[Bill Burgess]

Pumpsie,

Mel Ott's power numbers were inflated by his home park, but he WAS a very good OF with a strong arm. No one ever mentions that in connection with him. Usually people are talking about his HRs, or warning us of his HRs. No one ever says how good a fielder he was. He had that high leg lift, like Oh of the Japanese league.

I'll also go with Mickey Cochrane over Campy. Was a very fiery leader, and a better handler of his staff. Mantle was named after him, BTW. Named Mickey, not Michael. Cochrane had been Mantle's Dad's favorite player.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Mantle, Mays, Snider?

Mays, of course. Overall. No one really says that the Mick was better anymore. All he ever gets is "better peak value" offensively. And that is just. All were good OFs, with Willie taking the laurel wreath. Willie leaving NYC mid-career didn't help his publicity. Mick got the mega PR till he kicked it.

Bill Burgess

[cloakedarbiter]

leechmark, i'd take stargell for his durability, longetivity, better average, and consistency... both have similar power

ted williams or joe dimaggio?

[Bill Burgess]

Ted with the stick.
Joe in the field, clubhouse.
Neither one ran.
Ted with the stick can not overcome Joe's stickwork PLUS his much better glove.

And that is how both were perceived at the time.
Ted was the better hitter, Joe the better overall PLAYER.

Bill Burgess

[abolishthedh]

Warren Spahn or Steve Carlton?

[leecemark]

Carlton had a few off years in mid-career, Spahn never did. I give him the edge for consistency.

Christy Mathewson or Pete Alexander

[Bill Burgess]

Spahn over Carlton, Master pitcher over very good thrower.

Matty over Pete, no particular reason. Master vs. Master. Toss a coin.

Bill Burgess

[cloakedarbiter]

the Best of the Braves

Warren Spahn or Greg Maddux?

[Bill Burgess]

cloakedarbiter,

Gee whiz. If it gets any tougher, you're gonna kill someone. I'd have to say Spahn edged him by the slimmest of margins. Master pitcher vs. master pitcher. Spahn was a master fielder too, and hit many HRs for a pitcher. Spahn once said that there was an idea behind every one of his pitches. He painted corners like Rembrandt. A richer repetoire of tools has hardly been seen. And he had good stuff too.

And almost every word here could be repeated for Greg. Please cloakedarbiter! Have some mercy?

Bill Burgess

[cloakedarbiter]

Alright, Bill, point taken

I thought Spahn/Maddux was a great matchup though

[Bill Burgess]

It was. So good, there is so little to separate them. Like Matty/Alexander. These are some of my favorite pitchers. True masters. I live for this stuff. Keep it up, if you can.

Here's two for you.

Will Clark/Don Mattingly
Cal Ripken/Robin Yount

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

Cloak, I think Bill WAS saying it was a great matchup, almost too close to call. I'd go with Spahn also, but Maddux is not far behind.

Sticking with the Braves; Dale Murphy or Wally Berger?

[cloakedarbiter]

Cal Ripken, because of his consistency, all his great accomplishments, and because he was such a great team player

Dale Murphy, both were great power hitters, but I'm more familiar with Murphy, i consider him the best hitting Brave in recent history, and he SHOULD be in the Hall even though he has been eligible for awhile

[Iron Jaw]

Originally posted by abolishthedh
Mattingly over Clark, although its easy to forget how good Clark was.

Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda?

Another tough one. Cepeda had slightly more power, but Perez had the logivity.

I call this one just slightly for Perez.



Milt Pappas versus Ralph Terry.

[PumpsieGreen]

I give the edge by a pretty fair margin to Pappas. When you look at the stats, there really isn't much comparison, and Pappas was actually a better pitcher than some people give him credit for.

Walter Johnson vs. Lefty Grove

[Iron Jaw]

When Walter was doing his last harrah, Lefty was coming into the big leagues. For a 7-year period (1927-33), he was invincible. But for an overall career, I'll take the Big Train - and this is not as easy a pick as one might think.


Billy Williams versus Harold Baines

Moose Skowron versus Bill White

Bobby Richardson versus Glenn Beckert

Mike Cuellar versus Juan Marichal

[leecemark]

Williams was much greater player than Baines.
White and Skowron similar as hitters, but White had the great glove.
Richardson one of the most overrated 2B, Beckert one of the most underrated.
Marichal over Cuellar is even easier than Williiams over Baines. Juan was a slam dunk Hall of Famer, Cuellar was a very good pitcher for a few years.

Willie McCovey vs Harmon Killebrew

[julusnc]

MCCovey and Killebrew are basically the same player.Both were fantastic for many years and both deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

I call it a draw.

But Eddie Murray was better than both :)

Superman vs Captain Marvel

OPPS :) I mean

Willie Mays vs Barry Bonds

[Bill Burgess]

Mays over Bonds:

Barry's my man, but . . . steroids?, expansion, shrunken strike zone.

Willie brings an all-time glove, the likes of which haven't been seen since the great Grey Eagle, Spoke. All time great bat, also great, exciting runner. Also captained the Giants from CF. All looked to him for their signs. Was the best since '25.

Bill Burgess

[cloakedarbiter]

I like Mays better. Both had major power and high averages, Bonds stole more in his prime. Both were great fielders, but Willie has the best outfielder's glove. I would take Mays over Bonds only because Bonds has that attitude and cockiness of his, both are all-time greats and you can't lose if you take either one.

[leecemark]

Two answers and no new questions. Lets keep the game moving guys. I'd also take Mays over Bonds, mostly because I'd much rather have Mays in my clubhouse. You can make a case for Bonds the player.

Ted Williams vs Stan Musial

[PumpsieGreen]

This one's really tough for me-they're my three and four for greatest offensive players all time; but I give a very slight edge to Williams based on his AL dominance and his undeniably great hitting. Williams isn't called the greatest hitter ever for nothing.

Virgil Trucks vs. Dave Stieb(two tough luck pitchers)

[prof93]

While i do love Williams, don't be so quick to annoint THe Splendid Splinter superior to THE Man.
Musial's statistics include a total of 3,630 hits, 7 batting titles, 3 World Championships, and 3 MVP Awards. He held 29 National League records and 17 Major League records when he retired. He is one of only six players to combine over 400 home runs and 3,000 hits. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1969

I say its a toss up

[PumpsieGreen]

Yeah, I agree. It's the closest argument ever, likely, as far as comparing baseball players. I gave a very, very slight edge to Williams, but in hindsight I think they're more equal than one being better than the other. Some players weren't meant to be compared to each other, I guess.

Pumpsie

[Bill Burgess]

Around 1949, BoSox GM, Eddie Collins, was in the mood to stir the pot a little, so he remarked for The Sporting News, that Stan couldn't carry Ted's jock-strap.

Man, did that ever cause a tempest in a teapot. Sporting News promptly ran a poll, that the fans could cut out and send in, asking who was the better player. The results were:

Musial was the more valuable all-around ballplayer, while Ted was the better hitter.

And I agree with those fans from 1950. I'd take Stan in the field, on the bases, and in the clubhouse. I'd take Ted in the batters's box. But Stan could hit also. Ted was an over-sensitive child, who never learned how to accept criticism or get along with others. And PLUS . . . He CHOSE to hurt his team for yrs. by not hitting to left and thus defeating The Shift.

I'll sweeten the pot with a triple-hitter.

Carew/Boggs/Gwynn How do ya like those apples?

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Gentlemen:

In fairness to Eddie Collins, I'd like to give a little context to his remark.

It came within the framework of a discussion where the owners of that day were attacking the Red Sox for paying Williams $75K, when DiMag was only pulling $43,750. and Musial about the same. So owners Breadon, Griffith, GM Pennock, and others were saying that Boston was undermining the financial foundation of BB.

So Collins was defending how much they paid Ted. He said, "I'm sick of hearing how Musial makes less than Ted. As far as I'm concerned, Stan can't carry Ted's glove. He doesn't sell out his park the way Ted does. They're not coming to see humpty-dumpties play. They're coming out to see Ted play."

So that was the discussion. It appeared on Feb. 19, 1947, pp. 11, column 1.

Bill Burgess

[Iron Jaw]

Carew/Boggs/Gwynn - quite the awsome trio. The three on one team would pepper you with singles.

Boggs had more power. Carew the most speed. Gwynn the contact eye.

Carew, very slightly - at least, that's my opinion.

Lou Brock Versus Rickey Henderson.

Tony Oliva versus Rico Carty.

Lee May versus Boog Powell.

[leecemark]

Lou Brock couldn't carry Rickey's jockstrap.
Carty wasn't half the pLayer Oliva was. They were reasonably comparable as hitters, but before his knees went Oliva was a very good outfielder and baserunner. Carty was awfull at both from day one.
Powell at his peak was a better hitter/player than May. May lasted enough longer to make it close, but I'd take Boog. Only tough call of the three.

Hack Wilson vs Wally Berger

[Bill Burgess]

Rickey over Brock.
Not particularly close. Rickey a greater offensive force.

Gehrig vs. Hornsby

Foxx vs. Greenberg

Crawford vs. Hack Wilson

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

Gehrig vs Hornsby is a tough one. I'll take Hornsby because a slugging 2B is harder to find than a slugging 1B - although you won't find many Gehrigs.

Foxx and Greenberg were almost the same player in their primes, but Foxx had the longer career.

Hack Wilson only had a couple years of the quality that Sam Crawford turned in for 15. That one is a no brainer -vote Wahoo Sam for he BBF Hall of Fame!

I'll leave Hack Wilson vs Wally Berger as my matchup

[cloakedarbiter]

Hack Wilson... you can't ignore the leader for RBIs in a season

Mickey Mantle or Stan Musial?

[leecemark]

Mantle was more talented and his best was better. If he could have stayed healthy we might be talking about him as the best ever. Musial did stay healthy though and was amazing consistent at an incredibly high level. I'd have to go with Stan the Man. My answer to my own earlier question of Musial vs Williams would have had the same answer. Musial is the least talked about of the all time greats, but he shouldn't be.

Home Run Baker vs Pie Traynor

[cloakedarbiter]

Originally posted by leecemark
Musial is the least talked about of the all time greats, but he shouldn't be.


i totally agree, leechmark. Musial is the least talked about of the top 10 baseball players ever (i would put him number 9). You always hear about Ted Williams' power, Willie Mays' fielding, Babe Ruth's EVERYTHING, etc. etc. but you don't hear much about Musial's consistency and longevity.

I'm gonna have to let someone else do Home Run Baker vs Pie Traynor. I hardly know those two.

[Bill Burgess]

Traynor over Baker:
Not as clear as it looks. Both hit well. But Traynor's all-time glove gives him edge. Strangely, a case could be made that Frank out-hite Pie. But Frank ruined his career by taking 2 yrs. off, and each time, came back a much diminished player.

Brett vs. Mathews

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Thats a tough one Bill. Mathews had alot more power and drew more walks. Brett had the higher average and was a better baserunner. They were close enough defensively that we can't solve it that way. I'll go with Brett by the slimmest of margins since he played close to his peak longer.
--I think this one is closer than Baker-Traynor, although I would gone the other way on that one. Baker was a pretty good fielder (admittedly not as good as Traynor) and was a MUCH better hitter than Traynor. At his peak, Baker was argueably the 2nd best hitter in baseball. Cobb, of course, was #1 and Speaker, Jackson and Collins were close in value to Baker.

--Pie Traynor vs Jimmie Collins

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

Good thoughts, although I'm not sold on Baker being that close to Speaker & Jackson. Collins probably, but Speaker & Jackson took care of their SLG. % fairly as well as Baker. But I agree Baker was much better a hitter than credited. Much under-rated today.

Bill Burgess

Traynor/Collins: Hmm. Too close to call. Traynor is better known to us today due to playing closer to our time. Possibly Traynor, but not by a lot. Good tough clashing of the swords, though, Mark.

Today's daily Triple.

Santo/K. Boyer
Berra/Campanella
Spahn/Maddux

[julusnc]

Mickey Lolich vs Don Drysdale

Joe Morgan vs Ryne Sandberg

Joe Cater vs Fred McGriff

[leecemark]

Wow, back to back triples the game is really heating up here.
Santo over Boyer - although both belong in the Hall
Berra over Campanella - more consistent and played longer
Spahn over Maddux - pnly because he did it longer
Lolich over Drysdale - I probably can't back this up to many people's satisfaction, but his 3 wins in the 68 Series are one of my first baseball memories and he was a tremendous workhorse for five years after that. One of my personal favorites. I actually tried to turn myself into a lefty the summer of 69 to be like Mickey.
Morgan over Sandberg and every 2B ever.
McGriff over Carter. Joe was one of the most overrated players ever.

Clemens vs Seaver

[julusnc]

Darrell Evans vs Craig Nettles

Tony Oliva vs Fred Lynn

Dave Stewart vs Bob Welch

[PumpsieGreen]

Let's See:
Nettles-Better with the glove, and arguably one of the top 10 players of the 1970s. A player with more depth and strenghts to his game.

Lynn-Just beats Olivia with his truly astronomical peak seasons. A pretty good player still after 1980.

Stewart-Much more consistent, though he had a lesser peak.

Clemens-More dominant, undenialby great peak. Very close, though.

