Overrated Players

[LouGehrig]

1) Who is the most overrated player today?

2) Who is the most overrated player in the history of the game?

Note: The same player can be the choice for BOTH questions if that is your conclusion.

[wrgptfan]

Without thinking too much about this:

1) Dante Bichette
2) Pete Rose or Nolan Ryan

--
Dave Kent

[BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT]

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

The most overrated player today is Brian Jordan. I have
not seen him play that much, but I remember the Orioles were
thinking of adding him to the roster, I looked at his stats
then and I have looked at his stats since, and I see a player
I could replace easily if he ever signed elsewhere as a free
agent. His stats just don't say anything to me.

And before B. J. Surhoff started to fade last season, I
also thought he was an overrated player, a likeable one, but
overrated.

The most overrated player of all-time is Roger Maris, a
player with many skills, but not a killer player by any means
and I think he is the most overrated of all-time.

[jmccoy1252]

The most over-rated player today is Frank Thomas. Granted he is a fine hitter, but he can't field and hasn't been very productive in recent years except for 2000. Plus the guy whines too much. As far as the most over-rated player in history......Carlton Fisk. Fisk only achieved his career numbers because of longevity, and actually his career numbers are not that great. Duriing his career alone, there are several catchers I would have taken over him,including Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Ted Simmons, and probably even Thurman Munson.

[cubbieinexile]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-02 AT 11:33 PM (EDT)]Most Over-rated player nowadays. . . Mo Vaughn, because of all the hype he has gotten since leaving Boston and he hasn't done a thing to earn it.

Most over-rated player in history. . . .Joe Dimaggio. The guy got the advantage of playing for New York and always seems to have gotten the better press than Williams. Who was most of the time better than Dimaggio. First his career was relatively short compared to other greats. I know he missed 3 seasons because of the war but even if you factor those in he still had a short career for a so called all-time great. Heck Ted Williams missed almost 5 full seasons and he was still able to put in 17 seasons. Plus even in Joe D's prime he missed games because of nagging health problems.

Personally I think the old title that baseball gave him of "The greatest living player" is what really seals it for me as to him being the all-time most over rated.

[LouGehrig]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-02 AT 03:01 PM (EDT)]Why don’t you ask some former Dodgers or Red Sox opponents or Yankees teammates?

Yes, playing in New York was a great advantage, especially when DiMaggio hit a 450 foot fly ball to left center or a 460 foot fly to center.

Boston was an advantage to Williams when he hit all those warning track flies to right.

Each was hurt by the ball park, but Williams was one of the few winners the Red Sox ever had who stayed with them.

[researcher]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-02 AT 06:49 PM (EDT)]Roger Maris was a winner, even Bob Gibson in his book took the time
to point that out. He played the game correctly, and did all the little things.

DiMaggio didn't take his walks as much as he should have, and it seems
that he ducked out a little early, and it wasn't the "coming" of MM
who took his place in CF...
.............probably sniffing the "bush"

Most overatted....Josh Gibson and all the stories...when I know good
..................and well, anybody who can hit the lightswitch, and
..................jump in bed before the light goes off, had to have ..................been a better player..Cool Papa where have you gone?

If Gibson was as good as Campy, that's good enough!

[cubbieinexile]

Uh, I wasn't talking about stadium advantage. But about playing in the largest market in the country with the largest media, and with the most famous team of all-time. That is the advantage I am talking about.

[bucsparrothead]

I would HAVE to agree Frank Thomas. This guy lives totally on hype alone; his production is FAR from what it used to be and he squabbles on contracts.

As far as historic, DON DRYSDALE! This guy only has 209 wins, and that right there is what burns me. I cannot tell you how many pitchers have had 200 wins and who STILL are not in the Hall of Fame. There are no exceptions that he has like huge save numbers like Eck, or micro ERA's like Walter Johnson and such...

'...to the wall, GONE AND THE PIRATES WIN!' -Maz and the ORIGINAL home run WS blast!

[BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-02 AT 09:18 PM (EDT)]BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

You're burned - welcome to the club! If I had
cited a pitcher in my list, Drysdale would have made
my list also!

I just couldn't believe anyone was serious when
his name was first mentioned - must have been the
Koufax aura that rubbed off on him!

I am burned because there are so many other pitchers
in his class and beyond who don't even have a prayer!

