Overrated Players

[ChrisLDuncan]

Stark said he strongly considered having DiMaggio in that spot. It is all relative. DiMaggio was a great player, but he does get a lot of hype. Still, that might be counterbalanced to a degree by the fact that his numbers could have looked so much better given the war interruption and Yankee Stadium.

I also thought it was silly that DiMaggio would always be introduced as the greatest living ballplayer, but I think that was a distinction that he required to be announced in order to make an appearance. I think it's based on some poll conducted in the 60s, which would speak to him being overrated at that time, but then again, at that time, the careers of Mays, Aaron, and Mantle had yet to fully play out, Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Gehrig, Hornsby, and Speaker were all dead, so that left only Williams and Musial as DiMaggio's competition. While I have Williams and Musial ahead of DiMaggio, I don't think it would have taken an extreme degree of overrating, enough to place DiMaggio as among the most overrated ever, to perceive him as better than Williams and Musial (though I would disagree with it).

Yeah I'd have to agree with that, however I have Joe ahead of Stan...but I don't know many that overrated him alot. If anything I see him being underrated.

[RuthMayBond]

Yeah I'd have to agree with that, however I have Joe ahead of Stan...but I don't know many that overrated him alot. If anything I see him being underrated.How's this?
His defense is overrated.
His offense is underrated.

[ChrisLDuncan]

C: Benito Santiago - Either him or Fisk...I've always go the perception from some people that Santiago may belong in the Hall...so I suppose he could go here.

1B: Steve Garvey - solid choice

2B: Steve Sax - He was pretty popular, and was on The Simpsons So I can see the case

SS: Phil Rizzuto - Pass

3B: Graig Nettles - Ehh...solid D, but I can see the case

LF: Lou Brock - Great choice here, although Yaz and Jim Rice would have been good choices too IMO

CF: Andruw Jones - Yeah I see the case, some people see him as an elite top flight player. His defense has declined (It is merely great instead of all time great) but he doesn't get on base alot, he strikes out a bunch, an all or nothing power hitter. He was really overrated beacuse of his 2005 season everyone babbled about his RBI totals and the line up around him but in actuality he got more RBI chances than anyone in baseball...and was amongst the least productive players with men in scoring.

RF: Dave Winfield - Yeah I'll go that here

DH: Ron Blomberg - Agreed

RHP: Nolan Ryan - The fact that some consider him the greatest pitcher ever when he never even won a CYA puts him here. However I can still see him being top 20

LHP: Sandy Koufax - He was a legit great at one point in time in his career and was lights out in the post season, but he got hurt and lost his career...so I can see the case

RP: Lee Smith - He gets extra attention for not being in the hall...so that tends to overrated him a tad.

[Erik Bedard]

Hmmm... interesting. I can't say I disagree with many choices, though I think that Hodges could have easily gone in Garvey's spot, Munson in Santiago's, and Robinson in Nettles'. Also, I have Joe DiMaggio as THE most overrated player of all time by casual fans, though Jones may well take that "honor" for current players.

[538280]

I don't know that I'd call him the ultimate overrated CF (though no other CFers are popping to my mind as definitely and totally overrated), but I do think Andruw Jones is definitely becoming an overrated player at this stage in his career. His defense as many have said is slipping, but with the media he still seems to have the reputation as perhaps the best defensive CFer of all time. He was probably when he was younger but not anymore, that's the "hanging reputation" problem. And offensively, ever since his 51 HR season he seems to be thought to be some sort of offensive centerpiece who can be the big star of an offense. But the problem is that he doesn't walk all that much, only sometimes, his BA is doing his OBP and SLG no favors, and his power is good but in the context of this era not tremendous. He's an above average offensive player only because he has solid power. He's about a 120 OPS+ player.

Miguel Tejada, similar to Jones, I think has become overrated because of the high offensive totals of this era, ever since he had 150 RBI. The Orioles definitely think they have some sort of elite hitter who can carry their offense in Tejada, so they don't look for others. I think that's something that is definitely holding back the Orioles right now.

My all overrated team would probably be this, listed in order of how overrated I think they are, not how good:

C: Roy Campanella, Ray Schalk
1B: George Sisler, Gil Hodges. Garvey is definitely overrated with the public but I don't really see it on this website.
2B: Charlie Gehringer, Jeff Kent
3B: Pie Traynor, Brooks Robinson (mostly with the public, not here)
SS: Ernie Banks, Rabbit Maranville
LF: Joe Jackson, Jim Rice
CF: Lloyd Waner, Andruw Jones
RF: Harry Heilmann, Roberto Clemente

Underrated

C: Joe Torre, Ted Simmons
1B: Dick Allen, Willie McCovey
2B: Lou Whitaker, Willie Randolph
3B: Heinie Groh, Sal Bando
SS: Barry Larkin, Jim Fregosi
LF: Tim Raines, Willie Stargell
CF: Jimmy Wynn, Fred Lynn
RF: Gary Sheffield, Reggie Smith

[Erik Bedard]

Ah, forgot about Shoeless Joe. Another one of the more overrated guys by casual fans, probably due to them feeling he should be in the HoF.

[Westlake]

LF: Lou Brock - Great choice here, although Yaz and Jim Rice would have been good choices too IMO
.

Yaz? I hear almost nothing about him unless its coming from an old Sox fan. General public doesn't seem to think much of him IMO.

[Westlake]

C: Roy Campanella, Ray Schalk
1B: George Sisler, Gil Hodges. Garvey is definitely overrated with the public but I don't really see it on this website.
2B: Charlie Gehringer, Jeff Kent
3B: Pie Traynor, Brooks Robinson (mostly with the public, not here)
SS: Ernie Banks, Rabbit Maranville
LF: Joe Jackson, Jim Rice
CF: Lloyd Waner, Andruw Jones
RF: Harry Heilmann, Roberto Clemente

Underrated

C: Joe Torre, Ted Simmons
1B: Dick Allen, Willie McCovey
2B: Lou Whitaker, Willie Randolph
3B: Heinie Groh, Sal Bando
SS: Barry Larkin, Jim Fregosi
LF: Tim Raines, Willie Stargell
CF: Jimmy Wynn, Fred Lynn
RF: Gary Sheffield, Reggie Smith

AKA... Overrated: Anyone who was highly regarded before integration.

[538280]

AKA... Overrated: Anyone who was highly regarded before integration.

More like "anyone who played at a time when league BAs were about .290". I think that generally, because of this, those players are still somewhat overrated, though it's getting better and better. The 20s/30s IMO are the decades with the most overrated players, but there are some exceptions, like Wally Berger or Bob Johnson.

[natsnsoxfan]

Most Overrated
Catcher - Carlton Fisk
First Base - Rafael Palmeiro
Second Base - Craig Biggio
Third Base - Eric Chavez
Shortstop - Miguel Tejada
Outfield - Joe Carter / Andruw Jones / Jim Rice / Sammy Sosa / Andre Dawson / Juan Gonzalez
DH - Edgar Martinez
SP - Nolan Ryan / John Smoltz / Curt Schilling / Tom Glavine
RP - Basically any modern day closer outside of Hoffman and Rivera. Even they are overrated a little.

Are you saying Biggio is overrated now or over the course of his career or earlier in his career? Because although he is quite a bit overrated now he was very underrated for a long time. Id say Jeter or Furcal over Tejada at SS although Tejada makes a strong case for it too. I don't understand Chavez though, he is a top flight defender at arguably the most difficult position in baseball, I actually think hes better than Rolen defensively which most would disagree with me on. Although his average and on base skills have been abysmal in recent years, they were ok earlier in his career, he is a fairly decent hitter otherwise and gets almost no press at all.

[cardsfanatic]

Are you saying Biggio is overrated now or over the course of his career or earlier in his career? Because although he is quite a bit overrated now he was very underrated for a long time. Id say Jeter or Furcal over Tejada at SS although Tejada makes a strong case for it too. I don't understand Chavez though, he is a top flight defender at arguably the most difficult position in baseball, I actually think hes better than Rolen defensively which most would disagree with me on. Although his average and on base skills have been abysmal in recent years, they were ok earlier in his career, he is a fairly decent hitter otherwise and gets almost no press at all.

1. Biggio - Considering it was 98 or 99 when Bill James put him down as the 35th best player of all-time and the love affair ensued with him (one of those famous, Bill James WTF? moments I was talking about the other day...), Biggio has been overrated for quite a while. Don't get me wrong. The guy is a really good player. But, if I have to hear one more time about his doubles, hit by pitches and "gritty" play, I'll puke. It's like they can't justify Biggio's greatness without finding some obscure stat he excels in. Doubles aren't worthless but tell me, without looking it up, who are the top five players in career doubles? Ok... homeruns... hits... batting average.... see? Doubles are only a major selling point for Biggio and a "true testament to his greatness -- sic a Biggio fanatic" same with hit by pitches -- which lose even more luster when the guy goes to the plate wearing more padding and armor than a hockey goalie. Way to take one off the elbow pad!

2. There's no doubt Jeter is overrated. I won't dispute that. But he's certainly a far better player (in my opinion) than Miguel Tejada. I can stomach Jeter being praised the way he is moreso than Tejada. So, Tejada is my pick and I'm sticking to it. You're more than welcome to disagree. Plus, I've always seen Jeter as the true 40-40 player. What I mean by that is that it seems to me, 40% of the baseball viewing public overrates him greatly -- including ESPN. But 40% of the baseball viewing public -- including most internet and hardcore baseball fan media, can't stop talking about how junky he is and overrated and useless he is. Then you have 20% of the baseball viewing public left over that kind of just go along for the ride. If you look at Jeter's numbers objectively and forget he's the Yankee captain and ESPN's golden boy, you'll see that underneath all of that is a pretty damn good ballplayer. A ballplayer whom for the past 4-5 years has consistently been in the top 20 players in the league... some years, reaching into the top 10. You'll also see a player who was cheated out of one MVP (99) and arguably a second (06). And he's getting better with age. Maybe A-Rod, Bonds and Pujols should be the poster boys of the MLB and not Jeter, but they get plenty of press. At least it's not like Jeter is a bum, either. I find a guy like him refreshing, honestly. In the era of 50-60-70 jacks, Jeter finds a way to be immensely valuable with only moderate yard ball power.

3. Chavez gets a ton of press on baseball forums. I visit here and a few other baseball hot spots on the net and it seems like everyone is all over Chavez' jock. A lot more praise than I personally believe a career .270, .348, .486 player deserves. For the fellow SABR people, his .278 EQA and 44 WARP don't do much to impress me, either.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yaz? I hear almost nothing about him unless its coming from an old Sox fan. General public doesn't seem to think much of him IMO.

Really??? I get the complete oppisite, I see some ranking him top 20...I feel that Fenway helped his defense and his offense too to a certian extent, I still feel that he is a very good player.

[natsnsoxfan]

1. Biggio - Considering it was 98 or 99 when Bill James put him down as the 35th best player of all-time and the love affair ensued with him (one of those famous, Bill James WTF? moments I was talking about the other day...), Biggio has been overrated for quite a while. Don't get me wrong. The guy is a really good player. But, if I have to hear one more time about his doubles, hit by pitches and "gritty" play, I'll puke. It's like they can't justify Biggio's greatness without finding some obscure stat he excels in. Doubles aren't worthless but tell me, without looking it up, who are the top five players in career doubles? Ok... homeruns... hits... batting average.... see? Doubles are only a major selling point for Biggio and a "true testament to his greatness -- sic a Biggio fanatic" same with hit by pitches -- which lose even more luster when the guy goes to the plate wearing more padding and armor than a hockey goalie. Way to take one off the elbow pad!

2. There's no doubt Jeter is overrated. I won't dispute that. But he's certainly a far better player (in my opinion) than Miguel Tejada. I can stomach Jeter being praised the way he is moreso than Tejada. So, Tejada is my pick and I'm sticking to it. You're more than welcome to disagree. Plus, I've always seen Jeter as the true 40-40 player. What I mean by that is that it seems to me, 40% of the baseball viewing public overrates him greatly -- including ESPN. But 40% of the baseball viewing public -- including most internet and hardcore baseball fan media, can't stop talking about how junky he is and overrated and useless he is. Then you have 20% of the baseball viewing public left over that kind of just go along for the ride. If you look at Jeter's numbers objectively and forget he's the Yankee captain and ESPN's golden boy, you'll see that underneath all of that is a pretty damn good ballplayer. A ballplayer whom for the past 4-5 years has consistently been in the top 20 players in the league... some years, reaching into the top 10. You'll also see a player who was cheated out of one MVP (99) and arguably a second (06). And he's getting better with age. Maybe A-Rod, Bonds and Pujols should be the poster boys of the MLB and not Jeter, but they get plenty of press. At least it's not like Jeter is a bum, either. I find a guy like him refreshing, honestly. In the era of 50-60-70 jacks, Jeter finds a way to be immensely valuable with only moderate yard ball power.

3. Chavez gets a ton of press on baseball forums. I visit here and a few other baseball hot spots on the net and it seems like everyone is all over Chavez' jock. A lot more praise than I personally believe a career .270, .348, .486 player deserves. For the fellow SABR people, his .278 EQA and 44 WARP don't do much to impress me, either.

1. I was unaware of the Biggio, Bill James thing but just because one person ranks him top 35, which i strongly disagree with, doesn't make him overrated by the baseball fanbase as a whole.

2. I wasn't saying that the Jeter was bad, i just think the ridiculous Yankee hype he gets puts him over the top. I think his overrated-ness is more a factor of the team and market he plays in than his own ability. Would he get this much hype if he and Tejada switched spots? Probably not. Jeter gets waaaaaay too much positive press compared to the negative press he gets. I remember a game earlier this year in Oakland, he made an error that led to a run at one point, wasn't shown in the ESPN highlights, A-Rod made an error that led to no runs, his was shown on the highlights. He also doesn't get some errors called on him that really should be. Im not denying his ability as a ball player but its not what most mainstream, bandwagon, type fans think it is, because the media doesn't show it they only show his very best moments. I really don't think him and Tejada are that far off, to be quite honest. Tejada is a far better hitter for power and probably roughly equal with maybe a slight edge to Jeter in average, speed is probably about the same with a very very small edge to Jeter. Defensively id say its a dead heat with a slight edge to Tejada because i think he has a stronger arm and a bit more range. Jeter has the rings and plays in NY though so he gets all the love.