Another "Daily Triple:"
Jeff Bagwell vs. Eddie Murray

Lou Gehrig vs. Stan Musial

Eddie Collins vs. Joe Morgan

[abolishthedh]

Murray over Bags; Eddie was one of the most consistent players in the Hall.
Gehrig over Musial; one of the few players who could top Stan the Man.
Morgan over Eddie Collins. What might Little Joe have done had he played elsewhere than the Astrodome early in his career?

Here are some stumpers:

Willie Stargell or Willie McCovey?

Bruce Sutter or Dennis Eckersley?

Luis Tiant or Catfish Hunter?

[Designated Fielder]

Willie Stargell-this is close, but Stargell's leadership wins out.

Bruce Sutter-why isn't he in the Hall of Fame?

Jim Hunter-there is a reason why he played on teams that won.

Red Schoendiest v. Bobby Doerr

Lou Brock v. Tim Raines

Darrell Evans v. Matt Williams

[Bill Burgess]

Murray over Bagwell. Power wins.
Gehrig over Stan. Lou simply brought too much to the table for too long. Hate to do it to The Man. Both were such credits to BB.
Collins WAY over Joe. Morgan was over-rated defensively. Lots questioned his GG. Eddie didn't have the pop, but he brought everything else to the table, in huge bundles. Joe ran excellent, but was just buried by Eddie on the bases. Joe played on winners, but Eddie did well there also. Collins was also one of the very smartest guys to wear a glove. Not even remotely close, IMHO.

Stargell brought power, Willie brought more.
Tiant brought nasty pitches, Catfish lasted longer and it's hard to tell. Luis may have been harder to hit at his peak.
Sutter/Eck I just like Sutter, but still love the handlebar. That was cool.


Schmidt/Bench Please consider positional importance in the mix.

Bill Burgess

[westsidegrounds]

Gotta take Bench. A great catcher is worth more than a very great third baseman.

Dazzy Vance or Dizzy Dean?

Boog Powell or Ted Kluszewski?

Dick Stuart or Mark Belanger?

[Iron Jaw]

Originally posted by westsidegrounds
Gotta take Bench. A great catcher is worth more than a very great third baseman.

Dazzy Vance or Dizzy Dean?

Boog Powell or Ted Kluszewski?

Dick Stuart or Mark Belanger?

Daz was a very good hurler. But Diz, at his best, was awesome. Diz didn't last long, but he sure made the most of his time.

Boog and Klu - two big, strong men. Klu had some amazing seasons. So did Boog. Both were decent afield. Boog lasted longer. Slight edge to Boog.

Dick Stuart and Mark Belanger?????!!!!! Talk about extreme opposites. Excellent power hitter versus no power at all. Bad glove versus great glove. Different positions.

Dick could win games with the bat - Mark with his glove. On three occasions, Mark had a respectable batting average (.287, 262, and .270). The rest of the time, Mark was hovering around the Mendoza line. Dick was always a good hitter - but he wasn't nicknamed Dr. Strangeglove without good reason. Animal strong, it is said he hit a 600 foot homerun while playing with Lincoln in the minors.

Even - bat versus glove. Both were valuable to the teams they played for.


Luis Aparicio versus Ozzie Smith

Nellie Fox versus Red Shoendienst

Sudden Sam McDowell versus Black Jack McDowell

Gaylord Perry Versus Phil Niekro/ Jim Perry Versus Joe Niekro

[abolishthedh]

Originally posted by Designated Fielder
Willie Stargell-this is close, but Stargell's leadership wins out.

Bruce Sutter-why isn't he in the Hall of Fame?

Jim Hunter-there is a reason why he played on teams that won.

Red Schoendiest v. Bobby Doerr

Lou Brock v. Tim Raines

Darrell Evans v. Matt Williams

Since a reply has been skipped here, I'll proceed.

Schoendiest over Doerr, although I'll admit to a Midwest Bias.
Brock over Raines. Rickey made a lot of fans forget how dominant a player Lou Brock was, but Missouri listeners won't forget soon.
Williams over Evans, Williams was solid with the glove and the bat.

To Iron Jaw,

Ozzie over Aparicio, do you sense a Missouri bias here?
Fox over Schoendienst
Jack McDowell over Sam McDowell
Gaylord and Jim over Phil and Joe.

Here's a few:

Greg Luzinski vs. Bob Horner

Dave Parker vs Dave Winfield

Mark Langston vs Chuck Finley

[Bill Burgess]

A word about Daz/Diz.

Dazzy Vance first had a tryout with the Pirates & then the Yankees when he was 23, didn't stick, had another tryout with the Yankees again when he was 26. Again, he couldn't cut it.

Then, when he was 31, he got another shot with the Dodgers. And the only way he was able to make it, was by going on a 5 day rotation, instead of the usual 4 day, of that time. So, all his pitching came in his 30's. He lasted until he was 44.

Diz had a tryout with the Cards when he was 20, but caught on with them when he was 22. Hurt his arm at age 27, hung on for 3 more seasons with his curve, slowball, brains, guts & heart.

I'd take the Dazzler. Paul Dean was supposedly faster than Diz.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Dazzy Vance seems to be pretty clearly the best pitchers of the 20's.

It seems to me that, if he hadn't gotten injured in the All Star game, Dizzy Dean would have been better than Lefty Grove.

Vance stuck around longer... but I'll take Dizzy.

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

To compare Dean/Vance is one thing, but to pit Diz against Lefty is another. You'd have to show that Dean's seasons were on a par with Grove's, and I don't think you can. Grove scared hitters, Diz didn't.

Today's daily triple.

Crawford/Greenberg
Klein/Ott
Bill Terry/Lefty O'Doul

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
ElHalo,

To compare Dean/Vance is one thing, but to pit Diz against Lefty is another. You'd have to show that Dean's seasons were on a par with Grove's, and I don't think you can. Grove scared hitters, Diz didn't.

Today's daily triple.

Crawford/Greenberg
Klein/Ott
Bill Terry/Lefty O'Doul

Not quite on a par, but close. I'd look at Dean's 1934 season vs. Grove's 1931 season:

Grove:

31-4, 2.06 ERA, 175 K's, 1.08 WHIP

Dean:

30-7, 2.66 ERA, 195 K's, 1.16 WHIP

Not as good, certainly... but in the ballpark. And Dean always has been my single favorite baseball player ever, so I'm a little biased.

As for your triplet...

Greenberg, though I'm itching to say Crawford. I was so itching to say Crawford, in fact, that I even took a look at their defenses to try and form some argument... and found that Greenberg was an above average first basemen, while Crawford was a HORRIFIC outfielder. So Greenberg.

Ott. Pretty closer, but Ott stuck around a lot longer, and was a heck of a lot better at getting on base.

And Klein, really not in a close one... Check out how many seasons of at least 450 PA's O'Doul had. 4. That's just not enough.

How about these three:

Sherry Magee / Ed Konetchy (my vote for 2 of the 3 best deadballers not in the Hall, with Cravath being the other)

Eric Davis / Darryl Strawberry (easily my two favorite players of the 80's)

Frankie Frisch / Joe Cronin (The second best middle infield tandem of the live ball era, after Hornsby and Vaughan, unless I'm forgetting somebody)

[Bill Burgess]

Tough one.

Killebrew/Kiner


Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

Kiner was possibly a better player at his peak, but Killebrew did it twice as long.
Here are a couple guys who burned very bright for a short time. Leaving Lynn's longer pretty good years out of the equation:

Pete Rieser vs Fred Lynn (Red Sox years only)

[ElHalo]

As for Kiner/Killebrew, it's Kiner with not a doubt in my mind. I really, REALLY hold it against guys who have career BA's below league average... Killebrew never hit even .290. Sure, Killebrew had 57% more PA's than Kiner... but Kiner was a true superstar. Killebrew was a slightly better version of Pete Incaviglia.

As for Reiser and Lynn... Have to go with Lynn. Reiser really only had one season that was impressive, and it wasn't THAT impressive. Freddy Lynn had two true superstar seasons with Boston, and a couple more really good ones.

[Iron Jaw]

Another thing about Kiner, is he did most of his work when the Pirates were in Forbes Field, which was not a homer paradise. Willie Stargell spoke about how his power production increased when the Pirates moved to Three Rivers in 1970.

Of course, if Harmon would have played in the Metrodome instead of the stadium in Bloomington, he might have hit an astronomical total of homeruns.

[julusnc]

ElHalo,

Come on friend its so wrong to compare anyone to Inky :D

Killbrew was a superstar with a MVP award and did have some great slugging years.Granted he is not a top teir Hall of Famer but he is a worthy Hall of Famer.

Incaviglia was just a little better than Rob Deer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Orel Hershiser vs Kevin Brown

Scott Rolen vs Craig Nettles

Duke Snider vs Shawn Green

[PumpsieGreen]

Just to clear some dust on earlier comparisons:

Sherry Magie/Ed Konetchy-Magee, who is in my opinion one of the 10 best players not in the hall of fame.

Eric Davis/Darryl Strawberry-I give a slight edge to Strawberry. You cannot deny his great peak seasons and how he led those Mets teams.

Frankie Frisch/Joe Cronin-I give it to Frisch, a very underappreciated player who could hit very well and was a consistent force of offense.

Orel Hershiser/Kevin Brown-Very, very close, but I give it to Brown, who has had more very good seasons than Hershiser. Cannot deny Orel's peak, though.

Scott Rolen/Craig Nettles-I give it to Rolen, who is becoming a truly great third basemen, and has top-notch defense to top it off. He beats Nettles because of his bat, even considering his era.

Duke Snider/Shawn Green-C'mon, people, this one isn't even close. It's the Duke.

Three more:
Tris Speaker/Mickey Mantle
Greg Maddux/Randy Johnson(I know that this is bending the rules, but...)
Willie McCovey/Mark McGwire

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by PumpsieGreen
Tris Speaker/Mickey Mantle
Greg Maddux/Randy Johnson(I know that this is bending the rules, but...)
Willie McCovey/Mark McGwire

Very nice, very nice...

I go with Speaker over Mantle. Mantle's peak value is higher... but Speaker hung around forever, and as good as Mantle was on defense, he can't compare to Speaker.

Randy Johnson over Greg Maddux. Maddux is nice and all... they have the same career ERA+, Maddux has a slightly lower WHIP, Johnson has a much better K rate... I say Johnson's peak is better than Maddux'.

And McCovey and McGwire? McGwire in a walk. McGwire was a much better hitter than McCovey, everywhere but in BA... and McCovey was no great shakes at that, either.

[julusnc]

Andre Dawson vs Tim Raines

Larry Walker vs Dale Murphy

Bobby Grich vs Ozzie Smith

[Bill Burgess]

Speaker over Mantle. On the bases, in the field, and lasted longer in the batter's box. Not particularly close. Mays/Speaker is the REAL gut-wrencher.

Maddux over Johnson. Intimidation isn't everything. Randy get them on 3 pitches, Greg on 1.

McGuire over McCovey. Power/Power. And Mark had so much more. Trumped Willie's ace card. And since power was Willie's "calling card", . . .

Bill Burgess

Rickey Henderson/Daryl Strawberry

[leecemark]

I'll give you Straw man. cash and a player to be named later for the Rickey. Henderson was one of the all time greats, Strawberry one of the all time "what might have beens".

Take the Juiceman out the equation on this one:

Rickey Henderson vs Barry Bonds through 2000.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by leecemark
I'll give you Straw man. cash and a player to be named later for the Rickey. Henderson was one of the all time greats, Strawberry one of the all time "what might have beens".

Take the Juiceman out the equation on this one:

Rickey Henderson vs Barry Bonds through 2000.

I take Henderson over Bonds. I'm actually very tempted to take Henderson over Bonds anyway, just because I HATE Barry Bonds... and I've always like Rickey's personality. But through 2000, it doesn't really seem close to me... Henderson held three of the all time counting records (BB, R, SB), has 3 of the 8 post 1900 100 SB seasons, has more 100 R seasons than everyone but Aaron, Henderson ranks 25th all time in Black Ink (is actually very close to Bonds in that... if you go just through 2000, he was waaaaay ahead of Bonds in Black Ink)... I just keep thinking back to the All Century team voting in 1999. Barry Bonds didn't even really come close to getting voted on, and nobody thought it was an oversight. Rickey was close... I go with Rickey.

[wlh99raiders]

koufax vs. randy johnson?

[Bill Burgess]

Sandy over Randy:
The big charge against Sandy is that it took him around 7 yrs. to gain the control to achieve BB greatness. But once he had it, it was all over for the NL hitters. His hallmark of greatness, is that if the Dodgers got him 1-2 runs, that was it. He NEVER lost a close one. You can look it up. Almost NEVER.

Randy is good, in the same way, but he lacks the consistentcy of Sandy Koufax. And Sandy did it all with an arthritic left elbow, which swelled up like a grapefruit after every game. So while his teammates could go have dinner, Sandy was stuck in the clubhouse with his left elbow in a bucket of ice, for hours, after EVERY game. His pain was very real, but he never spared himself.

Sandy was my hero.

Bill Burgess

[PumpsieGreen]

Alright, just to keep things moving along:

Tris Speaker/Willie Mays
Catfish Hunter/El Tiante(Luis Tiant)
Jim Bunning/Mickey Lolich
Vida Blue/Billy Pierce

[Bill Burgess]

Speaker over Mays

My turn.

Kaline/Gehringer

This game was a lot of fun. I'd hate to see it die.

Bill Burgess

[AG2004]

This looks like a difficult choice between two Tiger legends.