You touched a nerve with Drysdale, because, while
I respect him as a person and ballplayer, I, for the
life of me, do not see the Hall for him!

Double that for Rizzuto! Is the Hall a social club
now, as I allude in the thread "Downsize This!" -
I spun around 3 times, did the boogaloo, and took
migraine tablets for days on the Rizzuto pick!

Again, Phil could play, but, please!!!

Bill James was right to write the book on what has
happened to our beloved Hall, so I'm going to end
my rant and suggest others take a gander at Bill's rant!

That's all, folks!

[The Commissioner]

Can we nominate Bill James as most overrated author?

[researcher]

I will now always pay closer attention to anything you say.

I have not purchased anything by Bill James, but I opened up a book
by him the other day, and immediately saw a negitive bias by him pertaining to Hornsby.

[Captain Cold Nose]

>Can we nominate Bill James as most overrated author?

Nah. I'd go with any of the Bronte sisters. Or perhaps Jane Austen. Thomas Hardy?


Don Larsen is remembered for the strength of one game. Yes, it was the only post season perfect game (or no-hitter, for that matter) but he was a mediocre pitcher besides that. Yet somehow the man received quite a few votes in Hall Of Fame balloting. The Hall of Fame voting procedures (attack them all you want, I know)say that a player should not be elected based on a single season performance, yet Larsen only shone one game. Bobo Holloman or Juan Nieves were never going to receive one vote. What about Len Barker or Charlie Robertson? Sometimes one great event can make a player greater than he seems.

[BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT]

>Don Larsen is remembered for the strength of one game. Yes,
>it was the only post season perfect game (or no-hitter, for
>that matter) but he was a mediocre pitcher besides that. Yet
>somehow the man received quite a few votes in Hall Of Fame
>balloting. The Hall of Fame voting procedures (attack them
>all you want, I know)say that a player should not be elected
>based on a single season performance, yet Larsen only shone
>one game. Bobo Holloman or Juan Nieves were never going to
>receive one vote. What about Len Barker or Charlie
>Robertson? Sometimes one great event can make a player
>greater than he seems.

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

That was my point in choosing Roger Maris for his one great
season - for that he was my choice for most overrated position
player.

Also, regarding your citing of no-hitters as a great event
that may glorify the mediocre hurler, see the thread "Every
Out must of been a line shot" for a naming of the mediocre
hurlers who tossed a no-hitter and left the impression they
might be "star" material, but were not, as later events proved.

By the way, I agree with your choice of Larsen; he is not
nearly as overrated, though, as my number 1 overrated pitcher, Don
Drysdale, a decent hurler, but not as great as others would
have you to believe.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If you watch Sportscenter or any ESPN show, Al Leiter is invincible. A sure winner every time he pitches.

Please note a hint of sarcasm in the above. But ESPN, for what that is worth, and that very well could be very little to many of you, tends to follow the age-old trend of overrating New York players and, specifically, pitchers.

Don Drysdale was a borderline great pitcher. If he wasn't a power pitcher pitching in one of the country's largest markets, who would remember him today? His status as a Hall of Famer doesn't stink up the joint, but he deservedly is not mentioned among the pitching elite. He had the shutout streak, the post World War II equivalent of Jack Chesbro winning 41 around the turn of the century. Take that away and he goes to Cooperstown as a tourist.

I think Maris has been unjustly maligned as an all-around player because people concentrate mainly on the home run record*. He was a legitimate second or third-tier outfielder for his time made famous. The one rule the Hall of Fame made that will always make sense is to not elect a player based on a single performance.

On a separate note, what negative bias toward Hornsby? That he was a jerk? Everything I've read from Bill James about Hornsby shows a great admiration for his hitting ability.

[Rube]

Does anyone really think of Don Larsen as over-rated? Think of how you read of him - it is almost exclusively 'Don Larsen, who pitched a perfect game in the WS', not all-time great Don Larsen. He is remebered, and deservedly, for having spun that gem.

Joe DiMaggio? It wasn't the NY media that averaged 28 hrs, 30 doubles, 10 triples, 107 runs scored and 118 knocked in every season for the course of his career. This puts him somewhere other than in the top rank of ballplayers? Not Williams, not Aaron (except in Hrs)averaged this kind of production - an often cited here as an underrated and forgotten ball-player Stan Musial averaged more doubles per year, but that was it.