3. Are they praising Chavez for his glove or his bat? You can't deny his greatness with the glove on his hand but he can be questionable at the plate fairly often. I really don't see how a lot of people here are "all over his jock", i personally love him but from what i see from people on here people disagree with me quite a bit. He gets no media on ESPN or other major outlets at all unless its making top plays or web gems or whatever, even then he sometimes loses out to a play that A-Rod or a bigger market player made.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Underrated

C: Joe Torre, Ted Simmons
1B: Dick Allen, Willie McCovey
2B: Lou Whitaker, Willie Randolph
3B: Heinie Groh, Sal Bando
SS: Barry Larkin, Jim Fregosi
LF: Tim Raines, Willie Stargell
CF: Jimmy Wynn, Fred Lynn
RF: Gary Sheffield, Reggie Smith

Dick Allen and Willie McCovey? I'd easily say that Jeff Bagwell is the most underrated first basemen of all time...However your list is pretty good mine would probably be

Underrated

CA: Joe Torre
1B: Jeff Bagwell
2B: Nap Lajoie (although Randolph comes close)
3B: Ron Santo
SS: Arky Vaughn
LF: Tim Raines (It's not even close)
CF: Jimmy Wynn
RF: Gary Sheffield (I'm tempted to put Al Kaline here)

LHP: Steve Carlton (Ruth may belong here too)
RHP: Bert Blyleven (EASILY the best player not in the hall that's eligible)
RP: Trevor Hoffman

[538280]

1. Biggio - Considering it was 98 or 99 when Bill James put him down as the 35th best player of all-time and the love affair ensued with him (one of those famous, Bill James WTF? moments I was talking about the other day...), Biggio has been overrated for quite a while. Don't get me wrong. The guy is a really good player. But, if I have to hear one more time about his doubles, hit by pitches and "gritty" play, I'll puke. It's like they can't justify Biggio's greatness without finding some obscure stat he excels in. Doubles aren't worthless but tell me, without looking it up, who are the top five players in career doubles? Ok... homeruns... hits... batting average.... see? Doubles are only a major selling point for Biggio and a "true testament to his greatness -- sic a Biggio fanatic" same with hit by pitches -- which lose even more luster when the guy goes to the plate wearing more padding and armor than a hockey goalie. Way to take one off the elbow pad!


I don't think Biggio is overrated at all. Biggio is one of the best all around second basemen of all time. He has a 114 OPS+ in a very long career and has been an excellent basestealer. You don't have to find obscure stats to see Biggio's greatness, looking at it from of a point of view with JUST OPS+ given his longevity and 114 OPS+, you'd already see him coming out in the top 10 2Bmen of all time. And that's with no mind of his baserunning or the the quality of competition he faced.

I think James overrated him a little, but I still don't think the general baseball public realizes how great Biggio is in a historical sense. I don't get a sense that he's regarded as a historical great, even with what James said. Perhaps in terms of his value in today's 2007 market he's a little overrated, but in a historical sense where his career ranks I would say no.

I've seen Biggio at his peak described as Joe Morgan Jr. and I agree he does share many characteristics with Morgan who IMO is the best 2Bman of all time. Like Morgan he isn't a great BA hitter, which often leads people to underrate him, and he also had some good BA seasons like Morgan. He has solid power, especially from 2B, like Morgan. He gets on quite a bit with walks/HBP like Morgan, and he is a solid fielder like Morgan. Morgan was certainly better-but they are essentially similar players and both are also alike in that they're definitely "sum of their parts" type players, you need to take everything they did and put it together as a whole to appreciate their value, they don't have one central skill that immidiately jumps out at you.

[538280]

Dick Allen and Willie McCovey? I'd easily say that Jeff Bagwell is the most underrated first basemen of all time...However your list is pretty good mine would probably be


You're right about Bagwell. The media today generally views McGwire and Sosa as the biggest stars of the 1990s NL behind Bonds. It really should be Bagwell. Willie McCovey I think is underrated especially by those who fail to take his numbers in context of his time, but I probably should slot Bagwell in there ahead of him.

Dick Allen I think still remains the #1 most underrated though. Dick Allen will always suffer from the fact that some people just can't get over raw numbers in favor of numbers indexed for the era they played in. Allen's raw numbers don't jump out at a lot of people and it causes many to dismiss him even as a HOF candidate at first glance (Bill!). In context he's probably one of the top 20 hitters of all time.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You're right about Bagwell. The media today generally views McGwire and Sosa as the biggest stars of the 1990s NL behind Bonds. It really should be Bagwell. Willie McCovey I think is underrated especially by those who fail to take his numbers in context of his time, but I probably should slot Bagwell in there ahead of him.

Dick Allen I think still remains the #1 most underrated though. Dick Allen will always suffer from the fact that some people just can't get over raw numbers in favor of numbers indexed for the era they played in. Allen's raw numbers don't jump out at a lot of people and it causes many to dismiss him even as a HOF candidate at first glance (Bill!). In context he's probably one of the top 20 hitters of all time.



I think Bill James wrote a case against Dick Allen for HoF I forget where it was, but I can see him as a Hall of Famer.

[TRfromBR]

I think the most overrated center fielder of all time has to be Joe DiMaggio. The fact that people had the nerve to call him the "world's greatest living player," when guys like Willie Mays, Stan Musial and Hank Aaron were still walking around says it all.

DiMaggio was fantastic, don't get me wrong. But he's also way overrated.

I respectfully disagree, Sir Faust.

If you could pick any ballplayer from the 30's and 40's to lead your team to victory, it's Joe DiMaggio. He was most definitely NOT overrated in this regard ... and winning is what it's all about. Gehrig couldn't fire the Yanks, until Joey D arrived, and Mickey couldn't fill his spikes in Center. The greatest player of his era was Dimaggio, not Williams, nor Musial. Now how is that overrated?

In fact, DiMaggio is actually UNDERRATED, because of Death Valley, years lost to the war, and because he refused to play in decline.

Growing up, I was surrounded by an intense [mostly Irish] throng of Yankee-Hating Dodger fans. They liked nothing about the Bombers from the Bronx - except, they ALL solemnly praised DiMaggio as the greatest player they ever saw. They loved Reiser, but adored DiMaggio. The were awed by Williams' hitting, but knew you would never even think of trading the Clipper for the Splinter. And everyone universally liked Musial, but knew he wasn't DiMaggio.
And, later, they'd all tell you how exciting Mays was, but, he didn't bring what DiMaggio brought to a team.

Let's name how many right-handers ever hit better than Joe DiMaggio. You can sure answer that question fast. Now take away Death Valley. He rivals Williams ... right-handed!

And everyone I know who saw him thought he was the most graceful and effective fielder they ever saw. And the greatest all-round player they ever saw. The best of the best. You can include Williams & Musial among those who thought that.

Now consider how instrumental he was in leading his team to all those pennants and world championships. If you were an owner, or even a manager, you could start a world cruise in March and return on Thanksgiving to pick up your trophies and winnings. DiMaggio would make sure the team won. No need to worry. How many of the greats were so reliable as both palyers and team leaders, like DiMaggio was. I can't think of any.

Finally, give him back his lost years, and give him the benefits of modern training and medicine. FORGETABOUTIT.

Joltin' Joe's baseball greatness is most certainly not overrated. It's UNDERRATED.

[ARISTOCRAT]

1B: Jeff Bagwell underrated?
you don't think bagwell was a product of ped's?

[mwb]

I don't know how Brock, Winfield & Ryan can be overrated. Jayson needs to do some more research before calling two guys with 3,000 hits, one with nearly 1,000 stolen bases & the other with 400 HRs overrated. Then you have a pitcher with over 300 wins & 5,000 K's who was dominating in his 40's.

[Westlake]

1B: Jeff Bagwell underrated?
you don't think bagwell was a product of ped's?

Do PEDs help your field better and run the bases better too? Bagwell was a 5-tool player IMO.

Also... from what i've been told by Houston Astros employees and a writer who covered Bags throughout his career, he was not a product of PEDs. Did he ever try Amphetamines... "no comment". Did he use PEDs throughout his career... "no". Did he use PEDs more than a handful of times.... "no." No one i've ever met has EVER called Jeff Bagwell a liar. He's a class act, all the way.

[Bukanier]

Like everything else associated with ESPN, Stark's list ignores the fact that the sport of baseball existed prior to 1950.
Which may make sense thinking of an "overrated" team.

[Bill Burgess]

It's hard to define because we are so different than the public.

Public loves Brooksie, we're more reserved.
Public loves Ernie Banks, we're rather cooler.
Public loves Roberto Clemente, we're seriously under-estimating him.
Pie Traynor continues to divide the Fever Faithful. Half love him, most don't.
Public never heard of Buck Ewing, some here give him respect, most don't.
Public never heard of Bill LAnge, we have and no one cares.
Public never heard of Herman Long, we have and no one cares.
Public never heard of Ned Williamson, and I'm wondering if you have either.
Public loves Warren Spahn, Fever is lukewarm at best.
Public used to love Matty, but we are a little spotty on Matty.
Public love Big Train and we do too. So, YAH! for us for getting him right!
Public loves the Babe, and he's over-rated here, in terms of being #1.
Public has forgotten about Ty Cobb, we haven't, but he's still under-rated in terms of being perceived as #1 to Babe Ruth. Shame on us.
Honus Wagner is loved by the public and by us too. Horay for us!
Hornsby is forgotten by the public, but most of us get him right.
Gehrig is beloved of the public and by us too. Good for us.
George Sisler is long-forgotten by the public, and some of us love him, most of us don't. Mixed bag. We still have work to do on him.
Joe Morgan is loved by the public, but some of us take him far too seriously, but most have him right. Most Feverites have Joe in good perspective.
Public loves Willie Mays and we do too. Good for us.
Tris Speaker is forgotten by the public, but we still love Spoke. Good for us.
Joe Gordon is long-forgotten by the public, and by us too. Too bad for Joe. Good player.
Jimmy McAleer is long-forgotten by both the public and Fever. Too bad for Jimmy. Challenged Spoke/Mays for all time best OF glove honors.

Love this thread. Let me work in my pet prejudices, and my Cold Case Files too. Thanks for the opportunity, Mikeyboy!!

Over-rating/Under-rating is a most slippery, tricky subject.

Burgess' Most Under-rated Team:

C - Buck Ewing
1B - George Sisler
2B - Lajoie, Gehringer
SS - Herman Long
3B - Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Ron Santo
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange
RF - Roberto Clemente (on Fever)
P - Mathewson, Spahn (on Fever)

Burgess' Most Over-rated Team:
C - ?
1B - Frank Thomas
2B - Joe Morgan
SS - Cal Ripken
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Lou Brock
CF - Mickey Mantle
RF - Frank Robinson
P - ?

[RuthMayBond]

[COLOR="Blue"]
Gehrig couldn't fire the Yanks, until Joey D arrived,They did all right in '32

<and Mickey couldn't fill his spikes in Center.>

Your opinion

<The were awed by Williams' hitting, but knew you would never even think of trading the Clipper for the Splinter.>

Except the Yanks did think about it

<And, later, they'd all tell you how exciting Mays was, but, he didn't bring what DiMaggio brought to a team.>

Right, Mays brought arguably the best CF glove ever

<Let's name how many right-handers ever hit better than Joe DiMaggio. You can sure answer that question fast.>

Arguably Hornsby, Mantle, Foxx, Thomas, Mays, Aaron ...

[RuthMayBond]

It's hard to define because we are so different than the public.

Public loves Roberto Clemente, we're seriously under-estimating him.Seriously?

<Public loves Warren Spahn, Fever is lukewarm at best.>

Don't think so, Bill

<Public used to love Matty, but we are a little spotty on Matty.>

Public doesn't know about Matty, he gets pretty darn good marks here

<Public loves the Babe, and he's over-rated here, in terms of being #1.

Public has forgotten about Ty Cobb, we haven't, but he's still under-rated in terms of being perceived as #1 to Babe Ruth. Shame on us.>

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

<Honus Wagner is loved by the public and by us too. Horay for us!>

Public doesn't know that much about Wagner

<Jimmy McAleer is long-forgotten by both the public and Fever. Too bad for Jimmy. Challenged Spoke/Mays for all time best OF glove honors.>

In your dreams

<Burgess' Most Under-rated Team:

C - Buck Ewing
1B - George Sisler
2B - Lajoie, Gehringer
SS - Herman Long
3B - Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Ron Santo
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange
RF - Roberto Clemente (on Fever)
P - Mathewson, Spahn (on Fever)>

Amazingly, actually three who played after the, what, late 20s/early 30s

<Burgess' Most Over-rated Team:
C - ?
1B - Frank Thomas
2B - Joe Morgan
SS - Cal Ripken
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Lou Brock
CF - Mickey Mantle
RF - Frank Robinson
P - ?>

Amazingly, one who actually retired before the 70s (barely)
Why are we rating ourselves compared to what the public thinks?

[cardsfanatic]

I don't think Biggio is overrated at all. Biggio is one of the best all around second basemen of all time. He has a 114 OPS+ in a very long career and has been an excellent basestealer. You don't have to find obscure stats to see Biggio's greatness, looking at it from of a point of view with JUST OPS+ given his longevity and 114 OPS+, you'd already see him coming out in the top 10 2Bmen of all time. And that's with no mind of his baserunning or the the quality of competition he faced.

I think James overrated him a little, but I still don't think the general baseball public realizes how great Biggio is in a historical sense. I don't get a sense that he's regarded as a historical great, even with what James said. Perhaps in terms of his value in today's 2007 market he's a little overrated, but in a historical sense where his career ranks I would say no.