Kaline played in 22% more games than Gehringer, but had only 10% more RBIs and 8% more walks. Kaline, of course, hit 399 HRs, compared to 184 for Gehringer.

Gehringer had .320/.404/.480 BA/OBP/SLG, Kaline .297/.376/.480, so Kaline's performance looks more impressive when compared to the league averages. Gehringer's OPS+ is 124, while Kaline's is 134.

Gehringer comes out ahead, 27-12, on the black ink test, while Kaline wins on the grey ink est, 228-191. Gehringer's ahead on HOF Standards, 71.9 to 57.6.

Kaline has 443 win shares lifetime to Gehringer's 383. But Gehringer recorded 160 in his best five-year stretch, compared to 130 for Kaline. Gehringer won the MVP in '37 and narrowly missed out in '34; Kaline finished a close second in '55 and a distant second in '63.

During the 1930s, Gehringer was the best second baseman in the majors. During his career, Kaline wasn't quite as good a right fielder as Aaron, Clemente or Robinson. This led me to check how good black second basemen were in the 1930s. The top choice was Newt Allen, who was highly regarded defensively, but wasn't nearly as good with his bat as Gehringer was, so Gehringer most likely would have been the best at second at the peak of his career even if baseball had been integrated then.

All things considered, I'll take Gehringer over Kaline.


Now how about this one:

Honus Wagner vs. John Henry "Pop" Lloyd?

[ElHalo]

Honus Wagner vs. John Henry "Pop" Lloyd?

Oh boy, are you gonna get Bill's juices flowing on that one...

Oh, and for the record... I go with Gehringer as well. I could make all kinds of arguments, but really it just comes down to 2B > RF.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pierce over Blue. He was a fine, unheralded pitcher for teams that were far from big winners. Plus, he was one of the players who would regularly watch my father in the dugout while my grandfather was working at Tiger Stadium.

Without the drug problems, Blue could have been a HOF'er. But, that is part of his legacy. And it just means that Blue wasted a bit of what he had. For what their careers were, I have to go with Pierce.

Nellie Fox or Bill Mazeroski?

[tearforamariner]

Pierce over Blue. He was a fine, unheralded pitcher for teams that were far from big winners. Plus, he was one of the players who would regularly watch my father in the dugout while my grandfather was working at Tiger Stadium.

Without the drug problems, Blue could have been a HOF'er. But, that is part of his legacy. And it just means that Blue wasted a bit of what he had. For what their careers were, I have to go with Pierce.

Nellie Fox or Bill Mazeroski?


Fox over Maz (simply because I couldn't bare to choose a guy with an OBP below .300).

Chuck Klien or Edgar Martinez?

[Bill Burgess]

You're darned right Wagner/Lloyd will get me going. It should get anyone fired up. Two of the most scintillating, glittering lights BB ever produced. I have Wagner as my #2 man all-time, and Pop's my #10th. Bill James has Wagner as his #2 also, and Pop is his #22.

I always laugh when someone puts Williams ahead of Honus. Or Gehrig. Anyone who doesn't have Wagner in their top 5, should be, well, shot. You heard me right. Lined against the wall and offered their last cigarette. Wagner was a BB god, and bad things happen to those who refuse to properly honor and render piety to the gods. Thank God all well-read posters here have him in their top 5. But most aren't familiar enough with Lloyd to give him his justice. So let's try to compare the two. And that's not easy.

Lloyd was born Aril 15, 1884, and made it to semi-pro by 1905, at age of 21.
He started as a catcher. He traveled the negro leagues pretty well. In 1907, his manager switched him from 2B to SS. It wasn't unusual for him to go south every winter, ending up playing 12 months a yr. He played the position so well, that they called him the "Black Honus Wagner". Wagner, after watching Lloyd play, switched the compliment to, "It's a privilege to have been compared to hm."

From 1907-10, he played each winter in Cuba, and in Nov.- Dec., 1910, the Detroit Tigers visited Cuba for a set of 12 games. Initially, Cobb didn't want to go. But when the Cuban promoters offered an additional $1,000. bonus, plus travel expenses. He said, "I decided to break my own rule for a few games."

Crawford, Mullin and all the starting Tiger pitchers went along. Plus O'Leary,
Willet, Moriarty, T. Jones, Casey, Stanage, McIntyre, Schaefer went along. Mullen also managed. The Cubans were joined by black US stars, Bruce Petway, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson and Pop Lloyd, sometimes called the black Honus Wagner. Cobb dilly-dallied in Key West before he arrived in Havana, on Nov. 26, by which time, the Tigers had gone 3-3-1 with the black ballplayers. With Cobb they finished, 7-4-1. In the last game, Mendez fanned Ty once, Ty got a single, and Petway threw him out at 2nd when he tried to steal. For 5 games, Ty went 7 x 19= .370. Crawford hit .360 in 12 games, and Lloyd hit .500, Johnson .412, and Petway
.390, all against top ML pitching.

So, as a point of comparison, Wagner played a set of 7 games against the 1909 Tigers, basicly the same bunch that Lloyd played a year later. And Wagner managed a .333 BA. against the same pitching Lloyd hit .500 against.

Lloyd played against McGraws Giants in 1913, McGraw toyed with bringing him into the NL. That's how impressed Little Napoleon was with him. At 5'11, 180, he was acknowleged as one of the campfire legends of the game. By 1918, he started managing/playing, which he continued until he retired in 1931, at age 47. By then he had switched to 1B, but could still hit. He settled in Atlantic City, NJ, married in '44. He continued to fool around with semi-pro until he was 58, playing 1B. Esquire magazine did a story on him in '38, bringing him to the attention of the white fans. He became a janitor in the Atlantic City post office, and in the mid-30's, became school janitor at the Indiana Avenue school. The kids all loved him and called him Pop. He died on March 19, 1965 in Atlantic City at age 80.

Men like Mack, McGraw and Hughie Jennings all called him among the best players in BB history. In various yrs., he often hit around .450.

Ultimately, I have to give it to Wagner, since without verifiable stats against qualified opposition, I can't assume Lloyd was better, or even as good. This brief summary was culled from Marty Appel's fantastic book, Baseball's Best, 1980, pp. 413-414.

Thanks for such an excellent comparison!! I love it. Now, I'm gonna put it to you guys!! Try these apples!

Mays/Charleston
Hornsby/Gehrig
Hornsby/Wagner
Mays/Speaker

No need to tackle all 4. Let's see what anyone can do with these apples!


Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

-Mays over Charleston: Charleston probably could have been an all time great, but Mays was
-Gehrig over Hornsby: More consistent and easier to get along with
--Wagner over Hornsby: Not even close
--Mays over Speaker: faster and more powerfull

[ElHalo]

I'll do Hornsby/Wagner... tomorrow. Tonight I'm going to bed.

But here's the gist: I'm going to use all kinds of numbers, lots of math, and I'm going to beat into everyone's heads that Rogers Hornsby is the greatest right handed hitter of all time. I'm going to show that Hornsby is a hitter on a level with Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, and that the fact that he played 2nd base just triples or quadruples his value. I'm going to state, again and againt, that Rogers Hornsby is one of the four or five greatest players of all time, and that he is, in my opinion, the single most underrated baseball player to ever have played the game.

And then I'm going to say Honus was better.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark:
Good judgement calls. I believe I concur.

ElHalo:
You have become a wise man.

Bill Burgess

[dgarza]

Dwight Gooden vs JR Richard

[Bill Burgess]

Gooden over Richards, lasted longer, despite drugs

Derek Jeter/Ozzie Smith
Morgan/Sandberg

Bill Burgess

[tibber]

it pains me, but i'll take jeter for his power.
sandberg over morgan. no real reason.

dale murphy or fred lynn?

[ElHalo]

Gooden over Richards, lasted longer, despite drugs

Derek Jeter/Ozzie Smith
Morgan/Sandberg

Bill Burgess

Between Morgan and Sandberg I go with Morgan... he's not as good as Hornsby/Gehringer/Lajoie/Collins/etc., but he's still a GREAT player, and completely deserving of his Hall spot... once Ryne gets one, then maybe we'll talk.

As to Jeter/Ozzie... of course the answer is Jeter, but I could see some people making some very good arguments the other way. But let me get into this one, because it involves my favorite player not named Pepper Martin.

Now, you could basically say that Ozzie Smith is arguably the greatest fielding SS of all time, and a lousy hitter; and that Jeter is a lousy fielder, but is not even close to the best hittins SS of all time... and so that Ozzie wins. I disagree with this argument.

Ozzie was a tremendous fielder, true. And fielding is definitely what you want out of your SS. He had highlight reel defense... but so does Jeter. Say what you want about Jeter's defensive statistics; he comes up with the big play when it matters.

And offensively... well, there's no comparison. Just look at the fact Jeter leads Ozzie, 4-1, in top 10 MVP votes... despite only having just turned 30 last week.

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

I'm glad I could bait you into weighing in on this one. I wanted to see how much positional emphasis you'd give to SS in this particular case.

Normally, I'd go with Ozzie, cause I don't give a DAMN about my SS hitting. Same with my catcher. But in this case, I'd have to give it to Jeter, cause I disagree with those who mock Derek's glove. After seeing him in money games, his signature play, that spinning aerial pirouette, while throwing midair and nailing his man, is no Dr. Strangeglove. If there's such a thing as "clutch" player, Derek rivals Pepper.

So I'd go for Derek Jeter in this shootout. But I'd take A-rod over either one.

Bill Burgess

PS. Murphy over Fred. Just because.

[ElHalo]

Yeah, I do believe in Clutch play, and in that category, Jeter bows to nobody this side of Martin.

Offense, defense, anything... if you need it, he'll get the job done.

Ozzie does have that one home run... but overall, he was essentially another pitcher in the lineup.

ARod is, of course, better, but if I had to lose one or the other off the Yankees... I'd lose ARod. I'm a sucker for intangibles.

The thing about ARod... his career is going to be pretty evenly split between 3B and SS. He'd undoubtedly be the best 3B of all time... but many people won't consider him so, because they'll think of him as the second best SS.

Either way, I think that Jeter/ARod is going to trump Traynor/Vaughan as the greatest left side of the infield in history.

On the infielders note...

Nomar Garciaparra / Arky Vaughan

[leecemark]

--Arky was a little better at his peak and Nomar's injury problems pretty much assure Vaughn of being much better over the course of their careers.

I'd take Wagner and Leach over Traynor and Vaughn, although thats mostly Honus carrying the load. Molitor and Yount is another contender for best left side. Running down my top 25 SS and LF I was surprised how few of them played together.

Pie Traynor vs Brooks Robinson

[ElHalo]

Yeah, I could see you taking Wagner and pretty much anybody as the best left side, but as far as two great players, Traynor and Vaughan is pretty hard to top.

As to Traynor and Brooks... I'm going to consider their fielding a wash; Traynor was the best of the old days, Brooks the best of the recent times.

Traynor's biggest weakness was his lack of plate discipline... but, strangely, Brooks was no better in that department. They both were horrible at drawing BB's. But Traynor at least had a great enough BA to keep a respectable OBP; Brooks' .322 isn't scaring anyone.

Brooks' big advantage on Traynor is HR hitting... but despite that, Traynor has a significantly better career SLG average.

So... I go with Traynor. Though Brooks is in my top 5 all time at 3B (though ARod might push him out...).

[leecemark]

--If you compare their OBP vs league, neither Traynor nor Robinson was especially good at getting on base. Traynor was 9 points better than league and Robinson was 2 points worse. Their slugging was essentially the same - Traynor +19 and Robinson +18. Even their batting average was much closer than the raw numbers would suggest - Traynor +25 and Robinson +14. The biggest difference is Brooks did it much longer - and much longer than he should have. The following numbers are not for the sqeamish; Robinson's last three years he posted averages of 201/267/274, 211/240/307 and 149/212/255 (in mercifully limited playing time). Chop that unfortunate finish off his career and he comes out well ahead of Traynor in slugging, very similar in OBP and surprisingly close in BA (vs league).

Robinson vs Santo

[Bill Burgess]

Traynor over Robinson.
Way better bat, even considering his much higher premium offensive era. I'll give Brooksie his due. Best glove ever at 3B. But he only hit well in '64.

"Either way, I think that Jeter/ARod is going to trump Traynor/Vaughan as the greatest left side of the infield in history."

(Bill - Gotta agree.)

Traynor is weak in HRs for the obvious reason that he played in Forbes Field. Death to HRs. Hello triples hitting. Forbes Field featured a LF foul line of between 356-365 feet. So it suppressed HRs, and encouraged speed hitting (triples).
Bill Burgess

[tibber]

since this thread seems to be sliding down the page again, allow me to bump it back up with a few i've been pondering lately:

dizzy dean vs. sandy koufax
luis apracio vs. maury wills
fergie jenkins vs. bob gibson

[leecemark]

--While Dean was an outstanding pitcher, he never dominated the league the way Koufax did. He was more of a workhorse pitcher on a great team.
--Wills might have been a slightly better offense player than Aparicio, but Luis was a much better defender.
--I was a big Fergie Jenkins fan as a kid and he was a fine pitcher,but Gibson is significantly better.