As for Drysdale, i am not a big fan of his, but let's remember that in a relatively short career he threw more shutouts than all but 20 other pitchers in the history of the game and when he retired was the number 5 leading strikeout hurler of all-time (and still is 25th). Don't you think making it into the top-five in a major category deserves HoF consideration? And if not, why not?

[LouGehrig]

Many of the players he managed or coached (early Mets) did not like him and the writers, in their infinite wisdom, went along with it. Her probably did not give them good interviews either, and that will do it for a writer.

[Captain Cold Nose]

>Does anyone really think of Don Larsen as over-rated? Think
>of how you read of him - it is almost exclusively 'Don
>Larsen, who pitched a perfect game in the WS', not all-time
>great Don Larsen. He is remebered, and deservedly, for
>having spun that gem.
>

Granted. But the fact he received so many HOF votes during his time on the ballot is pretty indicative that he was regarded pretty highly, or the writers just disregarded the rules stating single performances are not worthy of Hall of Fame induction. He was rated where he shouldn't be rated at all. And that is the very definition of overrated.

The new Veteran's Committee didn't make him one of their 200 nominees for 2003. I don't have the ballot or the numbers in front of me but he probably has the highest vote total from the BBWAA to not make that ballot.

I am sure none of the esteemed and knowledgeable members of this site (and I bow to your superiority) don't consider Larsen an all time great, but many considered him great enough to cast a Hall of Fame vote for. People who at least were supposed to know a thing or two about the sport. And, to me, that counts.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Bill Veeck called hiring Hornsby as a manager one of the stupidest thinsg he ever did as an owner. In his autobiography, he also talked about the sympathy Hornsby got from the media when he was fired. Some writers liked him, I guess. Plenty of people disliked Veeck, so he may not have been the most authoritative person to comment. o me it seemed the players weren't willing to make baseball their entire life, as Hornsby did.

In any coaching you do, baseball, billiards, tiddlywinks, CCH, you need to coach to the player's ability, not to try to mold them in your own image, which I've heard several people accuse Hornsby of doing. You can't convict someone on heresay testimony, but if someone condemns Hornsby for anything besides his play on the field, I am apt to believe them.

[Der Platzen]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-02 AT 03:31 PM (EDT)]
>
>Joe DiMaggio? It wasn't the NY media that averaged 28 hrs,
>30 doubles, 10 triples, 107 runs scored and 118 knocked in
>every season for the course of his career. This puts him
>somewhere other than in the top rank of ballplayers? Not
>Williams, not Aaron (except in Hrs)averaged this kind of
>production - an often cited here as an underrated and
>forgotten ball-player Stan Musial averaged more doubles per
>year, but that was it.
>
>As for Drysdale, i am not a big fan of his, but let's
>remember that in a relatively short career he threw more
>shutouts than all but 20 other pitchers in the history of
>the game and when he retired was the number 5 leading
>strikeout hurler of all-time (and still is 25th). Don't you
>think making it into the top-five in a major category
>deserves HoF consideration? And if not, why not?

Based on average per 162 games, the tally stands:
2b 3b HR R RBI OPS
Williams 37 5 37 127 143 1.116
Dimaggio 36 12 34 130 143 .977

While these numbers are in many ways parallel, Williams has a large advantage in OPS, probably the single most comprehensive measurement of a hitter's success. By averaging per-season, you penalize Williams for going to war in '51-'52.

I agree that Drysdale is not the best pitcher in the Hall, but he certainly belongs there. An ERA 21% better than the park adjusted average is pretty good! He also spent the majority of his Career playing for a pathetic offensive club, which explains his win-loss record.

[LouGehrig]

No one disputes the fact that Williams was a better hitter than DiMaggio, but there ARE aspects to the game, and in none of them was Williams better than DiMaggio.

Williams would not swing at a pitch outside the strike zone, and despite criticism, he was RIGHT. Some have said that HE had to drive in the runs for the Red Sox, but Williams was usually part of an extremely strong offense. The Yankees beat the Red Sox because pitching is the game, and the Red Sox lack of pitching could not be overcome by their offense. Look at the number of runs they scored in the years after WWII.

I never thought about Drysdale for HOF, but looking at his record, all these people who are complaining are RIGHT. He is barely borderline. It is interesting to compare him to Don Sutton. The first response seems to be Drysdale is clearly better, but the record indicates otherwise.