I've seen Biggio at his peak described as Joe Morgan Jr. and I agree he does share many characteristics with Morgan who IMO is the best 2Bman of all time. Like Morgan he isn't a great BA hitter, which often leads people to underrate him, and he also had some good BA seasons like Morgan. He has solid power, especially from 2B, like Morgan. He gets on quite a bit with walks/HBP like Morgan, and he is a solid fielder like Morgan. Morgan was certainly better-but they are essentially similar players and both are also alike in that they're definitely "sum of their parts" type players, you need to take everything they did and put it together as a whole to appreciate their value, they don't have one central skill that immidiately jumps out at you.

Perhaps I have more Astro and Bill James fans as acquantances and such than most folks. But I read about Biggio on the internet, hear about him in person and see him on the tube more than any man should have to endure. And it all started around the time Bill James threw him 35th all time. And that wasn't a "slight overrate" either. It was an enormous error. If memory serves, James had Biggio 35th overall, ahead of Maddux, Clemens, Seaver, Yogi, Bench, Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs, Clemente, Thomas, Carew, Puckett, Griffey etc.... if I were drafting a team and you told me, you could get ANY of those players from their rookie season to the end of their career (plus Biggio added to the group), Biggio would be dead last in my draft queue.

Now, that's not to say Biggio isn't a good player. He's a top 10 2B of all-time, I'll give him that. Probably in the 7-9 range. But his 3,000 hits doesn't awe me, considering he's hung around 6-7 years past his prime and actually HURT his team the past few seasons by taking up a lineup spot, despite playing almost at replacement level. This year he's in the lineup and batting leadoff with a sub .300 OBP. At this point he's just trotting himself out there, going through the motions at the expense of his team just to get 3,000 hits. Color me not impressed.

Doubles... nice, but I don't particularly care where he ranks on the career doubles chart. Same with hit by pitches.

What I see when I look at Biggio is a guy who had a nice peak, played way past his prime to accumulate some milestone numbers and a guy who is at the bottom end of the top 10 all-time 2B list... and a guy who definitely isn't deserving of 35th best player of all-time.

[John Shoemaker]

I've always found it interesting that someone, Stark for example, could determine a player they never saw play was either overrated or underrated. So many of those who think players like Rizzuto and Mazeroski should never be in the Hall of Fame never saw the guys play, never really got a feel for what they contributed to their teams in those days, and are basing their opinions solely on stats. Everyone's certainly entitled to an opinion, but to take any opinion like that as the gospel is quite naïve, though that in itself is just an opinion.:twocents:

I agree - numbers tell a lot about a player but seeing them in person over a period of time is a lot more important.

[ARISTOCRAT]

Do PEDs help your field better and run the bases better too? Bagwell was a 5-tool player IMO.

Also... from what i've been told by Houston Astros employees and a writer who covered Bags throughout his career, he was not a product of PEDs. Did he ever try Amphetamines... "no comment". Did he use PEDs throughout his career... "no". Did he use PEDs more than a handful of times.... "no." No one i've ever met has EVER called Jeff Bagwell a liar. He's a class act, all the way.


yes, they do. you can get over to cover your bag faster or to catch a ball on ped's. as well as run faster around the bases while on ped's. what are you john mccain, interviewing yourself here? just because you answer your questions doesn't mean the answer is correct.

[RuthMayBond]

I agree - numbers tell a lot about a player but seeing them in person over a period of time is a lot more important.How much of even one player's career do most people see?
Once again, the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter?
About one hit a week.

[Erik Bedard]

yes, they do. you can get over to cover your bag faster or to catch a ball on ped's. as well as run faster around the bases while on ped's. what are you john mccain, interviewing yourself here? just because you answer your questions doesn't mean the answer is correct.

This is downright ridiculous. Claiming Bagwell to be a PED user simply because he was an outstanding player who got injured a lot later in his career?

[cardsfanatic]

This is downright ridiculous. Claiming Bagwell to be a PED user simply because he was an outstanding player who got injured a lot later in his career?

I believe Bagwell did use steroids (he looks as guilty to me as the rest of the guys we have no proof on, just suspicion) but the quote you were responding to made me chuckle and was indeed ridiculous.

[cardsfanatic]

Once again, the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter?
About one hit a week.

Funny, you could often say the difference between a playoff team and a non-playoff team is one win every 20 games... chop anything down to a small enough sample size and you can decrease the perceived "gap" between them. 1 hit per week sounds better than a 45 hit difference per year, 900 hit difference per career. Just like 1 win better in every 20 sounds better than this team was 89-73, this other team was 81-81. What I'm getting at is that it's A) stupid to use a sample size that small and B) that one hit per week over a career sure adds up over a career and amounts to a megaton of value.

[TRfromBR]

[Regarding Gehrig's lesser ability to lead the Yankees to victory] They did all right in '32

Haven't you left out [key] a few years, RMB?

<and Mickey couldn't fill his spikes in Center.>

Your opinion

And those of most/all educated observers.
<The were awed by Williams' hitting, but knew you would never even think of trading the Clipper for the Splinter.>

Except the Yanks did think about it.

One drunk guy did, for a couple of intoxicated hours. He got sober and came to his senses. (Knowing McPhail, he probably did it for the free drinks and/or keep somebody listening to his endless nonsense.)

<And, later, they'd all tell you how exciting Mays was, but, he didn't bring what DiMaggio brought to a team.>

Right, Mays brought arguably the best CF glove ever.

How many championships did that glove bring his team? And how many games did it win, in an otherwise lost game?
<Let's name how many right-handers ever hit better than Joe DiMaggio. You can sure answer that question fast.>

Arguably Hornsby, Mantle, Foxx, Thomas, Mays, Aaron ...

Please give all last names. Thomas who? Aaron who?
And exactly which of these guys would have out hit DiMaggio [right-handed], having OYS as their home stadium?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Burgess' Most Over-rated Team:
CF - Mickey Mantle


Ouch Bill :thumbsdown:

[Erik Bedard]

I respectfully disagree, Sir Faust.

If you could pick any ballplayer from the 30's and 40's to lead your team to victory, it's Joe DiMaggio. He was most definitely NOT overrated in this regard ... and winning is what it's all about. Gehrig couldn't fire the Yanks, until Joey D arrived, and Mickey couldn't fill his spikes in Center. The greatest player of his era was Dimaggio, not Williams, nor Musial. Now how is that overrated?

In fact, DiMaggio is actually UNDERRATED, because of Death Valley, years lost to the war, and because he refused to play in decline.

Growing up, I was surrounded by an intense [mostly Irish] throng of Yankee-Hating Dodger fans. They liked nothing about the Bombers from the Bronx - except, they ALL solemnly praised DiMaggio as the greatest player they ever saw. They loved Reiser, but adored DiMaggio. The were awed by Williams' hitting, but knew you would never even think of trading the Clipper for the Splinter. And everyone universally liked Musial, but knew he wasn't DiMaggio.
And, later, they'd all tell you how exciting Mays was, but, he didn't bring what DiMaggio brought to a team.

Let's name how many right-handers ever hit better than Joe DiMaggio. You can sure answer that question fast. Now take away Death Valley. He rivals Williams ... right-handed!

And everyone I know who saw him thought he was the most graceful and effective fielder they ever saw. And the greatest all-round player they ever saw. The best of the best. You can include Williams & Musial among those who thought that.

Now consider how instrumental he was in leading his team to all those pennants and world championships. If you were an owner, or even a manager, you could start a world cruise in March and return on Thanksgiving to pick up your trophies and winnings. DiMaggio would make sure the team won. No need to worry. How many of the greats were so reliable as both palyers and team leaders, like DiMaggio was. I can't think of any.

Finally, give him back his lost years, and give him the benefits of modern training and medicine. FORGETABOUTIT.

Joltin' Joe's baseball greatness is most certainly not overrated. It's UNDERRATED.

First, you're contradicting yourself pretty severely. You say people (not NYY fans, just people) swore DiMag was the greatest player they ever saw, and then you go on to say that he was underrated.

Second, if I had to pick one player to build my team around in the 40's, that person would not be DiMaggio. It would not be Williams, either. That person would be Stan Musial. Let's compare the threewhile all three were playing in the '40s [note: I am not counting 1947 for DiMaggio, as he only appeared in 76 games that year]:

---------------------DiMaggio-------Musial------Williams
WS Titles--------------2--------------3-------------0----
League Titles----------3--------------4-------------1----
BA in WS years------.325-----------.348----------.342-
MVPs------------------3--------------3--------------2----
200+ OPS+ years----0--------------1--------------4----
180+ OPS+ years----1--------------3--------------6----

These rudimentary stats show Williams to be the best player of the three, Musial probably the most crucial to his team's success, and DiMaggio by far the most overrated.

And before you go all off about the individual stats underrating DiMag because of Death Valley, these OPS+s are park adjusted. This in fact boosts Joe a ton, because his raw OPS+ for 1941 was 142, as opposed to 184 once adjusted.

Also, while the Yanks may have won more pennants during DiMag's career than the Cards or Sox won during Musial or Williams's, DiMaggio played far less of a role in their success than Musial or Williams. For example, in 1936, DiMaggio was one of SIX future HoFers on the NYY roster. Let's compare each of the HoFers that the three played on pennant-winning teams with:

DiMaggio:

Yogi Berra
Bill Dickey
Whitey Ford
Lou Gehrig
Lefty Gomez
Tony Lazzeri
Mickey Mantle
Johnny Mize
Phil Rizzuto
Red Ruffing
[Charlie Keller]
[Wes Ferrell]
[Joe Gordon]

Musial:

Enos Slaughter

Williams:

Bobby Doerr

Point being: Musial and Williams were better players than DiMaggio, and contributed far more to their teams' success than Joe D. did. In fact, your saying how they were perceived adds far more to the case for him being overrated than underrated.

Third, Red Sox history is my strong suit. And IIRC, McPhail offered Yawkey DiMaggio for Williams, and Yawkey nixed it. Shows how the two were perceived among management in their day.

Fourth, while DiMaggio was a good defensive CFer, that part of his game is greatly exaggerated, to the point where people claim him to be the greatest defensive CFer ever, when that honor clearly belongs to Speaker, and only Jimmy McAleer and possibly Willie Mays can challenge him. Musial was probably faster as well.

Fifth, DiMaggio was often seen by his teammates as aloof and unconcerned. He obviously had no leadership qualities, as evidenced by his retiring after the 1951 season. A true leader would have remained with the team even as his on-field qualities were diminishing--- much like Musial did with the Cards in the sixties.

Sixth, your statement about taking the world cruise in March and coming back in November to collect your winnings is absolutely ridiculous. As I said earlier, in the 1940's, Musial's Cardinals won more WS championships than DiMaggio's Yankees. Even in the late 30's, when the Yanks won four in a row (before Musial and Williams came on the scene), DiMag did not "make sure it happened". Those championships were as much a product of Gehrig, Gomez, Ruffing, Selkirk, Dickey, Keller, Henrich, etc. as they were of DiMaggio. If anyone led them to a pennant it was Gehrig. Definitely not the aloof, self-centered DiMaggio.

In conclusion, if we're picking players to win us games in the 1940's, I'll take Musial or Williams, and you'll take DiMaggio. Just keep in mind that you don't get anybody else on those Yankee teams.

Wow, I just spent an hour and a half typing one post.

[Erik Bedard]

Please give all last names. Thomas who? Aaron who?

Don't give me this. You claim DiMaggio is underrated, and you've never heard of Hank Aaron?


And exactly which of these guys would have out hit DiMaggio [right-handed], having OYS as their home stadium?

Try these guys:

Jimmie Foxx
Mickey Mantle hitting RH
Honus Wagner
Nap Lajoie
Hank Aaron
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Carl Yastrzemski

just to name a few.


I believe Bagwell did use steroids (he looks as guilty to me as the rest of the guys we have no proof on, just suspicion) but the quote you were responding to made me chuckle and was indeed ridiculous.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, as you said, there is no proof, only semi-founded suspicion. Not enough to find it ridiculous that someone doesn't think he used PEDs.

[Bill Burgess]

Ouch Bill :thumbsdown:
Saying that someone is over-rated is not to say they weren't still a great player. Mick was great but we rank him over Joe D. I think that is not warranted. But I concede that this is an arguable point. Which is what I'm doin'. I'm arguin'.

Others place Mickey over Speaker too. I also happen to disagree with that too. I rank Mickey around 16th all time, and as a CF, after Ty, Willie, Oscar, Spoke and Joe D. Most don't. So, on that basis, I must sadly conclude that we over-rate The Mick.

In fact, Casey Stengel ranked Cobb, Speaker and DiMaggio over Mick. And Casey should know. He did this in his book in 1961, after Mick hit over 50 homers! Casey's book, 'Casey At the Bat', came out in 1961. He put Cobb, Speaker and DiMaggio on his AL team in Center. Wow! No Mickey.

[John Shoemaker]

The part in the book I liked the best is describing Babe Ruth as a very underrated pitcher. IMO Ruth could have made the HOF as a pircher if he had continued to pitch his whole career. It wasn't his fault that he was also the best hitter that ever played the game and too valuable as a hitter to pitch on a regular basis.

[Erik Bedard]

... and that somehow makes him the best pitcher ever?

[natsnsoxfan]

... and that somehow makes him the best pitcher ever?

did he say that? :confused:

[Erik Bedard]

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=891528&postcount=31

[TRfromBR]

First, you're contradicting yourself pretty severely. You say people (not NYY fans, just people) swore DiMag was the greatest player they ever saw, and then you go on to say that he was underrated.

Second, if I had to pick one player to build my team around in the 40's, that person would not be DiMaggio. It would not be Williams, either. That person would be Stan Musial. Let's compare the threewhile all three were playing in the '40s [note: I am not counting 1947 for DiMaggio, as he only appeared in 76 games that year]:

---------------------DiMaggio-------Musial------Williams
WS Titles--------------2--------------3-------------0----
League Titles----------3--------------4-------------1----
BA in WS years------.325-----------.348----------.342-
MVPs------------------3--------------3--------------2----
200+ OPS+ years----0--------------1--------------4----
180+ OPS+ years----1--------------3--------------6----

These rudimentary stats show Williams to be the best player of the three, Musial probably the most crucial to his team's success, and DiMaggio by far the most overrated.