--Jackie Robinson vs Charley Gehringer

[tibber]

jackie's importance to the game not withstanding, gehringer played much longer and therefore put up better numbers. in fact, i wasn't aware until recently that robinson had such a short career.

tom glavine vs. whitey ford

[leecemark]

--Jackie didn't play his first major league game until he was 28. I give him some credit for what he would have done before that and have him ahead of Gehringer. Its close though.
--Whitey Ford over Tom Glavine no problem.
--Allie Reynolds vs John Smoltz

[ElHalo]

tom glavine vs. whitey ford

That's not even remotely close. Ford wins in a cakewalk.

[Bill Burgess]

First things first.

Koufax over Dean, not even remotely close, but Dean did have great control even from the first. Sandy actually had 2 phases, one stunk, 1 blazed.

Wills over Aparicio. Luis stole before stealing was cool again, but Maury came along and did it even better. I'll give Luis the better glove, but Wills a slightly better bat, even though neither hit the way you wanna.

Gibson over Fergie. Great over very good.

Robinson over Gehringer. I LOVE Charlie, but Jackie had that fire that lit the dynamite. He stole, got in your face, stole home in WS (Yogi went nuts), and hit well. Charlie had MUCH better glove, and hit as well, but Jackie's short career was because of BB's despicable White Wall of Hate. Beyond his control. Think how much better he'd have been if he'd competed against whites on his way up.

Ford over Glavine. Almost great over very tough.

Smoltz over Reynolds. Very good over very good. But close.

Hornsby/Bonds Please factor in positional consideration.
Collins/Lajoie

Bill Burgess

[AG2004]

I'll take Hornsby vs. Bonds

Batting: I went through this on another thread, so I'll summarize some points. Hornsby's lifetime OPS+ was 175; Bonds' through 2003 was 179. Hornsby suffered a bit from playing a few years in the dead-ball era. On the other hand, the average player in Hornsby's time was worse than the average player now - the modern game is integrated, draws players from a wider area, and the population base per team is larger now than in the past. Hornsby didn't play that much in his final years, but those years dropped his BA/OBP/SA by only .003/.001/.004. Slight edge to Bonds.

Fielding: Here's where the positional analysis comes in. Bonds plays left field, but won a few gold gloves as an outfielde, and is among the top left fielders defensively. Hornsby played second base, a much more important position, but was considered average throughout his career, and is actually a little bit below the lgRnF during his career (5.36 vs. 5.51). Probably a wash. Since it's easier to find a hitting left fielder than a hitting second baseman, I think I might give an edge to Hornsby.

Baserunning: Bonds usually appeared in the top 10 in SBs from 1989 to 1998, and has a 78% basestealing success rate. Hornsby appeared in the top 10 once, and, for seasons where we have caught stealing information, had a success rate of under 50%. Bonds has the edge.

Win Shares: Bonds is at 639 lifetime (he has 28 so far this season), while Hornsby earned 502 in a shorter career. Hornsby's top three seasons were 47, 42, and 41; add 2 shares for extra games in a 162-game season and you still don't match 54, 49, 47 for Bonds. Hornsby has 36 win shares per 162 games; Bonds has over 38. Hornsby's best five-year stretch is 190 win shares, which equals 200 over five 162-game seasons; Bonds is at 202 and counting (he's in his best stretch now). Edge to Bonds.

Intangibles: Hornsby was with the Cardinals in 1926, the Giants in 1927, the Braves in 1928, and the Cubs with 1929. That's four teams in four seasons, quite impressive in an era when the owners' interpretation of the reserve clause was used. The Braves sold him in return for cash (which they needed) and a few warm bodies, but you can't use that excuse for the Cardinals and Giants. If he was so valuable to his team, why did he bounce around so much? (Yes, I know John Henry Lloyd went from team to team early in his career, but he wasn't bound by any reserve clause, and other teams were willing to pay him more than he was earning, primarily because he would make his new team the best in black baseball.)

I'll give the advantage to Bonds.

[leecemark]

--AG2004, you summarized my views on Bonds-Hornsby as well as it could be done. I concur 100%. Although, Hornsby is one of the few players that make Bonds look like a good teamamte.

[Bill Burgess]

AG2004,

Very nice post! Good points all. And I love Barry. Another point you could of made for Rogers, is that when he first came up, he was real thin, and the Cards used him at SS. He had this great arm, which he never lost. When they switched him to 2B around 1919, he had gained around 25 lbs. of solid muscle from weight-lifting in the off-season.

He had fantastic speed afoot, getting down to 1B, but for some reason, wouldn't steal. He had the speed, but refused to use it. But they said he was great at baserunning, just not base stealing. So I dock him some points for that. He was a great fielder, who had this one litttle problem. After watching him practice fielding in spring training, John McGraw told him he was going to insure his head for $100,000 against pop flies! Must have made The Rajah feel warm all over. Great post!

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Hornsby actually had two major flaws as a fielder. Besides having difficulty handling pop flys, he had a tendancy to bail out on DPs to avoid incoming baserunners. This habit was what made Ty Cobb despise him so much. Hornsby's range was not bad, but I can't see him as anything but below average defensively. Maybe not Soriano bad, but a liability none the less.
--You couldn't really move him to another position though. Although he had the speed and arm to play the outfield, his problem with fly falls obviously ruled that out. First or third also involve more pop up responsibilities than 2nd. Secondbase then was his best spot and his bat was great enough to make him a major plus even with his defensive (and personality) issues. I suspect he would have spent alot of time at DH today.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

Hmm. I hadn't heard about his DP problem. Nor the Cobb thing. They were close pals, after Cobb called him the best hitter in the game in the early 20's. They did have 1 minor spat in the 50's later.

I'm surprised that McGraw would have taken him on, since McGraw was a stickler for guts. McGraw had been trying to buy him from Rickey for years. Can you imagine for McGraw had had Roush, Frisch and Hornsby all at the same time. Would have been his wet dream.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

I personally take Hornsby over Bonds.

Bonds get the edge in baserunning. Hitting, I give the edge to Rogers... Bonds' big offensive edge comes from BB's, and unlike pretty much any other hitter in the history of the game, I flat out refuse to give Bonds ANY credit for his BB's... if pitchers just pitched him, they'd be so much better off. And as far as actually putting the bat on the ball goes, Rogers is much better than Bonds.

Fielding, now... Excellent left fielder vs. average 2Bman. Give the edge to the average 2Bman. He was good enough to play 2B (I wouldn't call him a liability... just not an asset), and that's a HUGE advantage, because it allows the team to put an actual hitter in LF. Bonds takes up a spot that the Giants could otherwise fill with a good hit, no field guy.

I give the edge to Hornsby.

[leecemark]

--I've never heard of Cobb or Hornsby being pals, but I have to concede you've studied Cobb at lot more than I have. The Cobb-Hornsby story that sicks out most in my mind actually concerns a "spat" between Cobb and Ted Williams. Williams was visting Cobb's home in the offseason and they were naming their all time teams. Williams suggested Hornsby at 2nd base. Cobb strongly disagreed and the arguement got so heated Cobb threw Williams out of his home. The two men, who had been good friends, never spoke again as a result of the argument. Sports writer Burt Sugar exchanged several letters as a boy from Ty (a superstar answering fan mail from a child! - several letters - very cool, Ty) in which Cobb sounded berated Hornsby's fielding and his habit of letting the SS take as many throws at second as possible - in Cobb's view because he was afraid of being spiked.
--I guess even John McGraw was willing to compromise his principles a little to get a .400 hitter in his lineup. He did send Hornsby packing after only one season and didn't get much in return.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

At the greatest risk with you, I will post Hornsby remarks on Ty. I realize that I'm on sensitive grounds, since you've gotten on me in the past for, oh, anyway. . . here's his feedback. I'll have more after this.

Rogers Hornsby (NL pl., 1915-33, AL pl. 1934-37)
ML manager, Cardinals, 1925-27; Braves, 1928; Cubs, 1930-32; Browns, 1933-37,'52; Reds, 1952-53,

ML coach, Cubs, '58-59, Mets, 1962

1932 - "Ty Cobb was Hornsby's hero, and this is what he had to say about him: "Of course, I never saw Cobb when I was a kid, because the Tigers didn't ever come to Fort Worth, and I didn't ever get very far from it. But as far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a great hitter, and I guess there never was a greater hitter than Cobb. So he was my hero and, on account of him,the Tigers were my favorite team, and I followed him and the Tigers through the newspapers every day. I first saw him in the spring of 1916, when I was with the Cardinals in training at San Antonio and we went to Waxahachie, where the Tigers trained, to play an exhibition game. I didn't say anything to him and he didn't say anything to me, but I got a thrill out of watching him because in those days he was plenty good. He handled a bat like a billiard-cue, and he was on fire every time he got on the bases. Later I got to know him real well, and to like him as much as I thought I would when I was a kid." (Literary Digest, Jan. 2, 1932, In answer to the question, "Who was your baseball hero?" by Frank Graham) (Also the same article appeared in Baseball Magazine, May, 1931, pp. 347, by Frank Graham)


1961 - "Cobb was the greatest ball player of all time and will never be equaled. Most record books simply talk about his hitting and base stealing. Ty was a tremendous outfielder with a great arm. He was outstanding in everything. Cobb was called a dirty ballplayer because he went into a base with his spikes high but he never hurt anybody. It was his way of playing ball. He was a winner all the time. Ty would do anything to win a ball game, but when he got off the field, he was a perfect gentleman." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 18, 1961)


1962 - "Ty Cobb, who in my opinion is the greatest player of all time, still holds the stolen-base record of 96 he set in 1915, the year I came to the major leagues. Now Cobb--I've played against him in exhibitions and managed against him in the 1921 Winter League in California when he managed the San Francisco Seals and I managed the Los Angeles Angels. He was a helluva competitor. . . He led the American League in stolen bases 6 times. Led the league in batting 12 times. And, as I've said all
through this book, he was the greatest player I ever saw.

Now Babe Ruth. They may have written more about the Babe than about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. All I can say new about Ruth is that he hit for power--not average--and had a lifetime batting average of .342. Dead ball or lively ball, he'd hit 60 home runs if they were pitching him softballs." ( My War With Baseball, by Rogers Hornsby, as told to Bill Surface, 1962, pp. 247) (Author's note: Hornsby died Jan.5, 1963)

"The Cobb-Hornsby story that sicks out most in my mind actually concerns a "spat" between Cobb and Ted Williams. Williams was visting Cobb's home in the offseason and they were naming their all time teams. Williams suggested Hornsby at 2nd base. Cobb strongly disagreed and the arguement got so heated Cobb threw Williams out of his home. The two men, who had been good friends, never spoke again as a result of the argument."

This is what Sports writer Al Stump put in his 1994 book, "Cobb". Well, Ted Williams happened to read it, and put into his own book, "Hitters", that Al Stump was "full of it." Ted claimed that he & Ty stayed pals till Ty's end. And if anyone knew anything about Ted, you could not have kicked him out of your apt. and still been friends. Ted wasn't wired that way. That would have been it. Interestingly, Cochrane, Simmons and Hornsby got a lot of their hellfire on the ballfield by adopting Cobb as their idol young in life.

Ty had a spat with Rogers in 1952. He wrote an article called, "They Don't Play Baseball Anymore", and knocked modern ball. He also said Rogers couldn't catch a popup. All the owners got real pissed, and hire Rogers to write a rebut piece. Rogers was pissed himself and wrote the piece, "They Still Play Baseball, Mr. Cobb". He was so pissed, he gave his All-Time team and pointedly left Ty off. Replaced him with Joe Jackson. A year later, they ran into each other at the Hall of Fame ceremonies. They kissed and made up and Rogers quickly put Ty back on his team.

But that's not the end of the silliness. Ty died July 17, 1961, and in Sept., his autobio by Stump came out. He again repeated that Rogers couldn't catch a popup. I guess Rogers didn't see it, cause he wrote his last book and called Ty the best, and then he died, not knowing Ty had gotten in the last pee in their pissing contest. Ballplayers can be so petty about being knocked in print.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, I see where Hornsby called Cobb a great player. I didn't see anything in your post where Cobb said anything good about Hornsby. Stump was not the only source for either the Williams story or numerous other accounts of Cobb ripping Hornsby.
-- Of course, Cobb not liking Hornsby or the way he played the game doesn't prove anything. Cobb held Ruth in pretty low regard too. It could just be Cobb resented the guys who replaced him as the game's greatest hitter.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

"Bill, I see where Hornsby called Cobb a great player. I didn't see anything in your post where Cobb said anything good about Hornsby. Stump was not the only source for either the Williams story or numerous other accounts of Cobb ripping Hornsby.
-- Of course, Cobb not liking Hornsby or the way he played the game doesn't prove anything. Cobb held Ruth in pretty low regard too. It could just be Cobb resented the guys who replaced him as the game's greatest hitter."

TC said nice things about a lot of players he admired. He called Wagner the greatest player in BB, aroung 1917. He called Eddie Collins the greatest player in the mid 20's, and praised him to the day he (Cobb) died. He called Hornsby the greatest hitter in BB in the very early 20's, and they WERE pals. In fact, Ty helped drive up Rogers stock a lot, when he said that. And Rogers was very appreciative to have his idol laud his hitting. That was how Rogers liked to be stroked. He always praised Gehringer, Joe Jackson, Walter Johnson, Sisler, Speaker, Schalk, Traynor, Jimmy Collins, Cochrane, Dickey, Pete Alexander, Ed Walsh, Simmons, Dykes, and others I can't come up with at the moment.