[Rube]

We are talking about the same pitcher? At the time of retirement 5th all-time in strikeouts and 10th(maybe 11th) in shutouts. These are borderline achievments? Bear in mind this is not top 5 or top 10 due to longevity. When he stopped pitching after 14 years, Drysdale had been better than all but 4 men at fanning batters and better than all but 9 at tossing goose-eggs.
Sutton pitched almost a decade longer (and averaged fewer wins, strikeouts, innings pitched speaking of what the record indicates). Again I ask, in what other statistical categories does making the top five all-time not indicate greatness?

[Ytown_Tribe_fan]

Have to toss Bobby Smith's name into the ring.

All of the guys mentioned here may be overrated somewhat, but they are ALL major league ballplayers.

Bobby Smith is not. Only the continued existence of the Devil Rays causes this guy to wear a major league uniform.

[Jerrybear]

All time most overrated...Mickey Mantle!

Don't get me wrong, the Mick was a great player. I say he is overrated because there were several other players from roughly the same time period as him (50s-60s) and the same position (outfield) who were just as good if not better. Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Willie Mays, just for a start. Yet, Mantle gets so much more hype as witnessed by the values of his baseball cards. I think this has to do with the New York (especially Yankees) factor. New York players and teams always seem to get hyped much more than their counterparts in places like Detroit, Milwaukee, or Pittsburgh.

Similarly, I say that Michael Jordan is overrated when one considers Julius Erving, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird to name several who were just as good if not better than Jordan. Yet, so many people want to say that Jordan is the greatest ever, period, end of discussion.

[LouGehrig]

“...there were several other players from roughly the same time period as him (50s-60s) and the same position (outfield) who were just as good if not better. Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Willie Mays, just for a start.”

Okay. You select Aaron, Clemente, Kaline, and Mays for a start. Please continue, since those four are just the start.

[researcher]

Where's Colavito?....his #'s are equal to Clemente's...

OPS Colavito .851
....Clemente .837

FA..Colavito .980
....Clemente .973

And as I recall, both had "guns" for arms...AND NEITHER AS VALUABLE
AS MANTLE!

Did you know that Mantle hit into a doulbe play every 71.7 at-bats?

Mays 43.4...Aaron 37.7...Kaline 37.3...Colavito 35.7...Clemente 34.4

[SouthsideTom]

The most overrated player today is Sammy Sosa.

The only reason Frank Thomas isn't here is because most serious fans have given up on him. He will go to the Hall....he willl have Hall-of-Fame hitting numbers, and every time a ground ball got hit to him, you had to cringe (and it hurts to write this as a Sox fan).


Sammy K. Sosa, as wonderfully nice a guy that he is, is the front man for the Chicago Tribune's Flying Circus. He is the modern day Reggie Jackson, less the attitude. Sammy Sosa is the anti-clutch hitter....when he needs to get a home run in the ninth, you can bet the farm, that a patented "swing and a miss" is about to come up. Sammy will also go to the Hall, but I'll take Thomas at the height of the his career over Sammy at the height of his any day of the week.



Of all time.....a toughy.....Mantle, Ford, and Maris could all qualify, except for all the lesser Yankees that somehow made it to the Hall and certainly didn't deserve it.....If Sandy Koufax had waite a few more years, he would never have been remembered as the great pitcher he was for a short few years. Along the lines of Sammy, Reggie could top this list, though I would guess that most serious fans of the game discount his accomplishments.

Jim Palmer won a lot of games when he had the hitting to back him up, but couldn't get to 300 wins or 3000 strikeouts.....Wonder how well he would have done pitching for the Cubs or Rangers in the 1970's?

[cubbieinexile]

Sammy Sosa anti-clutch? Hmm let see if that can pass examination.

Last year Sosa had an OPS of 1.174. His OPS with runners on was 1.210. His OPS with bases loaded an amazing 1.965. Close and Late an OPS of 1.102. Which if that was his real OPS would have placed him 7th in the NL out of the hundreds of hitters, and would have place him 3 in the AL. Definitely not anti-clutch.


In 2000 Franks last full season he had an overall OPS of 1.061 Runners on of 1.193 and bases loaded of 1.193. But his close and late OPS was a meager .774. Sosa by the way for 2000 was .942. And in 1999 Thomas had a .925 while Sosa had a .947. So for the last three years in a row Sosa has been more clutch in the close and late situation than Frank.