And before you go all off about the individual stats underrating DiMag because of Death Valley, these OPS+s are park adjusted. This in fact boosts Joe a ton, because his raw OPS+ for 1941 was 142, as opposed to 184 once adjusted.

Also, while the Yanks may have won more pennants during DiMag's career than the Cards or Sox won during Musial or Williams's, DiMaggio played far less of a role in their success than Musial or Williams. For example, in 1936, DiMaggio was one of SIX future HoFers on the NYY roster. Let's compare each of the HoFers that the three played on pennant-winning teams with:

DiMaggio:

Yogi Berra
Bill Dickey
Whitey Ford
Lou Gehrig
Lefty Gomez
Tony Lazzeri
Mickey Mantle
Johnny Mize
Phil Rizzuto
Red Ruffing
[Charlie Keller]
[Wes Ferrell]
[Joe Gordon]

Musial:

Enos Slaughter

Williams:

Bobby Doerr

Point being: Musial and Williams were better players than DiMaggio, and contributed far more to their teams' success than Joe D. did. In fact, your saying how they were perceived adds far more to the case for him being overrated than underrated.

Third, Red Sox history is my strong suit. And IIRC, McPhail offered Yawkey DiMaggio for Williams, and Yawkey nixed it. Shows how the two were perceived among management in their day.

Fourth, while DiMaggio was a good defensive CFer, that part of his game is greatly exaggerated, to the point where people claim him to be the greatest defensive CFer ever, when that honor clearly belongs to Speaker, and only Jimmy McAleer and possibly Willie Mays can challenge him. Musial was probably faster as well.

Fifth, DiMaggio was often seen by his teammates as aloof and unconcerned. He obviously had no leadership qualities, as evidenced by his retiring after the 1951 season. A true leader would have remained with the team even as his on-field qualities were diminishing--- much like Musial did with the Cards in the sixties.

Sixth, your statement about taking the world cruise in March and coming back in November to collect your winnings is absolutely ridiculous. As I said earlier, in the 1940's, Musial's Cardinals won more WS championships than DiMaggio's Yankees. Even in the late 30's, when the Yanks won four in a row (before Musial and Williams came on the scene), DiMag did not "make sure it happened". Those championships were as much a product of Gehrig, Gomez, Ruffing, Selkirk, Dickey, Keller, Henrich, etc. as they were of DiMaggio. If anyone led them to a pennant it was Gehrig. Definitely not the aloof, self-centered DiMaggio.

In conclusion, if we're picking players to win us games in the 1940's, I'll take Musial or Williams, and you'll take DiMaggio. Just keep in mind that you don't get anybody else on those Yankee teams.

Wow, I just spent an hour and a half typing one post.

You doth protest too loudly, Eric the Rude.

Joe DiMaggio was the greatest player of his era. And I didn't say he was underrated by people who saw him. I said he is underrated by people who didn't see him. People like you, for instance.

Just because you don't like DiMaggio's personality, doesn't make Williams and Musial better. As great as Williams was, he was not a great all-round player, nor was he an effective leader. And, as great as Musial was, his only value over DiMaggio was longevity. No one seriously counts the Cardinals wins during the war against DiMaggio - except you and all the other rabid DiMaggio-underraters. That wonderful Browns team did pretty well during the war, too, didn't they.:rolleyes:

With respect to DiMaggio's leadership, he led like Patton. You can bet your bottom bobby bonds jr. card that the Yankees were under the leadership of Mr. Joseph Paul DiMaggio. There was never any question who led his team. (Except by those who like to underrate him, while foaming at the mouth.)

It's really too bad that you can't quote anyone at all who saw DiMaggio, and agrees with you. Perhaps you can be big enough to accept the opinions of Williams & Musial, who unequivocally believed the exact opposite of you. But what do those guys know? They only saw and played against him.

If Red Sox history truly was your "strong suit," then you'd know DiMaggio (Joe, not Vince) was universally regarded a far superior leader and all-round player than Williams.

[TRfromBR]

Don't give me this. You claim DiMaggio is underrated, and you've never heard of Hank Aaron?



No, I'v never heard of Hank Aaron. Was he related to Hank Greenburg?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Jimmie Foxx
Mickey Mantle hitting RH
Honus Wagner
Nap Lajoie
Hank Aaron
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Carl Yastrzemski


The bolded ones are the only ones who had a chance...Yaz batted left handed so he's out for purposes of this conversation. Have you seen Joe's home/road splits? Mickey probably did it seeing as how hitting right handed there were some people who said that he hit better than Ted Williams, Foxx maybe just due to his power, Thomas I dunno about.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Saying that someone is over-rated is not to say they weren't still a great player. Mick was great but we rank him over Joe D. I think that is not warranted. But I concede that this is an arguable point. Which is what I'm doin'. I'm arguin'.

Others place Mickey over Speaker too. I also happen to disagree with that too. I rank Mickey around 16th all time, and as a CF, after Ty, Willie, Oscar, Spoke and Joe D. Most don't. So, on that basis, I must sadly conclude that we over-rate The Mick.

In fact, Casey Stengel ranked Cobb, Speaker and DiMaggio over Mick. And Casey should know. He did this in his book in 1961, after Mick hit over 50 homers! Casey's book, 'Casey At the Bat', came out in 1961. He put Cobb, Speaker and DiMaggio on his AL team in Center. Wow! No Mickey.

That was in 1961, at which point I still think that Joe was still named "The Greatest Living Player" which he could have been because Mantle's and Mays' careers have yet to play out. Also something that you should consider about Mantle is how high his peers regarded him.

Al Kaline was quoted as saying of Mickey when a fan heckled Al saying "You aren't half as good as Mickey Mantle"

Kaline responded "Son, NO ONE is half as good as Mickey Mantle"

Also keep in mind the impact of Mickey's career .421 OBP...I just think 16th is a little low for the Mick, I clearly think he's top ten. I agree with you on Cobb being better than Mantle, I can imagine Oscar Charleston could have been better...Joe D's career was cut to short as was Mickey's...I suspect if both of them would have been able to have careers that were war/injury/booze free both of them would be in just about everyone's top five, they were that good.

[Bill Burgess]

No, I'v never heard of Hank Aaron. Was he related to Hank Greenburg?
Ha ha ha! Good one. Always appreciate well-intended humor.

Maybe all Hanks are related.

Did you hear this one: Why should OJ have moved to West Virginia?
Because everyone there has the same DNA.

[-Kyle-]

Public never heard of Bill LAnge, we have and no one cares.

I actually like Bill Lange a lot. His peers thought he was among the best ever, and his contemporaray opinions are great. His stats are iffy, but he was considered one of the fastest, powerful, all around graceful player in his time. In Bill James' book Cap Anson picked him for his All Time team (in late 1910s).

I advise you to read this book, if you already havent...

http://www.amazon.com/Baseballs-Forgotten-Heroes-Tony-Salin/dp/0809226030

:thumbsup:

Great book all around, it catches a lot of other stuff that Glory of Their Times missed....and it has a lot of cool info on Bill Lange and Frenchie Bordagray, two of my personal favorites.

[ARISTOCRAT]

This is downright ridiculous. Claiming Bagwell to be a PED user simply because he was an outstanding player who got injured a lot later in his career?

who made that claim?

[ARISTOCRAT]

I believe Bagwell did use steroids (he looks as guilty to me as the rest of the guys we have no proof on, just suspicion) but the quote you were responding to made me chuckle and was indeed ridiculous.

any particular part of the comment cardsfanatic? or is this just carrying over from the other thread.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Agreed, I don't think Bags used PEDs...I mean lots of players have injury problems when they get old. How many players do you know that have had injury problems for the first few years of their career and injury problems at the end...I mean it's common sense that your body takes a beating while playing and your body wears down as you age.

[RuthMayBond]

Funny, you could often say the difference between a playoff team and a non-playoff team is one win every 20 games... chop anything down to a small enough sample size and you can decrease the perceived "gap" between them. 1 hit per week sounds better than a 45 hit difference per year, 900 hit difference per career. Just like 1 win better in every 20 sounds better than this team was 89-73, this other team was 81-81. What I'm getting at is that it's A) stupid to use a sample size that small and B) that one hit per week over a career sure adds up over a career and amounts to a megaton of value.What I'm getting is that I doubt most eyewitnesses could tell a difference of one hit a week

[RuthMayBond]

<Right, Mays brought arguably the best CF glove ever.

How many championships did that glove bring his team?>

Wow, the old "one is the whole team". Apparently Charlie Silvera was a better player than Ty Cobb?

<Let's name how many right-handers ever hit better than Joe DiMaggio. You can sure answer that question fast.>

<Arguably Hornsby, Mantle, Foxx, Thomas, Mays, Aaron ...

Please give all last names. Thomas who? Aaron who?>

You honestly don't know

[Erik Bedard]

You doth protest too loudly, Eric the Rude.

Dude, at least spell my name right. :rolleyes:


Joe DiMaggio was the greatest player of his era. And I didn't say he was underrated by people who saw him. I said he is underrated by people who didn't see him. People like you, for instance.

And I'm saying he's overrated by people who saw him, almost entirely due to his playing in the "capital of baseball" in the "greatest era ever".


Just because you don't like DiMaggio's personality, doesn't make Williams and Musial better. As great as Williams was, he was not a great all-round player, nor was he an effective leader. And, as great as Musial was, his only value over DiMaggio was longevity. No one seriously counts the Cardinals wins during the war against DiMaggio - except you and all the other rabid DiMaggio-underraters. That wonderful Browns team did pretty well during the war, too, didn't they.:rolleyes:

I'm not counting it against DiMaggio, I'm counting it for Musial. And the Yanks won the pennant in '42. You can't have it both ways. And the Browns had a pretty darn good team that year.


With respect to DiMaggio's leadership, he led like Patton. You can bet your bottom bobby bonds jr. card that the Yankees were under the leadership of Mr. Joseph Paul DiMaggio. There was never any question who led his team. (Except by those who like to underrate him, while foaming at the mouth.)

And yet why did Musial continue to play after his prime, while DiMaggio retired after 1951? L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P.


It's really too bad that you can't quote anyone at all who saw DiMaggio, and agrees with you. Perhaps you can be big enough to accept the opinions of Williams & Musial, who unequivocally believed the exact opposite of you. But what do those guys know? They only saw and played against him.

It's also too bad that you are spouting all this garbage about Williams claiming Joe D. was better than him without producing a single quote from either of them. But, since you asked, here's a quote about DiMag: "But from the very beginning - not after stardom - he was moody, aloof, suspicious, and willing to share himself and his talents for a price." Doesn't sound like a born leader to me.


If Red Sox history truly was your "strong suit," then you'd know DiMaggio (Joe, not Vince) was universally regarded a far superior leader and all-round player than Williams.

Leader, no. Hitter, hell no. Defense, yes. And once again, you claim all this to be true without any baking. You weren't even aware that McPhail offered DiMaggio for Williams and that Yawkey rejected it because he, like McPhail, saw Williams as a superior player. With all due respect, fans in the '40s, especially those in New York, were stupid.

You still have not:

Produced a single quote that suggests that DiMaggio was a better player than Musial and Williams.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio led the Yankees to a grand total of ONE WS title in the 40's while Musial was a regular.
Addressed the fact that in head-to-head competition, Musial's Cards destroyed the loaded Yankees.
Addressed the fact that Ted Williams was ten times the hitter of DiMaggio.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio was considered aloof and moody, not qualities of a leader.
Relied on anything other than the accounts of those who lived at the time.

[538280]

Perhaps I have more Astro and Bill James fans as acquantances and such than most folks. But I read about Biggio on the internet, hear about him in person and see him on the tube more than any man should have to endure. And it all started around the time Bill James threw him 35th all time. And that wasn't a "slight overrate" either. It was an enormous error. If memory serves, James had Biggio 35th overall, ahead of Maddux, Clemens, Seaver, Yogi, Bench, Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs, Clemente, Thomas, Carew, Puckett, Griffey etc.... if I were drafting a team and you told me, you could get ANY of those players from their rookie season to the end of their career (plus Biggio added to the group), Biggio would be dead last in my draft queue.

I think James overrated Biggio but a lot as well. I don't think he deserved near the 35th best player of all time and certainly didn't belong above Nap Lajoie on the list of best 2Bmen of all time. I would probaby take Biggio above, on your list, Clemente at least. Biggio was a worse hitter than Clemente but offensively the difference is much lower due to Biggio's baserunning. He also has much superior longevity and career value and because he plays a key defensive position of second base. Other than that though I'd take all those other guys over Biggio, except maybe Carew who is better offensively but worse defensively because he spent half his career at 1B, but I'd still probably take Carew but it's close.


Now, that's not to say Biggio isn't a good player. He's a top 10 2B of all-time, I'll give him that. Probably in the 7-9 range.

I have him in the same range and in the 60s all time, so I think we're on the same page with valuation of Biggio. I just think perhaps he gets a lot more exposure to you, probably because you live in the midwest and follow the Cardinals who play Biggio on a regular basis.


But his 3,000 hits doesn't awe me, considering he's hung around 6-7 years past his prime and actually HURT his team the past few seasons by taking up a lineup spot, despite playing almost at replacement level. This year he's in the lineup and batting leadoff with a sub .300 OBP. At this point he's just trotting himself out there, going through the motions at the expense of his team just to get 3,000 hits. Color me not impressed.

I'm not that impressed with the Biggio of the last few years either. He's a below average offensive player and a well below average defensive 2Bman just playing basically because he's a former star, he is close to 3000 hits, and he has a rep for being a "gritty" player. I think prior to last year though he was still earning his spot. He was posting about 100 OPS+s prior to that year which for a 2Bman is solid offensive performance. He's been bad defensively so he probalby isn't much better than average overall, certainly not anything special but I wouldn't say it's an outrage he's playing and he's just on the field to extend his bid for 3000 hits; average performance is not always easy to find.