Ty/Babe: If you've read as much of these 2 as I have, it's so obvious that they were very jealous of each others skills, but could not bring themselves to say so while they were playing. But Cobb envied Babes HR prowess, and Ruth alway believed that Cobb was IT. The ONE. If Ty weren't so messed up competitively, those two would and should of been the best friends in the world. Babe wanted to be his pal, but Cobb wouldn't let him. Too dysfunctional. But it's so obvious that Ty was jealous of Babe's shocking hitting gifts.

Ty revered Wagner, Matty & Big Train above all players, and Speaker, Sisler and Jackson, just behind them, and Connie Mack above all men in the game. He looked up to Connie as a father figure, and Connie revered Ty above all players, past & present, and spoke of him every chance he got. Ty actually wept when Wagner & Connie passed away.

[The Splendid Splinter]

wow... what a thread this has become i really enjoys these matchup that you guys have created... but i've been thinking about these for a long time now but its a little different than your ideas

i started thinking about old players against new players that are playing right now heres a few for you guys...

a couple of USC pitchers
Prior(what he could become or what you think he will become)/Seaver(what he has already done)

great defensive catchers
Pudge/Bench

crazy managers
Pinella/ Stengal?? (or whoever is that old yankees manager who would go crazy all the time, ive just stories about him is why i put him in here)

great 1B of their eras
Helton/Gehrig (this is a no brainer i'm sure... but think about it... look at helton's numbers so far and again i know you can say about coors field but also he is very good away too) i just put this one cuz i think helton is very underrated in our era always in someone's shadow every year but consistently the top 5 maybe top 3 player in the whole league

free swingers
Sosa/Reggie Jackson (just thought i put them in here cuz they are number 1 and 2 for most strikeouts in a career)

slapping singles all day long
suzuki/gwynn (two guys who can just hit flat-out hit) gwynn was the most similar guy i could think of for suzuki if you can think of someone else who is more similar for suzuki, please put it in your post cuz im still learning about the history of the game

[leecemark]

--Ichiro is 30 this season. The odds are he will get worse rather than better. Few players - and virtually no speed based players - are better in their 30s than they were in their 20s. As a Mariners fan I hope you're right. As a baseball analyst I'm fairly certain you're wrong.
--That said, I think Ichiro is a potential hall of Famer. If he can last 10 seasons and post say a .320 BA - even a relatively empty .320 - he is popular and FAMOUS enough for the Hall of Fame. He'd have to get bonus credit for his role as a pioneer of Asian ballplayers and his great years in the Japanese Leagues to make it a reasonable selection, but it could happen. Thats my best case scenario. I fear he will slip under .300 in the next couple years and he would have negative value as a corner outfielder at that point.
--I'm not a huge Gwynn fan, but he posted 7 batting titles to Ichiro's one and IMO Ichiro will be doing good to add even one more along the way. I don't really mean to bash Ichiro too much, he is fun to watch and a usefull guy to have on the team. He just isn't the superstar poeple like to make him out to be.

[ElHalo]

I take Sosa over Reggie easily, but in all other cases give the edge to the older player. And most of them aren't remotely close.

Sosa v. Reggie, Reggie's got the advantage in plate discipline. He drew a lot more walks than Sosa. But in every other category (relative BA, relative SLG, baserunning, defense) Sosa wins easily. Sosa gets the edge.

As to Mize v. Frank Thomas... very interesting debate. Growing up, I always considered Mize to just be Ralph Kiner's foil in the 1947 home run race, but that's probably not fair to Mize. He deserves credit on his own, independently of Kiner.

It really comes down to how much you value defense and baserunning for 1Bmen. In his younger days, Frank Thomas was called "the left handed Ted Williams," and I think that that's a pretty fair assesment if you ignore Frank's 3 truly poor seasons... 1999, 2001, and 2002. Take those 3 seasons away, and Frank's career OPS+ is probably about even with Mickey Mantle and Joe Jackson, in the top 6-7 of all time. Of course, we can't just take those seasons away.

As far as offense... you can argue that Thomas is the second best offensive 1Bman of all time, behind Gehrig. His OWP is second only to Gehrig. His RC/game is 5th, behind Gehrig, Foxx, and two of the three great 19th century 1Bmen, Roger Connor and Dan Brouthers (with Anson being the other one). His OBP is second only to Gehrig, while his SLG trails Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, and McGwire.

Mize, of course, was an excellent hitters as well. But not nearly as excellent as Thomas.

Of course, Thomas has, of late, spent most of his time at DH. Which you can certainly dock points for. And he's not much of a runner.

But the fact remains that, had Thomas maintained his 92-97 production for those three years, or even equalled his current production... he'd be on the short list in the "Greatest Hitter of All Time" argument. Mize, while a great player, can't quite make that claim. And those 3 years don't hurt Thomas THAT much.

I go with the Big Hurt.

[tibber]

--Jackie didn't play his first major league game until he was 28.

well, i didn't know that either. shows how much i really know. :ughh

anyways, here's a few more to ponder:

al kaline or carl yastrzemski (i like yaz, i really do...but i often wonder if he's really a 1st tier HOFer. and plus, i HATE trying to spell his name. also, am i the only one that looks at j.d. drew and sees a parallel with kaline? just asking.)
fergie jenkins or robin roberts (probably a better comparison that jenkins vs. gibson.)
eppa rixey or rube marquard (clash of the borderline pitchers! :laugh but personally i think they both have their merits.)

[ElHalo]

al kaline or carl yastrzemski (i like yaz, i really do...but i often wonder if he's really a 1st tier HOFer. and plus, i HATE trying to spell his name.

Kaline, easy. Kaline was known as an absolutely excellent RF'er, Yaz as an excellent LF'er. Easy edge to Kaline there.

Kaline has a career 134 OPS+, Yaz is at 130.

Kaline's career BA is 36 points over league average; Yaz, 19.

Kaline hit 23 HR/162 games, Yaz hit 22.

Yaz has a black ink advantage, but Kaline has a grey ink advantage.

Basically, they're similar hitters, but Kaline's a little bit better. And Kaline's got a HUGE fielding advantage. Really no comparison.


also, am i the only one that looks at j.d. drew and sees a parallel with kaline? just asking.)

Yes, you're the only one. Drew is comparable to Reggie Sanders. Kaline is comparable to Roberto Clemente. Not close.

[tibber]

i don't mean statistically, i'm talking career path-wise. kaline had a hall of fame career despite being hurt quite often. drew is a 5-tool player who's been great when healthy, but he's never healthy. this year, he finally seems to be healthy and is having a career year. unfourtantley, he's already like 28 and i think he'd need 10 more years of seasons like this to be HOF-caliber. but i think he could do it.

[leecemark]

--By the time Kaline was Drew's age he already had a pretty solid Hall of Fame case. He played his first major league game at 18, was a regular at 19 and won a batting title at 20. He was injured alot in the second half of his career, but he had 8 500 AB seasons, made 7 All Star teams and had five top 10 MVP finishes before his 28th birthday. Drew has never had 500 ABs, made and All Star team or had a single MVP vote. Drew has great talent and may end up having a decent career, but he ain't Al Kaline.

[tibber]

so is it safe to say, leecemark, that'd you take kaline over yaz?

i was considering starting a seperate thread about yaz on the HOF board. i really can't consider him a 1st tier guy. top 2nd tier, yes, but i don't know if he maintained his peak long enough to be 1st tier. from 66-73, he's among the best in the game, but even still he did have some off years in that period. from 74-83 he was just very good. now, i'm not saying he needs to vacate cooperstown. i do like him. i'm just not sure there weren't better guys during his career.

and while i'm at it, what say you all on jenkins vs. roberts and rixey vs. marquard?

[leecemark]

--I'm not sure my saying Kaline is much better than Drew means he is better than Yaz. In fact, I recently had a lengthy debate with ElHalo defending Yaz as a great player. Its a fairly tough call between Yaz and Kaline. At their best, Yaz was definately a better hitter. His 1967 and 1970 seasons were better than Kaline's best year and he won 3 batting titles to Kaline's one.
--However, as you say,Yaz did turn into only a slightly better than average player for pretty much the entire second half of his career. Although Kaline missed quite a bit of time in the second half of his career, he was still a terrific player when healthy. Overall, I'd have to say Kaline was better longer. Kaline was also a better fielder and baserunner. He was arguably the best rightfielder ever and good enough to win a Gold Glove as a centerfielder one year. Yaz was an outstanding LF, but thats not quite as impressive - although Yaz did play CF one year and had well above league average range factors.
--If I have to pick one I guess I'd take Kaline, but I wouldn't feel too bad if I lost a coin flip and had to take Yaz.

[leecemark]

--Roberts is an easy choice over Jenkins. He was the best pitcher in baseball for the first half of the 50s - for my money one of 10-15 best five year runs of any pitcher ever. Jenkins was an outstanding pitcher, but he never stood out from the pack that way. Their careers ended up pretty close, but I'll take great plus average over very good plus good as a career path.
--Rixey over Marquard. Rixey pitched for some lousy teams and is underrated. Marquard pitched for some great ones and is overrated.

[leecemark]

Bill, Clemente might have had the best outfield arm in history, but Kaline's was excellent as well. In the more important element of actually catching fly balls, Kaline had a much better record. Kaline's best 3 years for range he was .76, .67 and .65 putouts per game better than the league average. Clemente's best year wasn't even close to Kaline's third best at .52 better than league. Clemente also made many more errors than Kaline. His fielding percentage was worse than league at .973 while Kaline's was better than league at .986. Roberto was flashier, Al was better.
--It is more difficult to compare Hooper to Kaline. The game was very different then and I think outfield play was less important. There just weren't as many flys to chase as the ball was on the ground most of the time. People must have been impressed by his glove though, he is by far the worst hitting outfielder in the Hall of Fame.

[leecemark]

--So we agree Kaline was better than Clemente? Although now that I think about it, that actually wasn't the question.

--How about Kaline vs Tony Gwynn?

[tibber]

offensively or defensively? that's another subject i've been meaning to discuss in a thread: what's better, a guy who hits around .350 but has no power, or a guy who hits around .290 but with better power?

[leecemark]

--as an overall player.
--I guess that depends how much more power. A guy who hits 290 with 40 HR I'd take over one who hit .350 with 5, everything else being equal. 290 with 25 or .350 with 20 changes the equation. I remember in the late 70s most of my friends thought Rod Carew was the best hitter in the AL, but I was for Jim Rice. For their careers it turned out Carew was the right answer, but looking at just the back half of the 70s (or from 75 on for that matter) I still think Rice was a more valuable hitter.

[Bill Burgess]

Was Kaline better than Clemente? Don't know. I love Clemente, and like Kaline an awful lot, but that doesn't mean he wasn't as good.

Kaline/Gwynn? Hmm. Again, I like both of them, as they were both MY type of player, that I like a lot. Fielded well, didn't strike out often, ran fine. I guess I'd take Gwynn because of his better hitting. I would usually give up fielding for hitting in a normal tradeoff, unless something unusual was involved. I guess this isn't a very satisfying, specific, defining response. But it's the best I can do this moment.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Are you sure Gwynn was the better hitter? He had the higher BA for sure and thats true even when you adjust for era, although not by quite as much as it appears at first glance. Kaline had alot more power and was much more willing to take a walk (although I know you don't value that so much). Their OPS+ is nearly the same, Kaline leading by 2 points and doing it over better than two full seasons worth of plate appearances. Gwynn was a good fielder, but not nearly as good as Kaline. Gwynn stole more bases, but Kaline was an excellent baserunner as well. I'd take Kaline, but maybe only because he is a Tiger icon.
--The debate is still open if anybody else would like to weigh in.

[ElHalo]

I'd probably take Gwynn over Kaline, though it'd be a tough choice. The mere fact that Gwynn and Kaline have a comparable OPS+, despite the fact that Kaline was a HR hitter and Gwynn wasn't and Kaline had great plate discipline and Gwynn didn't, really shows just how much better of a contact hitter Gwynn was. Kaline's a superior fielder, but Tony was no slouch. Kaline had a ring, which Tony didn't, so that's a knocky on Gwynn. But Tony is the only player in the career top 30 for BA (not counting Todd Helton) who started his career after WWII. He's a much better hitter than Kaline... but it's still close. Very close.

[leecemark]

--I suppose if we are defining best hitter as the person gets a hit more frequently, then Gwynn does merit the nod over Kaline as a hitter. Of course, we must also give the nod to Cobb over Ruth - or for that matter, when put into context, Gwynn over Ruth by that definition. The question I really meant to ask is "are you sure Gwynn is the better offensive player than Kaline"? For future reference, when I say someone is a better hitter I mean to say a biggger offensive contributor. BA is just one component, and not the largest one, for me when I think of "hitting".

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

Obviously. I wasn't just trying to say "Gwynn had a better BA, therefore he's a better hitter."

OPS+, as a general matter, gives an advantage to power hitters who hit a lot of home runs and get a lot of walks. Slap hitters will generally have a much lower OPS+, because of how a HR counts the same as 4 singles in SLG, and how BB's count the same as H's in OBP. Add it together, and guys like Gwynn are at an automatic disadvantage in OPS+... one of the reasons why Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb have such lower OPS+'s than you'd expect from 2 of the greatest hitters ever.