Plus I see no reason to discount Reggies accomplishments. He played in a tough pitchers park most of his career and was able to put up very good numbers. Reggie was a producer. I have a feeling you think both Reggie and Sammy are not as good because they strike out a lot. But I think most people will agree that strike outs are not as bad as the old timers used to believe.

[researcher]

Post #15 has the #'s improperly used.

Ted Williams outdid DiMaggio in doubles, runs, and rbi's, not to mention hr's.

He took DiMaggio's total and divided them by the yrs played...which
of course takes a biased path toward DiMaggio.

If you go by # of opportunities ie: ab's you find the real value.

Divide their # of ab's by 600, and then divide that # into their results and you find the following:

DiMaggio Williams
doubles......34.2......40.9
triples........11.5......05.5
home runs..31.8......40.6
rbi's.........135.2.....143.0
runs.........122.3.....140.0

[Rube]

"Post #15 has the #'s improperly used. He took DiMaggio's total and divided them by the yrs played" Yes, I did. Exactly my intent. Divide career total by career year to get yearly average.

Oh, I'm sorry - I thought that if you wanted to figure out a yearly average based on a set number of years and a sum certain, you should divide your sum by that number of years. Now I see that it was "improper" to divide career home runs by career years to obtain a yearly average of home runs over that career. The proper way to do it is to divide your total by some number reached by dividing some other number into a third number, all numbers unrelated to the number of years played.

Like the fellow that said "In a 162 game year they would have averaged this". Yes, and if Ted Williams was a blind Frenchman, he would not have played baseball. Neither this calculation nor yours have anything to do with the numbers posted on a yearly average by these men in each year of their career. You tell me (or not): if a person hits 400 homeruns in a 20 year career, what would be the yearly average of home runs? Why or why not?

[SouthsideTom]

<<<Last year Sosa had an OPS of 1.174.>>>>

Sammy did have a good year last year.....I am talking about over the course of his career. Last year the Cubs were never really in the penant hunt. The year the Cubs were in hte post season, I don't think he was much more anti-clutch.


<<<In 2000 Franks last full season he had an overall OPS of 1.061, etc.>>>

Yes, but I said lets compare Da' Hurt at the height of his career...that was the early-mid 1990's...when the Sox were in the post season once, and on their way again (except for the strike).


<<<Plus I see no reason to discount Reggies accomplishments. He played in a tough pitchers park most of his career and was able to put up very good numbers. Reggie was a producer. I have a feeling you think both Reggie and Sammy are not as good because they strike out a lot.>>>

They don't strike out a lot...they strike out a *ton*! Reggie's career strikeout total may never be beaten, and Reggie's and Sammy's problem were too many times swingin' for the fence when a hit was what was needed.

Reggie a producer? He batted .262 for his career and batted .300 once (exactly .300 at that!). He averaged about 80 RBI per year which isn't bad (Thomas averaged over 100 RBI per year in his first seven seasons). reggie may have been the most exciting player in the AL in the 1970's, but aside from pure power was more flash than production (and I loved Reggie as a kid)

[cubbieinexile]

Reggie played in a less offensive enviroment than Thomas. Take a look at the AL during Reggies days then Thomas years. You will see that the AL in the 90's has a higher runs scored per game than the Jackson years. Plus Reggie averaged 98 RBI's per 162 games while Frank has averaged 125. Is the difference in era enough to make up the difference? I don't know. But I do know that after everything is factored in they are probably pretty similar with Frank probably have a slight lead. Batting Average to me is almost worthless. It still has value but it is insanely over-rated that I usually don't even bother with it. In fact nowadays I am probably more inclined to know a players OPS than his batting average. There have been studies after studies that have shown that OPS correlates better with Runs than does Batting Average. In fact about 20 years ago John Thorn and Pete Palmer (later on they would become more well known for authoring the great Total Baseball) ran a study in which they tested 19 different stats ranging from the conventional (like batting average, OBP, SLG) too the more sabremetric type stats (like Runs Created and Linear Weights). Out of those 19 stats batting average came in dead last. With both OBP and SLG being more accurate and OPS being much more accurate than Batting Average.