Doubles... nice, but I don't particularly care where he ranks on the career doubles chart. Same with hit by pitches.

I agree. Where a player rates on career leaderboards or even in year to year leaderboards is irrelevent. It is the sum of their contributions to winning all taken together than matters.

[Skin & Bones]

This is downright ridiculous. Claiming Bagwell to be a PED user simply because he was an outstanding player who got injured a lot later in his career?

Well, he did admit to using Andro.


McGwire didn't need andro to be awesome. He used it, he said, not as a source of testosterone but, “to help me through my workouts.” When Houston slugger Jeff Bagwell tried andro, he saw his stats decline.

“I guess in my andro bottle, they forgot to include the little pamphlet telling me how to hit home runs,” Bagwell told the St.Louis Post-Dispatch. “And that's the point. Hand-eye coordination is something you can't get from a bottle.”

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/07/spt_mcgwires_biggest_hit.html

[ChrisLDuncan]

And yet why did Musial continue to play after his prime, while DiMaggio retired after 1951? L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P.


DiMaggio didn't want to let the fans down...he always said "I always play my best, because this could be someoene's first time seeing Joe DiMaggio, I don't want the lasting impression being a half hearted effort"...that attittude has slid down the Yankees ranks for generations that's still being said today...totally not leader ship :rolleyes:



It's also too bad that you are spouting all this garbage about Williams claiming Joe D. was better than him without producing a single quote from either of them. But, since you asked, here's a quote about DiMag: "But from the very beginning - not after stardom - he was moody, aloof, suspicious, and willing to share himself and his talents for a price." Doesn't sound like a born leader to me.



i.e. HATED LOSING




Leader, no. Hitter, hell no. Defense, yes. And once again, you claim all this to be true without any baking. You weren't even aware that McPhail offered DiMaggio for Williams and that Yawkey rejected it because he, like McPhail, saw Williams as a superior player. With all due respect, fans in the '40s, especially those in New York, were stupid.


Yes and guys like Stan Musial, Casey Stengel, and Ted Williams himself...they were total jackasses when it came to baseball. :rolleyes:




You still have not:

Produced a single quote that suggests that DiMaggio was a better player than Musial and Williams.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio led the Yankees to a grand total of ONE WS title in the 40's while Musial was a regular.
Addressed the fact that in head-to-head competition, Musial's Cards destroyed the loaded Yankees.
Addressed the fact that Ted Williams was ten times the hitter of DiMaggio.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio was considered aloof and moody, not qualities of a leader.
Relied on anything other than the accounts of those who lived at the time.


Allow me to add the quotes

"Joe DiMaggio was the perfect player the greatest I have ever seen"-Stan Musial

"Joe DiMaggio is the best all around player I have ever seen"-Ted Williams

I count three WS that DiMaggio led the Yanks to in the 40s

There was only one year where the Cards beat the Yanks in the WS

Ted Williams was not "Ten Times the Hitter of DiMaggio"...was he a better hitter, yes, ten times? No...if that were true his OPS+ would be around 1500

He was always sour when he lost...I don't know many good leaders in any field that say "HELL YES WE LOST" or are in a good mood after losing. The key word in "Graceful Loser" is loser

Well seeing as they saw him and had the best vantage point I would say that they probably were the best to talk about DiMaggio...how many times at fuenerals to you see people who didn't know the guy read the eulogy, or at weddings how many times to you see someone who knew neither party of the wedding give the address at the reception?

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm not that impressed with the Biggio of the last few years either. He's a below average offensive player and a well below average defensive 2Bman just playing basically because he's a former star, he is close to 3000 hits, and he has a rep for being a "gritty" player. I think prior to last year though he was still earning his spot. He was posting about 100 OPS+s prior to that year which for a 2Bman is solid offensive performance. He's been bad defensively so he probalby isn't much better than average overall, certainly not anything special but I wouldn't say it's an outrage he's playing and he's just on the field to extend his bid for 3000 hits; average performance is not always easy to find.



Yeah I like that out of Biggio too, I also like the versatility of Biggio too he could play just about any position on the diamond....I personally have him 7th amongst 2Bmen

[TRfromBR]

Dude, at least spell my name right. :rolleyes:


And I'm saying he's overrated by people who saw him, almost entirely due to his playing in the "capital of baseball" in the "greatest era ever".


I'm not counting it against DiMaggio, I'm counting it for Musial. And the Yanks won the pennant in '42. You can't have it both ways. And the Browns had a pretty darn good team that year.


And yet why did Musial continue to play after his prime, while DiMaggio retired after 1951? L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P.


It's also too bad that you are spouting all this garbage about Williams claiming Joe D. was better than him without producing a single quote from either of them. But, since you asked, here's a quote about DiMag: "But from the very beginning - not after stardom - he was moody, aloof, suspicious, and willing to share himself and his talents for a price." Doesn't sound like a born leader to me.


Leader, no. Hitter, hell no. Defense, yes. And once again, you claim all this to be true without any baking. You weren't even aware that McPhail offered DiMaggio for Williams and that Yawkey rejected it because he, like McPhail, saw Williams as a superior player. With all due respect, fans in the '40s, especially those in New York, were stupid.

You still have not:

Produced a single quote that suggests that DiMaggio was a better player than Musial and Williams.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio led the Yankees to a grand total of ONE WS title in the 40's while Musial was a regular.
Addressed the fact that in head-to-head competition, Musial's Cards destroyed the loaded Yankees.
Addressed the fact that Ted Williams was ten times the hitter of DiMaggio.
Addressed the fact that DiMaggio was considered aloof and moody, not qualities of a leader.
Relied on anything other than the accounts of those who lived at the time.

Your post has to be one of the most hysterical monologues ever written. Okay, I admit it. I got punked. I really thought you were serious. Now, I see you have just been playing a complete fool in order to draw me out and tick me off. For a moment I actually thought you meant all that nonsense. Clearly, though, you're really just a huge DiMaggio fan, poking a little fun & using absurd "facts" and arguments in order to prove his greatness.

I truly admire this unique technique, acting like such an ill-informed idiot against such an unquestionable all-time great, thereby building even further support for Joey D.

And thank you, too, for that incredible piece of inside history on the great Williams-for-DiMaggio trade. Didn't know you were there with McPhail and Yawkey. Is it true McPhail had about ten Perfect Manhattans?

Thanks, Eric. Before your latest billet doux, I thought DiMaggio was one of the all-time greats. If you run into McPhail again, could you ask him why they paid DiMaggio the highest salary in the league, and held on to the bum so long?

Go Browns!

[Westlake]

yes, they do. you can get over to cover your bag faster or to catch a ball on ped's. as well as run faster around the bases while on ped's. what are you john mccain, interviewing yourself here? just because you answer your questions doesn't mean the answer is correct.

No, those were questions that a long time writer that covered the Astros asked Bagwell, and what was in quotations were his answers.

The rest of your post that I didn't put in bold is a complete joke.

[ARISTOCRAT]

No, smartass, those were questions that a long time writer that covered the Astros asked Bagwell, and what was in quotations were his answers.

The rest of your post that I didn't put in bold is a complete joke.

What is a joke is that you are standing behind this interview, that you didn't post by the way, as if Bagwell were under oath at the time.

[Westlake]

[COLOR="Blue"]
Thanks, Eric the Retard. Before your latest billet doux, I thought DiMaggio was one of the all-time greats.

Wow. Is it necessary to call a young man a retard when he disagrees with you? Especially when there was no name-calling on his part? Cmon now...

[Westlake]

What is a joke is that you are standing behind this interview, that you didn't post by the way, as if Bagwell were under oath at the time.

Post it? No, because I don't even know if it was ever printed. The writer told it to me, word for word. You're embarassing yourself.

[ARISTOCRAT]

Post it? No, because I don't even know if it was ever printed. The writer told it to me, word for word. You're embarassing yourself.

Embarassing myself? See my comment about being under oath at the time.

[Westlake]

Embarassing myself? See my comment about being under oath at the time.

And that means what? Sorry, I don't need to have someone under oath every time to believe them. The writer told me he would trusted Bagwell to not lie like he trusted his own father. Bagwell could have said no to taking amphetamines, but he said no comment because he didn't want to be a liar. He then said no to the other two questions. I believe him. That's all I said. I didn't say you had to.

[ARISTOCRAT]

And that means what? Sorry, I don't need to have someone under oath every time to believe them. The writer told me he would trusted Bagwell to not lie like he trusted his own father. Bagwell could have said no to taking amphetamines, but he said no comment because he didn't want to be a liar. He then said no to the other two questions. I believe him. That's all I said. I didn't say you had to.

I appreciate you not telling me I had to, I hope in the future you can take a bit of your own advice and not attack when you are not agreed with.

[TRfromBR]

Wow. Is it necessary to call a young man a retard when he disagrees with you? Especially when there was no name-calling on his part? Cmon now...

And what are your feelings on the substantive matters discussed, Westlake? That is, do you agree or disagree with the gentleman's angry claims and ccommentaries concerning DiMaggio?

P.S. I'm not getting a [phony] lecture on morals here from a guy who regularly condones Bonds' cheating through unlawful PED use, am I? Please don't tell me that.

[Westlake]

And what are your feelings on the substantive matters discussed, Westlake? That is, do you agree or disagree with the gentleman's angry claims and ccommentaries concerning DiMaggio?

P.S. I'm not getting a [phony] lecture on morals here from a guy who regularly condones Bonds' cheating through unlawful PED use, am I? Please don't tell me that.

I agree with some, disagree with others. I do feel DiMaggio is overrated by some... including you. But I definately wouldn't take it to the extent he did.

I regularly condone cheating through PED use? Really? I'm glad you're here to tell me i'm doing something that i've never done. Not once have I done that. So knock it off.

I'm not lecturing you. I just think it's pathetic that without being called something first, you feel the need to call a 15-year-old a 'retard' because he disagrees with you. You must have been the captain of the debate team in high school.

[Westlake]

I appreciate you not telling me I had to, I hope in the future you can take a bit of your own advice and not attack when you are not agreed with.

I didn't attack... you assumed, were wrong, and I corrected you. Then I agreed with two other posters who deemed the rest of your post to be a joke and ridiculous.

[ARISTOCRAT]

I didn't attack... you assumed, were wrong, and I corrected you. Then I agreed with two other posters who deemed the rest of your post to be a joke and ridiculous.

What did i assume? That you had something of substance to back up your claims of no ped's for Bagwell?
Explain to me why you think a baseball player like Jeff Bagwell who for the most part was looked at as a solid ball player by the public would feel the need to throw himself under the bus and admit to a reporter he did steroids.

[Bill Burgess]

Did I mention that personal attacks/name-calling are not allowed on Fever? If anyone has any, would they mind please correcting them? That would be appreciated by management. Sorry, brothers. That is my job.

Bill the Sheriff

[ARISTOCRAT]

To clear this little discussion up with Westlake real quick, here is a link to website about ped's. http://www.healthycompetitiontn.org/teens/ped411.shtm
It clearly states a different variety of ped's which include anabolic steroids, stimulants (amphetamines), sports supplements (andro), HGH, and blood doping. By my calculations Bagwell has done 2 of the 5 in his career, the two being andro and amphetamines, yet you continue to act as if he doesn't because of an interview he gave to a reporter. Check your facts my friend. And back to that embarrassing comment.......

[Westlake]

To clear this little discussion up with Westlake real quick, here is a link to website about ped's. http://www.healthycompetitiontn.org/teens/ped411.shtm
It clearly states a different variety of ped's which include anabolic steroids, stimulants (amphetamines), sports supplements (andro), HGH, and blood doping. By my calculations Bagwell has done 2 of the 5 in his career, the two being andro and amphetamines, yet you continue to act as if he doesn't because of an interview he gave to a reporter. Check your facts my friend. And back to that embarrassing comment.......

Assuming again, I see. I said that I believe that he wasn't a product of PEDs because he said he did not take them throughout his career. Anything else?

[Westlake]

Did I mention that personal attacks/name-calling are not allowed on Fever? If anyone has any, would they mind please correcting them? That would be appreciated by management. Sorry, brothers. That is my job.

Bill the Sheriff

I'm done with the bickering here Bill, sorry about that to all. I removed the one name-calling incident I was involved in minutes after I posted it. Back to how McAleer is overrated now, yes? ;)

[ARISTOCRAT]

Assuming again, I see. I said that I believe that he wasn't a product of PEDs because he said he did not take them throughout his career. Anything else?

So because he said to a reporter that he didn't take them a lot you are letting him off the hook? In my opinion your relationship with the reporter is fogging the facts.

[Westlake]

So because he said to a reporter that he didn't take them a lot you are letting him off the hook? In my opinion your relationship with the reporter is fogging the facts.

You don't know the facts any more than I do. I believe him, apparently you don't.

I don't have a relationship with the reporter... I've talked to him a couple times, he told me that story, he said that Bagwell had ALWAYS been honest with him in the 15 years he had covered him, and that he trusts Bagwell not to lie to him. Bagwell didn't want to lie so he said "no comment" to the answer that would have incriminated him, and gave a flat out "no" to the others. He believed Bagwell, and so do I. If you have a problem with that... well, I don't really care.

EDIT: If you REALLY want to talk about this further...PM me or something. This has nothing to do with this thread anymore. I wont respond to anything you write in this thread about this subject anymore.

[The Commissioner]

Pie Traynor continues to divide the Fever Faithful. Half love him, most don't.

Someone's been reading a little too much Yogi Berra lately. ;)

[The Commissioner]

Out of curiosity, did any of those placing Koufax or DiMaggio as being overrated ever see them play?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Out of curiosity, did any of those placing Koufax or DiMaggio as being overrated ever see them play?

Most likely not is my guess.

[TRfromBR]

I agree with some, disagree with others. I do feel DiMaggio is overrated by some... including you. But I definately wouldn't take it to the extent he did.