Now, Kaline was a guy who walked a lot, and hit a lot of homers. Gwynn was neither. Still, Gwynn's OPS+ is only 2 points lower than Kaline's. Understanding that hitters like Gwynn are at a mathematical disadvantage in OPS+ when compared with hitters like Kaline, the fact that their OPS+'s are similar shows that Gwynn was a MUCH better contact hitter than Kaline, far and away. The fact that OPS+ gives preference to Kaline style hitters over Gwynn style hitters, and that Gwynn still was almost equal to Kaline in that stat, shows that Gwynn was a superior hitter. Even with the deck stacked against him, he comes out about even.

Kaline was better at hitting home runs (though he never topped 30) and drawing walks (though he never topped 85). But Gwynn's greater contact hitting was so much greater than Kaline's as to cancel out those disadvantages, and more than give the edge to Gwynn.

[Bill Burgess]

Guys,

Today is Sunday, and all day long, ESPN will show the novelty baseball TV show, "Home Run Derby". It's showing the sluggers from the late 1950's - early 60's. It's fun to see these guys.

Bill Burgess

[tibber]

just to give it a bump, here's a few more to chew on:

tommy mccarthy or chick hafey
jesse haines or lew burdette (taking era into consideration)
yaz or dave winfield
pete incavila or dave kingman

[leecemark]

--Hafey was a fairly big star for several years, McCarthy never was.
--For all the grief Haines gets he was probably better than Burdette.
--Yaz had a 6 year strech were he was one of the 3-4 best players in the AL and one where he was the best player in baseball. Winfield neber rose quite as high.
--Kingman and Incavilia were the same type player, but Kingman was the best of that type.
--I'd say we are seriously pushing the concept of "Titan" when I have to pick Hafey, Haines and Kingman.

--Williams or Bonds
--Snider or Griffey
--Banks or Ripken

[Bill Burgess]

Bonds over Williams: Easiest choice. Bonds can hit as well, out run him and out field him. Great player over great hitter.

Griffey over Snider: Very great player over excellent player. Snider fielded very well, Griffey is better, Duke hit for excellent power, but Ken out-distanced him there also.

Banks over Ripken: Ernie was great for a brief period, while Cal never rose to greatnest, except for a very brief moment early on where he hit for 2 seasons, and then lost his bat. Cal is mostly longevity and great credit to game.

Also like Yaz over Winfield. Dave is very good, but Yaz was actually great for a 5 yr. peak, esp. '67.

Bill Burgess

[tibber]

in fairness though, haines, hafey and mccarthy are HOFers...and would you have prefered kingman vs. greg luzinski? :laugh

but seriously, you're right. but it is late. i'll try harder tomorrow.

[Bill Burgess]

Urban Shocker/ Carl Mays

After commentery, does anyone feel that either one was a Hall of Fame pitcher?

Bill Burgess

[tibber]

i'm almost inclined to vote for shocker since he had arguably the coolest name in baseball history. :laugh but overall, i'd pick mays. hall of famers? i dunno. maybe. but there are probably better pitchers not in.

alright everybody, this is me, trying harder:

dazzy vance or hal newhouser
don drysdale or jim bunning
jim palmer or bob gibson
bob lemon or bob feller

[leecemark]

--Thats the spirit Tibber. Feller over Lemon is the only easy one.
--I've got Gibson and Palmer rated 19 and 20, with the edge to Gibson. Gibson always looked much more impressive, but you could certianly make a case that Palmer actually achieved more over the course of their careers.
-- By amazing coincidence I've also got Newhouser and Vance only one spot apart at 27 and 28. Newhouser has the slight edge, although that may be just Tigers bias. While Prince Hal was as good as Koufax in his prime years, you've got to discount that somewhat since 2 of those years were 1944-45. Vance didn't make the majors until he was 30 and still might have been the bets pitcher of the 20s. Not quite as dominant as Newhouser, but great a little longer.
--Bunning and Drysdale are almost as close at 31 and 33. When Bunning was first elected to the Hall, I thought it was kind of a mistake. The more I look at his numbers the better I like him though. He was a great pitcher who had some extraodinary bad luck in his support.

--Wes Ferrell vs Bob Lemon

[Bill Burgess]

Vance over Newhouser: Power wins.
Drysdale over Bunning: Mean wins.
Gibson over Palmer: Mean wins again, but I could make the opposite case here.
Feller over Lemon: Power wins once more.

Only Gibson/Palmer were close.

Bill Burgess

[tibber]

gotta go with lemmon. more wins, more strikeouts, more innings, better ERA.

tommy john or jim kaat (i ask because my own opinion on this changed recently...)
steve garvey or tony perez
lou whitaker or nellie fox

[leecemark]

--Tibber, you are confused about who had more wins, innings and K's between Bob Feller and Bob Lemon. Feller won 55 more games, pitched 1,000 more innings and had twice as many strike outs as Lemon. Feller led the league in wins 6 times and IP and K five each, despite missing 4 years to WWII midway thru his peak. His era wasn't quite as good as you might like, but he was an all time great and clearly better than Lemon.

[tibber]

i was talking about lemon/ferrell, not lemon/feller. i probably should've specified that, sorry.

anyway, my new three still stand if you care to take a shot.

[leecemark]

--How embarassing, Ferrell-Lemon was my match-up and I totally forgot about it.

--I'll give Tommy John a slight edge over Jim Kaat. They are pretty close to the same player though. John has 2 advantages for me - he had a 2nd place finish in the Cy voting once in each league and he had a very good post-season record. Not big things, but tie breakers. What was your change of view on these two?

--I'll take Perez over Garvey for their careers, although I wouldn't argue too hard for Tony over Steve at their peaks.

--The numbers favor Whitaker over Fox and as a Tiger fan I'd be inclined to pick him. I hesitate because Fox was much more highly regarded by his peers. Fox had 6 top ten finishes in the MVP voting, winning one, while Whitaker had one 8th place finish. That suggests Fox was better than his numbers. Anybody old enough to remember Fox wany to make the call here? First hand observer or not, I'll leave that call for the next poster.

[tibber]

if you had asked me maybe three months ago with regards to "iron man 3", as i'll call them, i'd have taken blyleven/kaat/john, in that order. but now that i look at the numbers, i'm not so sure john wasn't the better pitcher. more wins, higher win %, better ERA, and not as prone to giving up the long-ball (although i think that stat is probably overrated in pitchers...i'm sure you'd agree, since robin roberts, who you supported earlier, gave up more than anybody.) plus, while kaat may have better numbers from year to year, i think john was more consistant. i'd still take bly before both of them i think.

i'd chime in on why i'd take fox over whitaker, but i myself wasn't old enough to have seen him, so i'll wait for someone else...

[tibber]

well, since no one else has, let me just say that they (fox and whitaker) have a lot in common: three gold gloves, important pieces to great teams, and both got on base a lot. lou did have much more power and and a much higher OPS+, but nellie had more hits, a better average, had 8 top 10 BA finishes, and if you care about that sort of thing, has much higher gray and black ink scores, as well as a much higher HOF monitor score. but, all that said, i do believe lou belongs in the hall.

now, allow me to add a few more names to the debate:

goose gossage or lee smith
dan quisenberry or bruce sutter
joe torre or ken boyer
phil neikro or wilbur wood

[tibber]

no takers? none?

[Captain Cold Nose]

no takers? none?

Ok, I'll bite, although I will give nowhere as concise an answer as the ones who've been answering regularly.

Gossage over Smith. More dominant in his best seasons than Smith was in his.

Sutter over Quisenberry. Longer career, and just as good when Quiz was at his peak.

Niekro over Wood, because he was able to do it for a lot longer. It was a treat to watch him in 1984.

I admit, I need to research Boyer vs. Torre at greater length.

Ken Singleton or Rusty Staub?

[tibber]

i'll take le grande orange for his longevity, although a case could be made for singleton as being better overall.

billy williams or willie stargell?
vic power or bill white?

[leecemark]

--Stargell was a significantly better hitter than Williams. Its only the difference between Forbes and Wrigley that make the numbers close. Williams was perhaps a little better on the bases and in LF, but neither is going to get alot of bonus points for fielding or running. Williams was a solid citizen, but Stargell was one of the strongest and most positive clubhouse guys ever. Stargell is a pretty easy selection.
--White and Power were both slick fielding firstbasemen who only had a few years where they hit as well as you'd like from that position. White had more power and his good years were a little more valuable as a result. I'll take White.

--McCovey vs Killebrew
--Your winner vs Frank Thomas

[ElHalo]

For McCovey v. Killebrew... I gotta go with Killebrew, basically just because neither of them was any good at anything except hitting home runs and drawing walks, and Killebrew was significantly better than McCovey at both. McCovey was a bit better average hitter, but not really enough to make a huge difference.

And the only way Frank Thomas doesn't completely dominate Killebrew (or McCovey, for that matter) is if you take a whole lot of points away from him for DH'ing... and if we're comparing a DH to a 2Bman, that's a huge deal, but comparing a 1B/DH to some mediocre fielding 1Bmen... I don't think it's all that big a deal.

Thomas blows away Killebrew in almost every conceivable hitting category. To wit:

RelBA: Thomas 46 points better
RelOBP: Thomas 45 points better
RelSLG: Thomas 21 points better
OPS+: Thomas 19 points better
H/162: Thomas 40 better
R/162: Thomas 25 better
RBI/162: Thomas 17 better
BB/162: Thomas 17 better
2B/162: Thomas 18 better
HR/162: Killebrew 1 better

So Thomas dominates every offensive category except HR rate, which Killebrew leads by one.

As I said... unless you put a tremendous amount of weight on the fact that Thomas played all those games at DH, there's no contest.

[tibber]

well, i had a reply but got disconnected. i was going to say mccovey over killebrew, easy. aside from homers, stretch is better in every catergory.

ralph kiner or dick allen?

[leecemark]

--Thats a tough one. Allen was far more talented than Kiner - and pretty much everybody else but the all time greats. Both got the vast majority of their value with their bat and Allen had a better OPS+ over a longer career. If you were going to give one extra credit for fielding or running, it would have to be Allen. Dick could run and play decent defense when he felt like it. Kiner was not a popular player and never played for a winner, but Allen was a much bigger clubhouse problem and had trouble even sticking with a team.
--There's plenty of reason to pick Allen, but I'll go with Kiner anyway. He concentrated his good years together better than Allen and was more consistenty great for 6-7 years, while Allen's great years were more removed from each other. You had a little better idea what to expect from Kiner.
--Gabby Hartnett vs Carleton Fisk

[PumpsieGreen]

Fisk. I know people don't rank overall performance above peak, but you simply cannot deny Fisk's career value. He's not with Berra and Bench, but he's just an echelon lower.

Dave Parker vs. Jim Rice

[leecemark]

--Long time no post Pumpsie. Welcome back.

--This ones not by the numbers, but Rice was a much scarier hitter at his peak than Parker. Parker might have been a better all around player, but I'll take Rice.

--Al Oliver vs Dave Parker

[tibber]

yeah pumpsie, where have you been?

and i'll take cobra, but it's close. much closer, in fact, than i expected it to be upon looking up their career numbers. oliver is right up there with dave in most catergories.

joe mcginnity or addie joss?

[Bill Burgess]

I'll take Joss.

Welcome back, Pumpsie baby! Come estas, ustedes?

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Although Joss had the better era, McGinnity pitched 50% more innings and won 50% more games. He had back to back 400 IP 30 win season and outpitched Mathewson for the 1904 Giants pennant winner. I'd take Ironman over Addie.

--Paul Waner or Roberto Clemente

[tibber]

first of all, re: mcginnity: i referenced this in a thread i have going in on the HOF board, but can anyone think of a guy who accomplished more in just 10 big league seasons than he did? i can't.

as for the choice at hand, i want to pick clemente, i really do. but the numbers favor waner and at his peak i think he was probably better.

carl hubbell or whitey ford?

[ElHalo]

Gimme Big Poison over Clemente. Clemente's got an edge in fielding and HR hitting, but Waner beats him out in everything else, and the BA/OBP edge is LARGE.

Kirby Puckett or Bernie Williams? This one's a lot closer than it sounds on first blush; take a look at the numbers.

[leecemark]

--King Carl was clearly better than Whitey.

[ElHalo]

first of all, re: mcginnity: i referenced this in a thread i have going in on the HOF board, but can anyone think of a guy who accomplished more in just 10 big league seasons than he did?

Yeah. Ralph Kiner, Amos Rusie, Addie Joss, Albert Belle...

[PumpsieGreen]

I just want to say a few things.

ElHalo,
Couldn't agree more. Kiner was a powerhouse in his ten seasons, as well as Belle. Joss and Rusie were great pitchers for their eras, and who knows what they could have done playing longer. No offense to Mcginnity, who was a very good player, but all four surpass him.

leecemark,
Again, I agree with you as well. I call Hubbell one of my top 12 pitchers(in that area) of all time. Can't say the same for Whitey Ford, although he was a great pitcher.

Thanks,
Pumpsie

[PumpsieGreen]

Oops, forgot something:

Alex Rodriguez vs. Honus Wagner
Stan Musial vs. Rogers Hornsby
Babe Ruth vs. Ty Cobb

[ElHalo]

--King Carl was clearly better than Whitey.

I have Carl ranked one or two spots ahead of Whitey on my all time list, but it's not that big of a difference between the two.

Whitey had a better ERA+, Whitey had a better winning percentage (ordinarily, I don't bring that up for Ford... but Hubbell's Giants were no pushovers, so I can compare the two), Whitey had a better K rate, Whitey had a better BAA... Carl's WHIP rates are better because he walked a lot fewer guys, but they're pretty evenly matched with each other. I give a slight edge to Carl, but it's not huge.