Secondly Sosa only became a complete player since 1998 or even you want to be picky I'll give you 1997. Saying Sosa isn't clutch because he failed 10 years ago is wrong. If we need to build a team for tomorrow we look at what Sosa or any player has done recently. Not what they did 10 years ago. Sosa of today is even better than the Sosa who emerged in 1998. To ignore his improvement would be foolish. The book is not closed on Sammy Sosa. I remember before last years World Series a lot of the media and baseball fans thought Randy Johnson was not a clutch pitcher. But of course after the World Series that is all people think of him now. Before Clemens went to the Yankees he too was considered a non-clutch pitcher. But again after several good starts in the Post Season he becomes the ice man in most peoples eyes. What I am simply saying is that I would wait until a players career is over before you decide to label someone as clutch or failure.

[researcher]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-02 AT 10:46&nbsp;PM (EDT)]Oh I see (post # 29)

Its about the same as the post that said Aaron was a better than Williams because all his #'s were higher.......

.....completly ignoring the 4658 differance in ab's

[LouGehrig]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-02 AT 10:55&nbsp;PM (EDT)]You guys are really going nuts. Why do you not simply calculate how many singles, doubles, triples, home runs, rbi's, runs scored, walks, and strike outs PER PLATE APPEARANCE for Joseph Paul and Theodore Samuel.

To say that 6 games and 37 games constitute a season is an interesting definition of a season.

I love statistics, but you can do with statistics what you can do with a girl who will accept a fee for her services.

To keep things simple, there is NO DOUBT that Williams was a better hitter than DiMaggio, no matter how you twist the numbers.

There is also NO DOUBT that DiMaggio was a better fielder, better baserunner, faster runner, had a better arm, and was a better leader than Williams. One needs not statistics to draw such conclusions. DiMaggio was a better PLAYER.

[researcher]

Joe McEwing just hit a 2-run homer, to bury the D-Backs.
He may be a better hitter than Williams.............

I may have to go see if Johnson can shut McEwing down tomorrow; if
he can beat Joe, he may win 27+ this year!

[cubbieinexile]

Well just because a player is better in several categories compared to another player does not mean they are a better player. You have give weight each category in terms of importance.

How important was it that Joe Dimaggio was a better base runner and a faster runner (as according to you). Probably not important at all. After all Joe D only stole 30 bases in 39 attempts in 1736 games. In terms of base running skill you can make an arguement that they have almost equal value. Both have almost identical double averages. JoeD 36, Ted 37. In terms of Triples JoeD averaged 7 more a season over his career. Does 7 more Triples alter the scales significantly?

Better and Better Fielder are the same category. You are merely seperating them to make it appear that JoeD was better in more categories. Afterall you can have a cannon of an arm but you can render it useless with poor defense. And vice-versa. JoeD was the better defender, but was he so much better that it compensates for how much better Ted was with the bat?

Another category that I'll bring up, since you did not is games per season. Ted Williams was much more of a work horse than JoeD. Which again adds to Teds Side. JoeD was only able to play 13 seasons, losing three to war. While Ted was able to play 17 seasons losing almost 5 seasons to war. Ted played in over 140 games 8 times while JoeD was only able to do it 5 times.


Take a look at Total Baseballs rankings. They do exactly what you are looking for. Total Baseball looks at a players hitting, base running, and defensive stats to measure a player. They don't just look at a players hitting stats. By there measurements Ted Williams ranks as the 9th best player of all time while JoeD ranks 33rd.

Taking a look at the twos breakdowns it shows that JoeD was slightly better in Baserunning and much better in Fielding. While Ted was light years better (in fact it was close to twice the hitter JoeD)than Joe in the batters box. So while a case may be made that Joe D had more baseball skills than Ted Williams. The fact is that Ted Williams was a better player to have on your team than Joe

[brihev]

Reggie produced in the World Series.
and that AllStar game HR in Detroit was an awesome blast.

over-rated player all-time DiMaggio
under-rated player Bob Feller

[LouGehrig]

I had forgotten about this post until it was resurrected today.

Some reactions to your reactions:

DiMaggio was a faster runner than Williams, and it is not according to me. It is from accounts (Times, News, Daily Mirror, etc.) from competent reporters.

Almost all accounts, including those from the knowledgeable Richard Ben Cramer, who knows what DiMaggio did at 3 A.M. while he was ALONE in his room, rate DiMaggio as good as anyone running the bases and especially going from first to third on a hit.

It is the little things that produce winning teams, and things such as going from first to THIRD instead of first to SECOND are what produce runs scored on outs and produce winning games. Being a good baserunner and being a good basestealer are not the same. Williams clogged the bases.