I regularly condone cheating through PED use? Really? I'm glad you're here to tell me i'm doing something that i've never done. Not once have I done that. So knock it off.

I'm not lecturing you. I just think it's pathetic that without being called something first, you feel the need to call a 15-year-old a 'retard' because he disagrees with you. You must have been the captain of the debate team in high school.

Westlake, I have no idea what the age of "Erik Bedard" is. And I have no idea how you do. How do you? I first called him Eric the Rude, after his first assinine post. After his second post, a landmark of stupidity and non-objectivity, I ratcheted that up to Eric the Retard, plainly humorous wordplay on his User Name, which you [fraudulently] claim moral outrage over.

If you want to truly help protect this "15 year old," then come out and condemn the PED use which has been so often condoned. I don't ever recall see you express an moral outrage about that.

Finally, your discussion concerning DiMaggio has no meaningful content whatsover. Why don't you back up empty criticisms with some facts. At least Eric Petard provided some facts and arguments, albeit mostly absurd ones. You have provided nothing of note or merit.

No, I wasn't the captain of my high school's debate team. I was too busy excelling in four major sports, and getting ready for engineering school. But, I'm sure I could have been, if I wanted to, had the time, and set my mind to it.

Good night, Gore Vidal. Hope things don't get too much more foggy for you over there in London.

[Westlake]

Westlake, I have no idea what the age of "Erik Bedard" is. And I have no idea how you do. How do you? I first called him Eric the Rude, after his first assinine post. After his second post, a landmark of stupidity and non-objectivity, I ratcheted that up to Eric the Retard, plainly humorous wordplay on his User Name, which you [fraudulently] claim moral outrage over.

If you want to truly help protect this "15 year old," then come out and condemn the PED use which has been so often condoned. I don't ever recall see you express an moral outrage about that.

Finally, your discussion concerning DiMaggio has no meaningful content whatsover. Why don't you back up empty criticisms with some facts. At least Eric Petard provided some facts and arguments, albeit mostly absurd ones. You have provided nothing of note or merit.

No, I wasn't the captain of my high school's debate team. I was too busy excelling in four major sports, and getting ready for engineering school. But, I'm sure I could have been, if I wanted to, had the time, and set my mind to it.

Good night, Gore Vidal. Hope things don't get too much more foggy for you over there in London.


EB and I have conversed on this site many times. Red Sox fan. Good kid. I wasn't protecting him, I have no need to. He can hold his own. I just wanted to know if you thought it was ok to call a 15-yr-old a 'Retard'. Or anyone for that matter.

Also... PED use is wrong. Those who use PEDs should be suspended. There ya go.

That's about all i'll respond to here. I'm glad you were such a success in high school.

P.S. Only my friends call me Gore Vidal.

[Erik Bedard]

DiMaggio didn't want to let the fans down...he always said "I always play my best, because this could be someoene's first time seeing Joe DiMaggio, I don't want the lasting impression being a half hearted effort"...that attittude has slid down the Yankees ranks for generations that's still being said today...totally not leader ship :rolleyes:



i.e. HATED LOSING




Yes and guys like Stan Musial, Casey Stengel, and Ted Williams himself...they were total jackasses when it came to baseball. :rolleyes:





Allow me to add the quotes

"Joe DiMaggio was the perfect player the greatest I have ever seen"-Stan Musial

"Joe DiMaggio is the best all around player I have ever seen"-Ted Williams

I count three WS that DiMaggio led the Yanks to in the 40s

There was only one year where the Cards beat the Yanks in the WS

Ted Williams was not "Ten Times the Hitter of DiMaggio"...was he a better hitter, yes, ten times? No...if that were true his OPS+ would be around 1500

He was always sour when he lost...I don't know many good leaders in any field that say "HELL YES WE LOST" or are in a good mood after losing. The key word in "Graceful Loser" is loser

Well seeing as they saw him and had the best vantage point I would say that they probably were the best to talk about DiMaggio...how many times at fuenerals to you see people who didn't know the guy read the eulogy, or at weddings how many times to you see someone who knew neither party of the wedding give the address at the reception?

OK, thank you for actually responding to my points. I still hold, however, that DiMaggio, while not the best player, did not have the personality traits necessary to become a great leader. He was unquestionably a great player, but IMO, the fact that he retired after 1951 when he could have remained with the team just to provide leadership speaks to me that he wasn't a great leader in the first place. However, if I were picking players to carry a team in the '40s, I'd still take Musial first, Williams second, and DiMaggio third. That is NOT an indication of my rankings of them, as I have Williams sixth, Musial sixteenth, and DiMaggio twenty-first.



Your post has to be one of the most hysterical monologues ever written. Okay, I admit it. I got punked. I really thought you were serious. Now, I see you have just been playing a complete fool in order to draw me out and tick me off. For a moment I actually thought you meant all that nonsense. Clearly, though, you're really just a huge DiMaggio fan, poking a little fun & using absurd "facts" and arguments in order to prove his greatness.

I truly admire this unique technique, acting like such an ill-informed idiot against such an unquestionable all-time great, thereby building even further support for Joey D.

And thank you, too, for that incredible piece of inside history on the great Williams-for-DiMaggio trade. Didn't know you were there with McPhail and Yawkey. Is it true McPhail had about ten Perfect Manhattans?

Thanks, Eric the Retard. Before your latest billet doux, I thought DiMaggio was one of the all-time greats. If you run into McPhail again, could you ask him why they paid DiMaggio the highest salary in the league, and held on to the bum so long?

Go Browns!

And once again, you fail to provide any logical argument, instead resorting to calling a teenager a retard.

As for how I know about the DiMag-Williams trade, Yawkey gave several interviews about it, and a story of it was published in Red Sox Nation. I don't know exactly how many alcoholic beverages McPhail consumed, but I do know that it was he who initiated the trade talks.

DiMaggio is an all-time great. When did I say anything otherwise?

But, since you can't come up with anything coherent to respond to me, you're on my ignore list.

[TRfromBR]

EB and I have conversed on this site many times. Red Sox fan. Good kid. I wasn't protecting him, I have no need to. He can hold his own. I just wanted to know if you thought it was ok to call a 15-yr-old a 'Retard'. Or anyone for that matter.

Also... PED use is wrong. Those who use PEDs should be suspended. There ya go.

That's about all i'll respond to here. I'm glad you were such a success in high school.

P.S. Only my friends call me Gore Vidal.

Thanks for your kind words on my high school achievements. I'm happy to say college went even better. I'm still accepting congratulatory gifts for both. In early July, I'll be flying into Gatwick. If you'd like, you could leave a couple of Happy Graduation cards for me care of British Airways.

Good call & update on your PED position. Now, if you really want to help your young friend, Eric the (not-so-well) Red, send him some material on DiMaggio that concentrates on the man's immense Baseball skills, not on sensationalized soap-operish stories of his personal life. And especially nothing by ultra-phony Gore Vidal.

Stay out of that London Fog.

[TRfromBR]

DiMaggio is an all-time great.



I'm glad to see you have finally said it. The truth shall set you free.

And I'm also glad you put DiMaggio out in the field with Williams & Musial. That's three of the best ever, and Joltin' Joe will make Williams even greater, by making him a better fielder and all-round player. Ted [and Stan] always respected and looked up to Joe as the greatest they'd ever seen. He would definitely lead them to even greater heights. Good luck, Erik.

[RuthMayBond]

Out of curiosity, did any of those placing Koufax or DiMaggio as being overrated ever see them play?That's going to limit a LOT who almost EVERYONE can (or cannot) rate

[Bill Burgess]

It's hard to define because we are so different than the public.

Public loves Roberto Clemente, we're seriously under-estimating him.Seriously? IMHO.

<Public loves Warren Spahn, Fever is lukewarm at best.>

Don't think so, Bill Ah, but I do.

<Public used to love Matty, but we are a little spotty on Matty.>

Public doesn't know about Matty, he gets pretty darn good marks here Hence my use of the words, 'used to'. I think our thinking on Matty could use some improvement.

<Public loves the Babe, and he's over-rated here, in terms of being #1.

Public has forgotten about Ty Cobb, we haven't, but he's still under-rated in terms of being perceived as #1 to Babe Ruth. Shame on us.>

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: Yada yada yada, yeah, yeah, yeah.

<Honus Wagner is loved by the public and by us too. Horay for us!>

Public doesn't know that much about Wagner Perhaps so. Maybe I was too generous with the 'public'.

<Jimmy McAleer is long-forgotten by both the public and Fever. Too bad for Jimmy. Challenged Spoke/Mays for all time best OF glove honors.>

In your dreams At least in some of them. Even I forget Jimmy in some of my dreams.

<Burgess' Most Under-rated Team:

C - Buck Ewing
1B - George Sisler
2B - Lajoie, Gehringer
SS - Herman Long
3B - Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Ron Santo
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange
RF - Roberto Clemente (on Fever)
P - Mathewson, Spahn (on Fever)>

Amazingly, actually three who played after the, what, late 20s/early 30s

<Burgess' Most Over-rated Team:
C - ?
1B - Frank Thomas
2B - Joe Morgan
SS - Cal Ripken
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Lou Brock
CF - Mickey Mantle
RF - Frank Robinson
P - ?>

Amazingly, one who actually retired before the 70s (barely) You refer to Brooksie. Are you suggesting I am too soft on old-timers?
Why are we rating ourselves compared to what the public thinks? Because I am oh so cool off the charts? My comparisons are 'off the hook', because I am so way cool, Jeffrey dear. Try it, you'll like it.

[ARISTOCRAT]

You don't know the facts any more than I do. I believe him, apparently you don't.

I don't have a relationship with the reporter... I've talked to him a couple times, he told me that story, he said that Bagwell had ALWAYS been honest with him in the 15 years he had covered him, and that he trusts Bagwell not to lie to him. Bagwell didn't want to lie so he said "no comment" to the answer that would have incriminated him, and gave a flat out "no" to the others. He believed Bagwell, and so do I. If you have a problem with that... well, I don't really care.

EDIT: If you REALLY want to talk about this further...PM me or something. This has nothing to do with this thread anymore. I wont respond to anything you write in this thread about this subject anymore.

There is no need to go over the factless posts you have already left again, but you choose to. Jeff Bagwell being overrated is a fact, Jeff Bagwell taking ped's is a fact, Jeff Bagwell has the same story as Barry Bonds yet he is not murdered with words in the press as Barry Bonds is, that is a fact. You having some sort of bias for Bagwell is a fact, otherwise you would hold Jeff Bagwell in the same light as Barry Bonds.

[ChrisLDuncan]

There is no need to go over the factless posts you have already left again, but you choose to. Jeff Bagwell being overrated is a fact, Jeff Bagwell taking ped's is a fact, Jeff Bagwell has the same story as Barry Bonds yet he is not murdered with words in the press as Barry Bonds is, that is a fact. You having some sort of bias for Bagwell is a fact, otherwise you would hold Jeff Bagwell in the same light as Barry Bonds.

Yes those are all facts...and clearly the definition of fact would support this.


1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.


Because since there is a place where you can look up exactly where Bagwell is rated, the fact that we rate him higher than the rankings of fact means he's overrated so that's a FACT! And Bagwell using PEDs, also a fact, you must have a time machine where you can follow Bags' every move and find this out.

[ChrisLDuncan]

OK, thank you for actually responding to my points. I still hold, however, that DiMaggio, while not the best player, did not have the personality traits necessary to become a great leader. He was unquestionably a great player, but IMO, the fact that he retired after 1951 when he could have remained with the team just to provide leadership speaks to me that he wasn't a great leader in the first place. However, if I were picking players to carry a team in the '40s, I'd still take Musial first, Williams second, and DiMaggio third. That is NOT an indication of my rankings of them, as I have Williams sixth, Musial sixteenth, and DiMaggio twenty-first.


Leadership is not something meausred in stats...there is plenty of leadership still comming from DiMaggion that the Yankees have carried for decades. "You Never Know Who Is Watching" That quote resonates in the Yankee clubhouse and it comes straight from Giuseppe Paolo DiMaggio...he was a tremendous leader.

[Erik Bedard]

A leader among future generations, sure. A leader among his teammates while he was playing, not so much.

[ChrisLDuncan]

A leader among future generations, sure. A leader among his teammates while he was playing, not so much.

I'm pretty sure the team consensus was otherwise...you gotta understand that he was an Icon. The Yankees always had faith that they would win the World Series BECAUESE they had DiMaggio...right or wrong, that's the way it was. He is not the most overrated CF at any rate..

[rugbyfreak]

Like everything else associated with ESPN, Stark's list ignores the fact that the sport of baseball existed prior to 1950.

I understand why they do this: $$$$$$.

But, while a book like this may please the publisher's bottom line, I would recommend it for entertainment purposes only. As a serious baseball history tome, it's the bunk

I've seen the interviews with Stark (I'm a big fan of the Mike & Mike show), and I have to say, he's taking a lighthearted approach to the book. He has said, over and over, things like, "This book is not meant to end arguments, but rather to start them" and "This is in no way one of those serious, studious baseball books; it's meant for fun."

Having heard that, I could respect that, and really, it's the only approach he can take, since the minute you broach the "overrated/underrated" arena, you'd better accept that there simply are no definitions or standards.

So instead of even going there, I focused on his reasons (haven't read the book yet). Some thoughts:

--The Andruw Jones thing was dead-on. Any casual observer can see his whole approach to the game has changed, especially since his 50-HR year. He's all puffy now (PEDs? not going there), he strikes out more, gets on base less, all of which I knew, but what I learned from Stark was that he has averaged, the past several years, about 100 fewer putouts than he used to (or at least than he had in his two biggest years). I had noticed that he no longer LOOKED like a CFer, but now here was some tangible evidence.

--Koufax. It's a matter of record that there are two distinct halves to Sandy's career. Stark insists, are we supposed to just pretend that those first six years didn't happen? My answer is, of course not, but can we admit that the second-half version was the real version? If so, we have to look at what happened those first six years. He was mishandled by Alston, who didn't have enough confidence in him to put him in the regular rotation, but seemed to forget that you can't find out if someone is worth of your confidence until you try. Through '60, Sandy never started more than 26 games, and was always in a dual role in the bullpen.