If you want to look at the comparative innings they pitched... remember that Stengle had a very peculiar, for the time, pitching usage pattern, and he held Ford back to pitch against the opponents' best guys a lot, so his innings totals are lower... but he was a horse, just check out what happened to his IP once Houk became manager; Whitey started leading the league in IP.

Hubbell's probably better than Ford, a bit, but they both fall into the top 10-15 pitchers of all time.

[tibber]

i probably should've specified pitchers, in which case i'd still take mcginnity over the ones mentioned, but you are right about ralph kiner. i used to consider him one of the worst hall of famers. i was ignorant back then.

as of right now kirby's got the better numbers over bernie, but if he sticks around i don't see why that wouldn't change.

at this stage, honus has better numbers than a-rod. that may change, who knows.
i'd take stan the man over just about anybody.
cobb's got ruth beat except in power. i'll take ty.

[Bill Burgess]

Great face-offs here. But a tad light weight.


Wagner over A-Rod. We actually had an entire thread devoted to that one. If you want to go back around 10 pages. Wagner was the best hitter/fielder/runner in the NL from around 1900-10.

Hornsby over Stan. Hitting was definitely superior, but Rogers' fielding was very good, if flawed also. So for positional importance AND fielding, Rajah. His concentrated peak/fielding trumps The Man's overall excellence/longevity case.

Ty over Babe. If I need explain myself on this one, someone's not been paying attention. No nappin' in school. Held Babe to parity in batter's box, his defense/running game pushed his case over the top. Running game definitely tipped the case. Understood I'm in VERY DEFINITE minority dissent here in the house.

Clemente over Big Poison. Like Poison, like Roberto more. More power, more value, even considering lower BA. Power wins in this particular case, but not necessarily in all. Must be case by case. Always. I'm not being hypocrite.

Kiner/Killebrew
Mays/Speaker
Koufax/Grove/Waddell

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Kiner/Killebrew
Mays/Speaker
Koufax/Grove/Waddell

Bill Burgess

Kiner over Killebrew, not remotely close. (I might be in the minority, but Kiner's solidly in my top 30 position players of all time... Killebrew doesn't crack the top 50)

Mays over Speaker, but very very very very close.

Throwing Grove into the mix makes the last one easy... it's him. But Koufax/Waddell could be a very interesting argument.

[leecemark]

--Grove had almost the COMBINED wins as Koufax and Waddell and still ended up with a better career ERA+.
--Agree with Mays over Speaker, although I've been edging Tris up my charts latey.
--Killebrew's best was as good or better than Kiner and he did it much longer. I agree its not close, but see it the opposite way.
--To go back one, I always used to think Stan Musial was no better than average defensively. I gave him the edge over Williams of course, but not a huge one. Looking into it deeper, I see he played over 300 games in CF and 700 in RF in addition to his 1,000 at 1B and 900 in LF. It appears he was both a good enough player and a good enough team player to help the Cards wherever they needed him. He looks like he was a very good baserunner too. Hornsby has the edge as a hitter, but Musial was great too and lasted much longer. As an all around player, I give Stan the edge.
--Joe Cronin vs Cal Ripken
--Arky Vaughn vs Robin Yount
--Luke Appling vs Derek Jeter

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

I could see the longevity argument for Killebrew, but at his best he was nowhere near as good as Kiner at his best.

Kiner's 3 best OPS+ seasons: 184, 184, 173
Killebrew's 3 best: 179, 174, 161

Kiner's 3 best BA seasons: .313, .310, .309
Killebrew's 3 best BA seasons: .288, .281, .276

Kiner's 3 best OBP seasons: .452, .432, .417
Killebrew's 3 best OBP seasons: .427, .411, .405

Kiner's 3 best SLG seasons: .658, .639, .627
Killebrew's 3 best SLG seasons: .606, .584, .558

Kiner's 3 best R seasons: 124, 118, 116
Killebrew's 3 best R seasons: 106, 105, 98

Kiner's 3 best RBI seasons: 127, 127, 123
Killebrew's 3 best RBI seasons: 140, 126, 122

Kiner's 3 best HR seasons: 54, 51, 47
Killebrew's 3 best HR seasons: 49, 49, 48

So of all of those categories... Killebrew had a better top RBI season, and a better third best HR seasons. Kiner was better in EVERYTHING else.

Kiner had more HR titles, more SLG titles, more OPS titles, and the same number of OBP titles as Killebrew... in less than half as many seasons. He had more black ink than Killebrew... in 12 fewer years.

You can make the argument that Killebrew's longevity wins out. But there's no way, no how, no chance that Killebrew's best was even close to Kiner's best.

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

You have just won the Bill Burgess Speed w/excellence Award. I'm never seen a faster, better done post than you did on Kiner/Killebrew. I had posted it, went away to do batter on other posts, and when I next looked, you had finished an entire well-composed stat sheet on those 2. I . . . WAS . . . AMAZED! How you threw that one together in lickedy split is a matter for the ages to ponder.

Hearty handshake on that one, my man. Very well done. Whew. I'll never be faster than you. Now if I can only get you to think like me . . .

Bill Burgess

You took exactly 43 minutes. A new record for a good, extended stat post.

[leecemark]

--ElHalo, except for OPS+ there is an obvious flaw in all the numbers you list. Killebrew played in a much more difficult offensive enviroment than Kiner. Harmon played twice as long, ending up only 5 points less in OPS+ and obviously much greater counting numbers. Although Killebrew didn't have alot of defensive value, he had more than Kiner. I'll stick with Harmon.

[ElHalo]

--ElHalo, except for OPS+ there is an obvious flaw in all the numbers you list. Killebrew played in a much more difficult offensive enviroment than Kiner. Harmon played twice as long, ending up only 5 points less in OPS+ and obviously much greater counting numbers. Although Killebrew didn't have alot of defensive value, he had more than Kiner. I'll stick with Harmon.

Kiner's black ink totals have nothing to do with the offensive era he played in.

I don't know, I really just don't see this one... I've always had the understanding that Kiner's maybe two levels down from the greatest of the greats, a step below the Joe DiMaggio's and Hank Aaron's of the world, on a par with guys like Mel Ott and Johnny Mize. I've always thought of Killebrew as a poor man's Cecil Fielder. To each his own, I guess.

[tibber]

--Joe Cronin vs Cal Ripken
--Arky Vaughn vs Robin Yount
--Luke Appling vs Derek Jeter

it's close, but i'll take cronin. but it's always irked me to see people say that the games played streak was the only thing cal accomplished in his career.
yount lasted longer, and he's always been a favorite of mine, but vaughn has better numbers.
i've always felt that luke appling is really underrated, but jeter does have the better numbers. appling is much better defensively though.

so, my turn:

yaz or clemente

[Bill Burgess]

Joe Cronin vs Cal Ripken
--Arky Vaughn vs Robin Yount
--Luke Appling vs Derek Jeter

Ripken over Cronin. Joe hit a lot better but Cal fielded better, and hit for 2 yrs. before he lost his touch at the plate.

Robin over Arky. Arky had very good hitting stats in his day. Very good, but so did Robin and Robin lasted longer. Of course Arky never had the DH to help him hold on.

Derek over Luke. Luke never impressed me cause he couldn't hit. Strickly fielding players have never been high on my "Oh Wow" list. Schalk, Marty Marion? I NEED hitting. Derek can hit and I don't discount that he is still young enough to keep improving his fielding.

Clemente over Yaz. Two of my favorites. Real tough. I like Clemente a little more. Both great in my eyes.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Yaz had alot more power and alot better strike zone judgement than Clemente. Although his career average ended up lower than Clemente's, that was mostly because he played forever (and admittedly at a much lower level later), while Roberto's career ended suddenly and before he experienced serious decline. Yaz won 3 batting titles of his own in the 60s. Roberto was an excellent RF which gives him more credit than Yaz being an excelent LF, but that not enough to make up the difference. I'll take Yaz.

--Ernie Banks vs A-Rod

[Bill Burgess]

A-Rod over Ernie. Not particularly close. Ernie showed that a skinny guy could pop out them HRs. And that a black guy could handle SS. No one remembered Pop Lloyd. Ernie had great power, A-Rod had more.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, I think you're selling Appling a little short. He had no power, thats true, but he hit .310 lifetime and had excellent plate discipline as well. His OPS+ of 129 is excellent for a SS and he did it for a long time. His defensive rep is more good than great, but he could still handle playing the spot regularly into his 40s. Thats says plenty to me. I've got Appling 8th on my list of SS and think Jeter still has lots of work to do to catch him. I think Appling is one of the most underrated Hall of Famers.

[tibber]

uh, bill, appling had 2749 hits, a .310 BA, won two batting titles and had six other top 10 finishes. he hardly fits into the "good field no hit" catergory. it's always puzzled me when people put aparico and ozzie smith in that catergory too when they had 2677 hits and 2460 hits respectively. they weren't great with the bat but they weren't mark belanger either.

or, you can just go with what mark said at almost the same time as me. :laugh

boog powell or frank howard

[leecemark]

--ElHalo, one last comment on Kiner-Killebrew. They were actually very similar type and quality hitters. Kiner has a small edge in OPS+ (148-143), but Killebrew was at that quality of production for twice as long. To me that small of a difference in rate is insignificant in comparison to their career accomplishments.
--However, I've argued hard against Kiner in several threads recently and want to make it clear that I agree he was a great hitter for 6-7 years. He concentrated those great years in a short enough period to make them more valuable than they would have been spread out (which was why I picked him over Dick Allen earlier today). For me though whenever the quality is relatively close, I look to quantity. If that gap is much more significant (as with Yaz and Killebrew) than the rate difference I'll always go with the guy who did it longer.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

I'm a little perplexed. You correctly percieve that I'm a "hit or miss" kind of fan, and you scold me. Then, when I try to establish a righteous measuring system, such as: "I require hitting of my guys", you scold me again for "too much order".

There are plenty of players somewhere in the middle that I like, such as Johnny Mize, Big Klu, Yount, Trammel, Yaz, Molitor, Sandberg, Ashburn, Billy Williams, Gehringer, Frisch, Wheat, Roush, Simmons, etc. who I admire greatly, have in my Hall. And they are not super-stars, not a Ted Williams at the plate.

Just good, solid, all-around players, who did most of the skills with more than good skill. It's just that Luke Appling wasn't one of them, in that category, IMHO. That doesn't mean that Luke wasn't a very good player who helped his team win a lot. I just believe, rightly or wrongly, that Derek comes to the table a little better equipped to wage baseball.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

I understand what you're saying. I think that where we're differing here is on the quality component.

Talking about peak value in terms of hitting, strictly leaving fielding and other factors out of it... I think we can agree that, in a ballpark sense, Killebrew's peak value is roughly equivalent to McCovey's value, or Reggie's, or Cecil Fielder's (very, very, very short) peak value (note, just in a ballpark sense, not exactly, of course)... while I'd say that Ralph Kiner's peak value was roughly equivalent to Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, or Hank Greeenberg's peaks...

And it's just my opinion that ten years of Stan Musial is more valuable than 20 years of Cecil Fielder.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark/tibber,

Actually, I hadn't looked up Luke Appling in a long time, and had forgotten that he had won 2 batting titles. If I ever knew it. So that does change things for me. He now reminds me a little of Richie Ashburn, whom I happen to like. 2 Batting titles, great fielder, ran somewhat.

So I am revising my assessment of Luke Appling's hitting abilities. I had indeed categorized him as great glove/no hit. So I must thank you both for bringing a player to my attention who I had unfairly underrated offensively. Thanks, guys. Good heads up!

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--My pleasure. Appling is one of the players LOTS of people forget about. I think the image most people of him is as a guy with no power who amazingly hit a HR at 70 in an old timers game. Nobody remembers that he was a terrific ballplayer for a long time. Probably because he played for the White Sox in their long, bleak period between the Black and GoGo Sox. He was their only really good player for years.

[tibber]

since it hasn't been answered: boog powell or frank howard? and while i'm at it, enos slaughter or lloyd waner (i know it's not a great matchup but i find enos to be underrated, and lloyd is the closest comparison i can think of. in fact, i think that if he had stayed in st. louis, he'd have gotten in the hall much easier.)

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like to offer up a clash with a bit of a twist.

Mays/Ashburn, but for defense ONLY. No offense considered here. The very famous Mr. Mays, and the all but forgotten Mr. Ashburn, who needed many decades to get to Cooperstown, just before he died. At least he lived long enough to see his induction.

Remember now. Defense ONLY. This ought to be good.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Howard over Powell. Frank Howard was a monster for several years for the Senators when they had nobody in the lineup around him. Before that he was playing in Dodger Stadium and the same conditions that allowed Koufax to shine killed a big swinger like Howard.
--Slaughter is in the back half of the Hall, but Waner should slink out the back door. An OFer who records a below league average OPS+ shouldn't be allowed in even with a ticket.

--Lou Brock vs Bob Johnson

[tibber]

I'd like to offer up a clash with a bit of a twist.

Mays/Ashburn, but for defense ONLY. No offense considered here. The very famous Mr. Mays, and the all but forgotten Mr. Ashburn, who needed many decades to get to Cooperstown, just before he died. At least he lived long enough to see his induction.