--Shortstop. Rizzuto may have benefited from Yankee hype--he wouldn't be the first--but I think Marty Marion's got him beat. For a similar reason, too: assocation with a powerhouse team. But Mr. Shortstop? Please. And if you believe Scooter's '50 MVP was bogus, check his numbers: His best ever, but right there, especially for a SS. Then go to '44, and look at Marty's MVP. Any answers? I have none.

[RuthMayBond]

Seriously? IMHO.

<Public loves Warren Spahn, Fever is lukewarm at best.>

Don't think so, Bill Ah, but I do.We don't say he's the best ever but he's pretty highly rated

<Public used to love Matty, but we are a little spotty on Matty.>

<Public doesn't know about Matty, he gets pretty darn good marks here Hence my use of the words, 'used to'. I think our thinking on Matty could use some improvement.>

so what does that have to do with the modern public?

<Jimmy McAleer is long-forgotten by both the public and Fever. Too bad for Jimmy. Challenged Spoke/Mays for all time best OF glove honors.>

<In your dreams At least in some of them. Even I forget Jimmy in some of my dreams.>

Then don't blame us

<Burgess' Most Under-rated Team:

C - Buck Ewing
1B - George Sisler
2B - Lajoie, Gehringer
SS - Herman Long
3B - Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Ron Santo
LF - Joe Jackson
CF - Jimmy Ryan, George Gore, Bill Lange
RF - Roberto Clemente (on Fever)
P - Mathewson, Spahn (on Fever)>

Amazingly, actually three who played after the, what, late 20s/early 30s

<Burgess' Most Over-rated Team:
C - ?
1B - Frank Thomas
2B - Joe Morgan
SS - Cal Ripken
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Lou Brock
CF - Mickey Mantle
RF - Frank Robinson
P - ?>

Amazingly, one who actually retired before the 70s (barely) You refer to Brooksie. Are you suggesting I am too soft on old-timers?>

I refer to Mantle, yer slipping Bill. Since almost your entire underrated team is oldtimers and almost your entire overrated team is newer guys, I think that'd be a fair statement.

<Why are we rating ourselves compared to what the public thinks? Because I am oh so cool off the charts? My comparisons are 'off the hook', because I am so way cool, Jeffrey dear.>

See original comment about McAleer

[ElHalo]

--Koufax. It's a matter of record that there are two distinct halves to Sandy's career. Stark insists, are we supposed to just pretend that those first six years didn't happen? My answer is, of course not, but can we admit that the second-half version was the real version? If so, we have to look at what happened those first six years. He was mishandled by Alston, who didn't have enough confidence in him to put him in the regular rotation, but seemed to forget that you can't find out if someone is worth of your confidence until you try. Through '60, Sandy never started more than 26 games, and was always in a dual role in the bullpen. And sometimes pitchers just take a while to get going. Randy Johnson took ten full years between the time he was first drafted and the time he became a plus starter.


--Shortstop. Rizzuto may have benefited from Yankee hype--he wouldn't be the first--but I think Marty Marion's got him beat. For a similar reason, too: assocation with a powerhouse team. But Mr. Shortstop? Please. And if you believe Scooter's '50 MVP was bogus, check his numbers: His best ever, but right there, especially for a SS. Then go to '44, and look at Marty's MVP. Any answers? I have none. I really don't think Rizzuto fits this role any more. The only time anybody (and I mean anybody) brings Rizzuto up is to either to a) talk about his broadcasting career, or b) talk about how he's overrated. If the only time a guy is mentioned is to mention that he's overrated, how can he possibly be overrated? I think Rizzuto is one of those cases where his detractors have completely taken over the conversation to the point where he's probably a bit underrated now. He's probably the guy normally most brought as the worst HoF'er, and that's just not close to the case.

[RuthMayBond]

Leadership is not something meausred in stats...there is plenty of leadership still comming from DiMaggion that the Yankees have carried for decades.You actually believe this? Where was it from 1965-1975 and 1982 to the early 90s?

[RuthMayBond]

--The Andruw Jones thing was dead-on. he strikes out more, gets on base less, all of which I knew, but what I learned from Stark was that he has averaged, the past several years, about 100 fewer putouts than he used to (or at least than he had in his two biggest years).
in his two biggest years, big difference. He had fewer Ks in 05 and 06 than in almost EVERY year 01-04. His 05 and 06 OBP is better than almost EVERY year 01-04.

<--Koufax. It's a matter of record that there are two distinct halves to Sandy's career. Stark insists, are we supposed to just pretend that those first six years didn't happen? My answer is, of course not, but can we admit that the second-half version was the real version?>

Kinda sounds like you're pretending

<He was mishandled by Alston, who didn't have enough confidence in him to put him in the regular rotation, but seemed to forget that you can't find out if someone is worth of your confidence until you try. Through '60, Sandy never started more than 26 games>

He got 26, 23 and 26 starts in 58-60, not exactly what you do if you're not confident in someone.

<--Shortstop. Rizzuto may have benefited from Yankee hype--he wouldn't be the first--but I think Marty Marion's got him beat. For a similar reason, too: assocation with a powerhouse team. But Mr. Shortstop? Please. And if you believe Scooter's '50 MVP was bogus, check his numbers:>

You think he was better than Joe D?

[538280]

I really don't think Rizzuto fits this role any more. The only time anybody (and I mean anybody) brings Rizzuto up is to either to a) talk about his broadcasting career, or b) talk about how he's overrated. If the only time a guy is mentioned is to mention that he's overrated, how can he possibly be overrated? I think Rizzuto is one of those cases where his detractors have completely taken over the conversation to the point where he's probably a bit underrated now. He's probably the guy normally most brought as the worst HoF'er, and that's just not close to the case.

I agree. Perhaps Rizzuto was overrated when he was playing, in a similar way to Jeter even though Jeter actually is deserving of a LOT of press, Rizzuto as a player clearly wasn't Jeter and not deserving of the same amount. But today, Rizzuto has sort of come to just personify the "New York bias" and he is probalby the most commonly used example of a player helped by this "New York bias". It probably does exist somewhat, and Rizzuto probably would not have made the HOF if he didn't play for the Yankees, but really it's just about all you hear about him anymore, I agree.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You actually believe this? Where was it from 1965-1975 and 1982 to the early 90s?

Still resonates down there...been passed down from Yankee generations to Yankee generations.

[Bill Burgess]

I agree. Perhaps Rizzuto was overrated when he was playing, in a similar way to Jeter even though Jeter actually is deserving of a LOT of press, Rizzuto as a player clearly wasn't Jeter and not deserving of the same amount. But today, Rizzuto has sort of come to just personify the "New York bias" and he is probalby the most commonly used example of a player helped by this "New York bias". It probably does exist somewhat, and Rizzuto probably would not have made the HOF if he didn't play for the Yankees, but really it's just about all you hear about him anymore, I agree.
Truer words have seldom was said. If not for the Yanks, Phil wouldn't have gotten any attention. Like Vizquel, without the talent.

[ElHalo]

Truer words have seldom was said. If not for the Yanks, Phil wouldn't have gotten any attention. Like Vizquel, without the talent.

Um... no. Rizzuto was a better defender and better hitter than Vizquel. Although if I was going to compare Rizzuto to somebody, it would be him... but "Vizqul+" rather than "Vizquel without the talent."

[Westlake]

Always a good way to make an argument when you don't really have something to say... "You are biased towards Player A". Riiiight. I hate the Astros. Always have, always will. Keep it coming though.

Same as Bonds? I've got to address this..

Where in the world do you see an obvious unnatural spike in Jeff Bagwell's numbers? Where do you see Bagwell having some of the best offensive seasons in baseball history after the age of 34? Where do you see Bagwell's name linked to Balco? Where do you see ex-players saying they KNOW he took steriods? Same as Barry? What a reach.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Always a good way to make an argument when you don't really have something to say... "You are biased towards Player A". Riiiight. I hate the Astros. Always have, always will. Keep it coming though.

Same as Bonds? I've got to address this..

Where in the world do you see an obvious unnatural spike in Jeff Bagwell's numbers? Where do you see Bagwell having some of the best offensive seasons in baseball history after the age of 34? Where do you see Bagwell's name linked to Balco? Where do you see ex-players saying they KNOW he took steriods? Same as Barry? What a reach.

No way is Bagwell even in Barry's class as a player...and no way is Bonds even in Bagwell's Class as a teammate or person.

[ARISTOCRAT]

Always a good way to make an argument when you don't really have something to say... "You are biased towards Player A". Riiiight. I hate the Astros. Always have, always will. Keep it coming though.

Same as Bonds? I've got to address this..

Where in the world do you see an obvious unnatural spike in Jeff Bagwell's numbers? Where do you see Bagwell having some of the best offensive seasons in baseball history after the age of 34? Where do you see Bagwell's name linked to Balco? Where do you see ex-players saying they KNOW he took steriods? Same as Barry? What a reach.

I believe you are the one with nowhere to go. Jeff Bagwell's story of little use is the same story as Barry Bonds, neither of which have been convicted in a court of law, yet you treat one as if he did. That my friend, is a double standard.
Spikes from steroid use don't always go in a positive direction either, my suggestion to you, take your blinders off.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I believe you are the one with nowhere to go. Jeff Bagwell's story of little use is the same story as Barry Bonds, neither of which have been convicted in a court of law, yet you treat one as if he did. That my friend, is a double standard.

Ummm...Bags career peaked at it's natural spot, Bonds' didn't...sorry dude your case doesn't hold water.

[ARISTOCRAT]

Ummm...Bags career peaked at it's natural spot, Bonds' didn't...sorry dude your case doesn't hold water.

Why do you think steroids always improve a player?

[Erik Bedard]

Ummmm... because if they didn't, nobody would use them?

[ARISTOCRAT]

Ummmm... because if they didn't, nobody would use them?

So ped's have no negative effects? I think that is naive at best.

[538280]

Truer words have seldom was said. If not for the Yanks, Phil wouldn't have gotten any attention. Like Vizquel, without the talent.

Rizzuto was definitely better than Vizquel. Rizzuto was a serious plus hitter from shorstop for a good part of his career (but he had a rough last few years, his 1950 though was a truly great season, even with the bat from SS) and a seriously all time great fielder when he was playing, DWS has him the 2nd best per inning fielder. Vizquel is a player whose greatness defensively has not been beared out very well through the stats.

[Erik Bedard]

So ped's have no negative effects? I think that is naive at best.

How does this follow what I said (or even help your argument) at all? Steroids obviously have negative effects, however, they do lead to growth of muscle mass, which almost inevitably leads to improvement as a player.

[Skin & Bones]

Ummm...Bags career peaked at it's natural spot, Bonds' didn't...sorry dude your case doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying Bags used anything more than Andro, but so what if he didn't get better with age? If that's the criteria of using steroids, Bonds is the only one. Most players tend to use steroids in their physical primes (when they work the best), so Barry's case is rare since he joined the pack later.

That said, Aristo is wrong for accusing Bagwell of being a flagrant cheat based on well...nothing.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

More like "anyone who played at a time when league BAs were about .290". I think that generally, because of this, those players are still somewhat overrated, though it's getting better and better. The 20s/30s IMO are the decades with the most overrated players, but there are some exceptions, like Wally Berger or Bob Johnson.

And you are the first person who would say that batting average doesn't mean much. Yet you use it to dismiss leagues where the batting averages were higher due to a MUCH BETTER offensive approach, and MUCH LARGER outfields than we see today.

[ARISTOCRAT]

I'm not saying Bags used anything more than Andro, but so what if he didn't get better with age? If that's the criteria of using steroids, Bonds is the only one. Most players tend to use steroids in their physical primes (when they work the best), so Barry's case is rare since he joined the pack later.

That said, Aristo is wrong for accusing Bagwell of being a flagrant cheat based on well...nothing.

Skin and Bones, you have said Bagwell did andro, and Westlake concedes he did amphetamines. Both are ped's, yet you probably see Bonds as a cheat and Bagwell not. That is a double standard.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm not saying Bags used anything more than Andro, but so what if he didn't get better with age? If that's the criteria of using steroids, Bonds is the only one. Most players tend to use steroids in their physical primes (when they work the best), so Barry's case is rare since he joined the pack later.

That said, Aristo is wrong for accusing Bagwell of being a flagrant cheat based on well...nothing.

Andro really doesn't help that much, I used to be pretty big into powerlifting...plus it was legal at the time in baseball too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androstenedione


Big Mac's "Andro" was a front for actual hard roids.

[Skin & Bones]

Andro really doesn't help that much

You sure?



Andro, much like DHEA, can have powerful effects on muscle-building and athletic performance. DHEA is two steps away from becoming testosterone. However, unlike DHEA, andro is only one step away from testosterone. Therefore, by itself, it is not a muscle builder; but after the liver converts it to testosterone-watch out, BIG gains are on their way. Studies conducted on andro indicate that when taken orally, androstenedione produces significantly more testosterone than either a placebo or DHEA. In fact, East German athletes have used andro to improve their athletic performance in the Olympics since 1980. According to German records, their athletes experienced raises in testosterone levels as significant as 140% to 183% of normal with 50 mg of andro and incredibly 211% to 237% of normal with 100 mg of andro! These testosterone boosts have lead many athletes to improving their performance and lean muscle mass. This has lead many to believe that it may even work well as a libido booster.

http://www.worldclassnutrition.com/andro.html

[ChrisLDuncan]

You sure?


No I've known guys who have used it and used roids...he said he only gained about maybe five or ten pounds on his squat from using Andro (hell protien bars helped him more) but when he was on roids he jumped about 30-40 pounds on his squat.

[ARISTOCRAT]

No I've known guys who have used it and used roids...he said he only gained about maybe five or ten pounds on his squat from using Andro (hell protien bars helped him more) but when he was on roids he jumped about 30-40 pounds on his squat.