Remember now. Defense ONLY. This ought to be good.

Bill Burgess

edit: originally i picked mays. but upon closer inspection, i'd have to take ashburn when both were in their prime.

bob johnson is really underrated. so underrated that until i looked him up just now, i'd forgotten who he was! he seems to have a solid HOF case. he couldn't run like lou but he was probably a better hitter.

since i very nearly jumped the shark with the slaughter/waner matchup, i'll stop for the night and try again tomorrow...

[ElHalo]

bob johnson is really underrated. so underrated that until i looked him up just now, i'd forgotten who he was! he seems to have a solid HOF case. he couldn't run like lou but he was probably a better hitter.


I actually said those exact words in a discussion with Mark the other day... "If you were going to pick a 'best guy that NOBODY has ever heard of before", wouldn't it have to be Bob Johnson?

Maybe it's just his generic name... he's no "Urban Shocker"... but EVERYBODY forgets about him.

Name another career .296/.393/.506 hitter who averaged 108 R, 25 HR, and 112 RBI per 162 games with a decently slick outfield glove... who even the diehard diehards have to look up to remember.

[Bill Burgess]

Am I disappointed! So few tackled Mays/Ashburn, Defense only! C'mon guys! Where's ElHalo, RuthMayBonds, Dave Kent when we need them?!

And when you're done with those two, how about pitting the winner vs. Carey?

And here are 2 more goodies.

Brooks Robinsosn/Billy Cox; Defense only.
Collins/Lajoie/Gehringer/Sandberg; Defense only.

Perhaps I'm going too far. I'll pause for would-be statmasters to catch up.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

That's the thing, Bill... defense is hard to quantify, so once you get past the fact that Ashburn and Mays both had a reputation for excellent defense, there's not a whole lot of places to go... defense is a pretty subjective matter.

As far as the second basemen go, I'd probably go with Gehringer... people seem to have been more amazed by his glove than his bat, and his bat was pretty stellar.

[leecemark]

--Bill, as ElHalo says even the dedicated stat men don't have as much certainty about defensive numbers as offensive numbers. Too many variables to draw definative conclusions. The numbers say Ashburn has MUCH better range than either Mays or Carey. Richie had 8 seasons where he handling an average of a ball or more a game more than the average CF. Willie had one and Max none. The thing is the Phillies had an extreme flyball staff in the 50s (Roberts 300+ IP for starters) and the Phillies have a history of big PO numbers for Cfers. Ashburn might have had better range than Mays, but I doubt it was my that huge a margin. Mays definately had alot better arm. I'm inclined to guess Mays was actually slightly better than either Ahburn or Carey defensively, but I wouldn't be the house on it.
--I am much more confident in taking Brooks Robinson over Billy Cox.
--The stats (or at least Total Baseball's version) say Lajoie was far and away the best secondbaseman of the group you list. Only Maz looks better by the numbers. However, while Maz has the rep to match his numbers, Lajoie was better known as an offensive player. Secondbase wasn't the defensive posiiton then that it is now (the DP wasn't a big factor). I think any of the four might well have been the best defender of the group. I rate them all equally - as very, very good but not as great as McPhee, Gordon or Maz.

Joe Gordon vs Bobby Doerr
--Winner vs Bobby Grich

[Bill Burgess]

Alright then guys. But I'm disappointed. I know that TB has a formula to rank defensive stats, and even assign "Fielding Runs", per yr. They even go so far as to assign negative numbers often per yr. I can only guess that that means when someone falls below an arbitrarily assigned value of average replacement value. Which does sound very odd. But what other theory could account for assigning negative numbers.

TB also awards hypothetical GG awards, and RMB has been working on HIS OWN hypothetical GG awards. So I had assumed that the evolution of defensive stats had come further than it has. I was also trying to give ElHalo, RMB, and Dave Kent, the chance to show off their defensive stat chops. Man, am I sad now. I had prepared so cool faceoffs on defense. Now, all that prepwork has been wasted.

I had so wanted to show the world how great Ashburn's glove had been. By all rights, Ashburn should never have had better range than Willie from '51-57, because the Polo Grounds were SO cavernous in their OF territory. Should have allowed Willie to snag many more flyballs than OFers in smaller ballparks. Willie's range should have been so far off the charts it wasn't funny. But I believe that Ashburn's predacessor in Connie Mack stadium also had phenomenal PO and range factors. Or am I not remembering right?

Is TB accurate in ranking Lajoie so high up in the Lifetime TPW - Batters. They have him down as 4th all-time. What they used to call Total Player Rating has been dropped. TB no longer ranks anyone for all around performance, except by 150/g.

Now they list these categories:

Total Player Wins/150g,
Win Shares - Batters,
Total Player Wins - Batters.

Total Baseball, 8th ed., pp. 2448, now lists ,
Total Player Wins - Batters, by lifetime thusly:

1. Ruth
2. Bonds
3. Wagner
4. Lajoie
5. Williams
6. Cobb
7. Mays
8. Collins
9. Hornsby
10. Aaron
11. Schmidt
12. Speaker
13. Mantle
14. Musial
15. Morgan
16. Gehrig
17. Ott
18. F. Robinson
19. Henderson
20. Foxx
21. Bobby Grich !

Now bear in mind, the above is for offense ONLY. Collins over Hornsby/Gehrig!? Morgan over Gehrig/Foxx!?

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but either TB is crazy or I am. Lajoie & Collins, are each about 6-7 places too high, and Morgan, Ott, Robinson, Henderson are NOT top 20 batters, and Grich at 21 HAS to be a typo or their book is worthless garbage. And Cobb at 6th as a hitter, UNDER Wagner/Lajoie, well, you know what I think about that.

Is it me? Am I delutional? Or has the stat man at TB lost it? Pete Palmer, I hear is gone.

Here is another stat anomaly I've noticed in the new TB. On page 2447, they list the all-time leaders in Fielding Wins thusly:

1. Lajoie
2. McPhee
3. Tinker !
4. Wagner
6. Maz
7. O. Smith
8. Frisch
10. Maranville
11. Bancroft
14. Rizzuto
15. Concepcion
16. Belanger

Has a pattern emerged here. All middle IFs. So it seems that they are rating DPs with a premium numerical value which skews things.

Lastly, the best for last. In their player evaluations, at the extreme right side of the page, their last 2 stats are Wins Shares, for the season, and Total Player Wins. Now I guess both stats are supposed to give that players TOTAL Value for that season. But both those 2 numbers are so different from each other as to render their meaning, meaningless.

For example, for Cobb, pp. 1111, Ty wins 6 Win Shares titles, but only 1 TPW titles. So, TB is now at war with itself. It's stats are truly meaningless for me. Does anyone else have an interpretation of this seeming contradiction? How can such apparent contradictions co-exist side by side?

At the end of the day, I feel that they have so massacred defensive stats, that they need to start all over again. They have skewed their entire presentation of player stats.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, TB assigns negative stats for being below the average player by their system. The average player standard is much higher than replacement level. They also use a weighting system which has been rejected by most newer defensive statisical formulas and don't adjust for opportunity (ground ball/fly ball pitchers, park size, astroturf, etc). There are many players who TB lists as having negative value who have very good defensive reputations and show up as good defenders by other systems. As an example, they list Joe Morgan as a below - some years far below - average defender. While I can agree he wasn't quite as good as his GGs would suggest, it is silly to claim he was below average with the glove. BTW, TB lists him as the best player in baseball 3 times in spite of subtracting points for defense.
--The other problem with TB (in general, not just defense) is that they assign negative value for seasons below average. Most long career players end up with several years of decreasing value in their decline phase. For example, TB lists Lou Boudreau as having a better career than Jimmie Foxx or Stan Musial or Hank Greenberg and Bobby Doerr as better than Joe Morgan or Charlie Gehringer or Frankie Frisch and Dave Bancroft as better than Roy Campanella or Kirby Puckett or Roberto Clemente or Luke Appling or Al Kaline or Carl Yaztrzemski. I think we can all agree those are flawed evaluations. BTW, Boudreau was rated higher than every other player I mentioned, I was just working my way down the list.
--TB is a good reference in many respects. Sometimes I'll use their single season ratings for comparison. I'd never trust their career ratings or use them to back an arguement I was making.

[Bill Burgess]

leecemark,

Thanks for the nice input. You usually are a moderate, sensible poster. I'd like to hear your opinion on the specific data I found this morning.

Total Baseball, 8th ed., pp. 2448, now lists ,
Total Player Wins - Batters, by lifetime thusly:

1. Ruth
2. Bonds
3. Wagner
4. Lajoie
5. Williams
6. Cobb
7. Mays
8. Collins
9. Hornsby
10. Aaron
11. Schmidt
12. Speaker
13. Mantle
14. Musial
15. Morgan
16. Gehrig
17. Ott
18. F. Robinson
19. Henderson
20. Foxx
21. Bobby Grich !

Now bear in mind, the above is for batting ONLY. Collins over Hornsby/Gehrig!? Morgan over Gehrig/Foxx!?

When I saw this, I was just blinking for about a minute. I kept looking for some way to interpret the above data. I kept thinking it HAD to be for all-round, but it wasn't. It was for Hitting only. I was amazed and dazed. I'm still groping for meaning. I had thought that TB was run by SABR guys, who live for crunching stats. So how could this happen, in the full light of day?
Help me, leecemark. Restore my faith in eternal verities.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

I'd like to offer up a clash with a bit of a twist.

Mays/Ashburn, but for defense ONLY. No offense considered here. The very famous Mr. Mays, and the all but forgotten Mr. Ashburn, who needed many decades to get to Cooperstown, just before he died. At least he lived long enough to see his induction.

Remember now. Defense ONLY. This ought to be good.Ashburn nudges out Mays

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you, RMB. You may now graduate to:

B. Robinson/Billy Cox

Careful now. Your diploma hangs in the balance.

Did you read the ending. Now match the winner against Max Carey.


Bill Burgesss

[RuthMayBond]

Thank you, RMB. You may now graduate to:

B. Robinson/Billy Cox

Careful now. Your diploma hangs in the balance.

Did you read the ending. Now match the winner against Max Carey.


Bill BurgesssRobinson over Cox EASILY. As far as Ashburn vs. Carey, it's like the difference between a million dollars, and a million dollars and a penny, who cares, they're both among the best ever

[Bill Burgess]

So brief? I was so hoping for some so cool text to illustrate the conclusions. But oh well. I'll gladly take what I can get. When you asked about Lange, look what YOU got. Pulled out all the stops. Put on the old feed bag.

But that's alright. I understand. You must be a very busy man. Thanks.

Bill

[tibber]

ok, i'll now attempt to make up for the slaughter/waner comparison:

larry doby or hack wilson
ty cobb or rod carew
steve carlton or tom seaver
harmon killebrew or eddie mathews

[RuthMayBond]

So brief? I was so hoping for some so cool text to illustrate the conclusions. But oh well. I'll gladly take what I can get. When you asked about Lange, look what YOU got. Pulled out all the stops. Put on the old feed bag.

But that's alright. I understand. You must be a very busy man. Thanks.
Dang, I'm getting ready to go on vacation in an hour :hp

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

Go, go, go. Don't worry about us. We'll still be here when you get back, man. Enjoy!

Your bud,
Bill

[PumpsieGreen]

Just clearing some things up,

Doby over Wilson. Hack had a higher peak, but Doby was one of the top offensive players for a while in a decimated offensive era.

Cobb over Carew. This is just very strange that you'd compare argubaly the greatest pure hitter of all time to one of the best of the 1970's. I just find it very peculiar.

Seaver over Carlton. Carlton had one great season that surpassed Seaver's two or three best. Plus, Seaver pitched better throughout his career, and accomplished what some people might see as more in less seasons.

Mathews over Killebrew. Killebrew's .256 batting average clearly puts him below the underrated Mathews.

Williams/Dimaggio
Reggie Jackson/Mathews
Wynn/Blyleven

[tibber]

i dunno, i tend to see carew and cobb as similar players. guys who hit a ton but didn't hit many homers.

ted williams, at his peak, was better than dimaggio.
i agree that mathews is underrated but at their respective peaks, reggie was probably better.
i think early wynn is underrated. he's a bit below some of the other 300 club, but he had himself a very good run in the 50s. that said, bly was probably more consistant. if i had to pick, it'd be wynn.

don sutton or gaylord perry
brooks robinson or pie traynor

[leecemark]

tibber, to clarify the Cobb-Carew comparison. Cobb didn't hit many home runs because nobody hit many home runs for most of his career. He led the league in HR once and was second three times. More importantly in evaluating a power hitter from Cobb's era, Ty led in slugging 8 times. Carew, on the other hand, didn't hit HRs because he didn't have much power. Cobb was a much better hitter, base runner and fielder than Carew. I fear you may give poor Bill a stroke just by comparing them.

Bill, I think that list you gave from Total Baseball has to be all around rankings. I haven't seen that edition, but it looks very similar to the TPR list in my edition. As a hitter, Lajoie ranks 17th in my edition and he hasn't done anything lately that would move him up 13 places. TB does give Lajoie excessive defensive credit though and that would explain (not justify) his 4th place finish in the list you reference.

[leecemark]

--Perry much better than Sutton.
--Robinson enough better than Traynor.

Ron Santo vs Wade Boggs
Ken Boyer vs Al Rosen
George Brett vs Eddie Mathews
Pick one from the winner of the 3 battles