Comments like this are why I have problems with peoples opinions on ped's. The majority of people/fans have no idea what is a ped and what is not, nor what they are taken for or what the side effects can be. The majority have taken the pill that MLB gave everyone to swallow, the pill with no facts behind it, the pill that follows the scentless bloodhounds/media on thier romp on Barry Bonds, and the pill that takes the blame away from MLB.
I beg of everyone to open your eyes and understand that ped's have been around for decades with MLB having full knowledge. The reason the ped issue has gotten this far out of hand is because MLB failed in doing anything last century. To any of you that hold any ball player responsible for what is going on, shame on you.

[Skin & Bones]

No I've known guys who have used it and used roids...he said he only gained about maybe five or ten pounds on his squat from using Andro (hell protien bars helped him more) but when he was on roids he jumped about 30-40 pounds on his squat.

small sample size.

[ChrisLDuncan]

small sample size.

Got me there.

[538280]

And you are the first person who would say that batting average doesn't mean much. Yet you use it to dismiss leagues where the batting averages were higher due to a MUCH BETTER offensive approach, and MUCH LARGER outfields than we see today.

How was I saying BA means anything there? I was just saying that 1. IMO people incorrectly place emphasis on batting averages, and 2. Raw BAs then were higher than ever, which causes people to overrate players from that era.

I'm not using BA to dismiss anything, Sultan. I'm saying that BAs were higher then than ever. That's not dismissal, it's pointing out a fact, that's IMO why players from that era are often overrated.

BTW, about BA. BA is important in that it pushes up OBP and SLG, but it has no value as a singular element. A player who hits .250/.400/.500 is just as valuable based strictly on hitting as a guy who hits .300/.400/.500.

[RuthMayBond]

How was I saying BA means anything there? I was just saying that 1. IMO people incorrectly place emphasis on batting averages, and 2. Raw BAs then were higher than ever, which causes people to overrate players from that era.

I'm not using BA to dismiss anything, Sultan. I'm saying that BAs were higher then than ever. That's not dismissal, it's pointing out a fact, that's IMO why players from that era are often overrated.You were going so well . . . :clapping :lookitup :nod:

And then

<BTW, about BA. BA is important in that it pushes up OBP and SLG, but it has no value as a singular element. A player who hits .250/.400/.500 is just as valuable based strictly on hitting as a guy who hits .300/.400/.500.>

:noidea :ughh :disbelief:

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm suprised that more people aren't listing Blyleven as the most underrated pitcher...he's easily the best player that is eligible not in the Hall.

[538280]

:noidea :ughh :disbelief:

If you look at the run value of each event, based on linear weights, it's true. Read this thread and the link TangoTiger provides on it:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=57135&highlight=equal

Also if you think it through it really does make sense. Think about how teams score runs. I know I say this a lot but just think about it. They get players on and they move them around, right? The .250 player in my example is just as good at getting on, obviously, the same OBP. And he's really just as good at moving runners along if you think about it too. He isn't getting as many hits, but when he does get hits, those hits are going for more extra bases, his isolated power is higher. According to the values of these events that is doing just as much to move runners along as the other player despite his getting more hits. Walks also do sometimes advance runners as well and this has to be accounted for.

One argument used against this is that the basic RC formula, (H+BB)*(TB)/(AB+BB), disagrees with that. It disagrees with it because of a flaw; it doesn't account for that walks do sometimes advance runners. James himself said that the two parts were meant to model a player's ability to get on and move runners along. Doesn't it make sense, then, that in the 2nd part he should make some allowance for the fact that walks do somtimes advance runners? it doesn't seem right to leave them out, and this is essentially what causes this flaw (which makes RC get results a lot different from Linear Weight systems in many cases).

[Westlake]

Isn't Tango Tiger the same guy that said a .250/.400/.500 player was better than a .350/.400/.500 player? Yuck. I stopped reading his posts after that.

[538280]

Isn't Tango Tiger the same guy that said a .250/.400/.500 player was better than a .350/.400/.500 player? Yuck. I stopped reading his posts after that.

He didn't just say it, he provided justification for it, and that's what's important. In fact he provided totally factual justification based on actual studies of the game-not just someone's subjective thoughts which show nothing but their preferences. And semantics even come into play where you say "better". That is a very subjective word. The more proper usage would be "more productive offensive player". But really they're essentially equal anyway; their production numbers are very close.

[RuthMayBond]

He didn't just say it, he provided justification for it, and that's what's important. In fact he provided totally factual justification based on actual studies of the game-not just someone's subjective thoughts which show nothing but their preferences. And semantics even come into play where you say "better". That is a very subjective word. The more proper usage would be "more productive offensive player". But really they're essentially equal anyway; their production numbers are very close.How can walks be better than hits? :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy

[Erik Bedard]

This actually makes sense to me. The guy with the lower BA would then have a higher ISO (SLG-BA), which probably leads to more HRs, etc.

Putting their stats into 1000 ABs, they would come out like this:

350 H, 50 BB, 500 TB
250 H, 150 BB, 500 TB

The guy with 250 H would then be averaging a double every AB. Therefore, he would INVARIABLY have more XBH. As a result of this, he would be able to drive in more runs, probably hit more HRs. So, it boils down to this: Would you rather have a guy who hits a ton of singles and doesn't walk much or a guy who hits a few less extra-base hits and walks three times as much? The guy with the more XBH would be more valuable than the singles hitter. Also, when you add the BBs on to the TB, one has 650 as opposed to the other having 550. I'd take the guy with 650 any day.

[Westlake]

Alrighty. I'll take the .350 hitter with everything else equal any day of the week.

[538280]

How can walks be better than hits? :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy

They're not, but what makes the difference is that the lower BA hitter will have more extra base hits. He will have less hits but those hits will be more powerful ones. According to the values of each event this fact overrides the difference between walks and hits. Also, because he has the same number of TB but more walks, he will be doing more to move runners along-because walks do often move runners along.

[ChrisLDuncan]

They're not, but what makes the difference is that the lower BA hitter will have more extra base hits. He will have less hits but those hits will be more powerful ones. According to the values of each event this fact overrides the difference between walks and hits. Also, because he has the same number of TB but more walks, he will be doing more to move runners along-because walks do often move runners along.


Exactly...the guy that bats .350/.400/.500 doesn't walk enough for me it sounds like a "slap hitter" to me, where as the guy who goes .250/.400/.500 is a power hitter who draws a lot of walks (gets on at the same rate) and pushes power hits oug.

[iPod]

And you are the first person who would say that batting average doesn't mean much. Yet you use it to dismiss leagues where the batting averages were higher due to a MUCH BETTER offensive approach, and MUCH LARGER outfields than we see today.

That sounds incomplete. I assume what you're talking about is that players in those days tried a lot harder to make contact and not just swing for the fences every time; in other words, they tried to maximize batting average and minimize strikeouts (compared to today). Higher batting averages suggest they succeeded at raising batting averages, but not really anything more than that.

[Erik Bedard]

Alrighty. I'll take the .350 hitter with everything else equal any day of the week.

Except everything else is NOT equal.

[Tango Tiger]

Westlake: you are actually admitting to not reading the factual basis for my claims because you didn't like the claim to begin with?

[Gee Walker]

Actually, if you normalize the two players to 600 PA each, it works out like this:

AB H BB TB AVG OBP SLG
Player 1 480 120 120 240 .250 .400 .500
Player 2 554 194 46 277 .350 .400 .500

Now let's assume no differences in the players in terms of SB, CS, HBP, or any of the other minor effects. According to the classic runs created formula, player #1 creates 96 runs, while player #2 creates 111.

According to the 2002 revision, player #1 creates 104 runs, while player #2 creates 110. I feel more comfortable with this one, but player #2 is clearly a little better.

The error which I made was in forgetting that SLG is based on AB, not on PA. Since player #2 had 74 more AB than player #1, he was able to get 37 more TB. And since the OBP are the same for both of them, the number of outs made is the same.

So the slap hitter is actually more valuable than the slugger here.

[AstrosFan]

Actually, if you normalize the two players to 600 PA each, it works out like this:

AB H BB TB AVG OBP SLG
Player 1 480 120 120 240 .250 .400 .500
Player 2 554 194 46 277 .350 .400 .500

Now let's assume no differences in the players in terms of SB, CS, HBP, or any of the other minor effects. According to the classic runs created formula, player #1 creates 96 runs, while player #2 creates 111.

According to the 2002 revision, player #1 creates 104 runs, while player #2 creates 110. I feel more comfortable with this one, but player #2 is clearly a little better.

The error which I made was in forgetting that SLG is based on AB, not on PA. Since player #2 had 74 more AB than player #1, he was able to get 37 more TB. And since the OBP are the same for both of them, the number of outs made is the same.

So the slap hitter is actually more valuable than the slugger here.


I would recommend using linear weights when evaluating a hitter based on selected components. The player examples you used would break down like this.


AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB TB AVG OBP SLG
480 120 60 30 0 30 120 240 .250 .400 .500
554 194 152 21 1 20 46 277 .350 .400 .500

The breakdown of their hits add up to the proper total bases and hits.

Tango Tiger simplifies the relationship between various offensive events to a single, with the breakdown going like this:

1B = 1
2B = 1.6 (this applies more to the modern player, in a lower run scoring environment, I think it's about 1.52)
3B = 2.2
HR = 3
NIBB = .7 (in this case, we are assuming all BB are unintentional)

We multiply each figure by these weights, and call this the plus. Then we multiply the plus by .47, and subtract the outs times .1. Since each player made 360 outs, all we need to find out is who had the greater positive. I would remind people that these figures are based on linear weights values, and are not something that Tom concocted for the hell of it.

Player 2 has 92 more singles, so his plus is up by 92. But he has 9 fewer doubles, lowering his advantage to 77.6. He hit one more triple, raising it back up to 79.8. But he hit 10 fewer home runs, lowering it to 49.8. So based on his hits, he is well ahead. But when we factor walks in, his advantage drops to -2, in other words, it is now a disadvantage.

It has been shown time and again that linear weights follows run scoring much better than Bill James's formulas. When we use linear weights, the low average hitter comes out ahead, if only by a small margin. The difference is too small to really matter, but the evidence suggests that a high average hitter is not more valuable than a low average one, if the OBP and SLG are equal.

[Bench 5]

Another way to look at this is to look at yearly league stats. Over the course of a ten year period or so, there will be some teams that wind up with the same Slg and OBA in the same year. And there are usually several more close matches. Sometimes the team with the higher BA scores more runs and sometimes they don't. I think that there really isn't much of a difference at the team level and not enough of a difference to say that one is definitively better than the other.

[538280]

Actually, if you normalize the two players to 600 PA each, it works out like this:

AB H BB TB AVG OBP SLG
Player 1 480 120 120 240 .250 .400 .500
Player 2 554 194 46 277 .350 .400 .500

Now let's assume no differences in the players in terms of SB, CS, HBP, or any of the other minor effects. According to the classic runs created formula, player #1 creates 96 runs, while player #2 creates 111.

According to the 2002 revision, player #1 creates 104 runs, while player #2 creates 110. I feel more comfortable with this one, but player #2 is clearly a little better.

The error which I made was in forgetting that SLG is based on AB, not on PA. Since player #2 had 74 more AB than player #1, he was able to get 37 more TB. And since the OBP are the same for both of them, the number of outs made is the same.

So the slap hitter is actually more valuable than the slugger here.

As AstrosFan says, RC is not as accurate as Linear Weights. It is very accurate, almost as accurate, but not quite. Linear Weights puts an exact value on each event through study of game situations. RC just puts things together in a neat package (times on)(ability to advance)/(opportunity). RC is generally very accurate still, but LW is a little more accurate, and by LW the lower average hitter is a little better. It's not a big difference at all, it's not even really significant, but you often do hear it said that with equal OBP and SLG the higher average hitter is better. It doesn't hold up to the best run estimators.

For another example, if you run your players through Tango Tiger's Run Modeler (http://www.tangotiger.net/markov.html), Player 1 (the .250 guy) averages 7.899 runs/game and Player 2 (the .350 guy) averages 7.697. If every player on a team was made up of that, player 1's team would score about 1280 runs and player 2's 1247. The difference over a year is 33 runs, or per player 3.67. Maybe it's actually a little more significant than I thought but really they're very close, but the .250 guy is providing a few more runs.

[Gee Walker]

Thanks for the help, AstrosFan. I tried manipulating the two players into extremes, giving the low BB guy loads of 2B and 3B and making the high BB guy into a Tenace type, with lots of HR and low 2B and 3B. It's pretty amazing that the shift is always about +2 or +3 for the high HR guy, even when you consider that the weights are NOT linear... singles count the most per base taken, then doubles, home runs, and finally triples. But the constraints caused by SLG and OBP don't ever let the low BB guy finish ahead of the game.
The only way that the low BB guy could get ahead is if he did everything else right. He'd need to steal lots of bases without getting caught much, almost never GIDP, and spike his SLG with lots of doubles at the expense of 3B.

[nerfan]

Thanks for the help, AstrosFan. I tried manipulating the two players into extremes, giving the low BB guy loads of 2B and 3B and making the high BB guy into a Tenace type, with lots of HR and low 2B and 3B. It's pretty amazing that the shift is always about +2 or +3 for the high HR guy, even when you consider that the weights are NOT linear... singles count the most per base taken, then doubles, home runs, and finally triples. But the constraints caused by SLG and OBP don't ever let the low BB guy finish ahead of the game.
The only way that the low BB guy could get ahead is if he did everything else right. He'd need to steal lots of bases without getting caught much, almost never GIDP, and spike his SLG with lots of doubles at the expense of 3B.

I definitely agree with this post. They are close enough that speed would make a huge difference. I would take a .350/.400/.500 over a guy that's .250/.400/.500 if and only if the .350 guy steals around 40 bases without getting caught. Also, fielding matters a lot as well. Even if the .350 guy steals 40 bases, the .250 hitter could easily make up for it in the field.

Great discussion, though.

And by the way, an under-rated player is Jimmy Wynn