No one in his right mind would say DiMaggio was a better hitter, but the object of the game is to score more runs than your opponent. The thing that amazes me is how many people forget or just do not accept or acknowledge that pitching and DEFENSE, not hitting, wins games and WS. Look at Mazeroski and Ozzie.

DiMaggio was great defensively and had a fine arm. And yes, taking all the abilities of both players, DiMaggio was clearly (obviously not "clearly," or we would not be making these posts) the better player.

The games per season is really the Koufax argument transferred to position players. One may claim that Spahn had a better CAREER than Koufax, but Koufax was a better pitcher. It could be that Williams had a better career than DiMaggio, but DiMaggio was the better player.

Statistics, as stated in an earlier post, can be interpreted many ways to suit many purposes. Looking at any criteria objectively, how can Joe DiMaggio be rated 24 notches below Williams by ANY measurements that purport to be valid? Such a conclusion should embarrass total baseball.

Speaking of hyperbole, look at the sentence "While Ted was light years better (in fact it was close to twice the hitter JoeD)than Joe in the batters box." Do you really want to stick with that statement? Is .344 twice .325? I won't go into the other stats that are already posted here. NOBODY was twice the hitter of Joe DiMaggio.

Finally, the reason the DiMaggio Yankees won so often was because of pitching and defense. The Red Sox, especially in the late 1940s, had a much superior offense to that of the Yankees, but the Yankees had the pitching, and in those days, there were NOT many strikeouts (about 500-700 per team compared to 1000-1100 today), which meant the ball had to be fielded. Defense helped the pitching.

If anything, because of the Cramer book and some other reasons I do not understand, DiMaggio is being attacked, not only with allegations about his personal life but also with respect to his playing ability. He was the greatest living ball player, and now that honor goes to Ted Williams.

Tell me, who was better,
DiMaggio or Henry Aaron?

[JohnGelnarFan]

Who,In your opinion,were some of the most overrated players of their time? I'll start with Ken"Hawk" Harrelson. Hawk was wildly popular but only had one really good year and had a lifetime .239 BA. His flamboyance really worked for him.

[Yankwood]

Carl Yastrzemski. A few (2 or 3) great seasons surrounded by , what, 40 or 50 slightly above average ones.

[Brownie31]

Bruce Sutter. He is in the HOF and Gil Hodges isn't?:mad:

Brownie31

[Williamsburg2599]

Carl Yastrzemski. A few (2 or 3) great seasons surrounded by , what, 40 or 50 slightly above average ones.
Does that have anything to do with the fact that he was a sox,YANKwood?:rolleyes: :laugh

16 All-star apprences out of 21 seasons

.285 career batting average

452 career Homeruns

3,419 career hits

1844 career RBIs

.988 career fielding %

Not the greatest player who ever lived,but deffintly not overrated.

[538280]

Ernie Banks. Started his career as a good slugger from the SS position and an okay fielder, still an very valuable player but not really the MVP he was made out to be.

Then he became a 1B and lost all his hitting skill. The 2nd half of his career is nothing, and while he was good in the first half he was a hitter overrated by the triple crown stats, because he didn't get on base very often and his SLGs aren't as good as you'd expect with all his HRs. Overall not all that special a player, my pick for one of the most overrated players of all time.

Yaz is not overrated in any stretch. He had a five year stretch as a truly tremendous player, and while I agree he wasn't truly great the rest of his career he still did have some value with around a 120 OPS+, and he was a great fielding LFer who was a good player for a ridiculously long time. He also started off his career as a very good, underrated hitter who was low on HRs but hit a ton of doubles and was constantly on base.

His spot as a top 50 player of all time is solid, Banks' isn't. I rate Yaz around #45, Banks in the 90s to out of the top 100.

[Sean Casey]

Bruce Sutter.

I agree. I was disgusted to hear of his election to the HoF. Aside from a slightly lower ERA, Sutter's stats are very similar to Troy Percival's. Now, is anyone going to try to tell me that if Percival pitches for a few more years, he'll make the HoF? I think not.

[Naliamegod]

Bruce Sutter was also much better and valuable then Percival and gains some intangible points for his historical importance.

[leecemark]

--Exactly what was Bruce Sutter's historical importance? He didn't really do anything that guys like Fingers, Lyle and Gossage hadn't doen before him. If you are referring to the myth that Sutter invented the splitter, then it is strictly that. Sutter was the first pitcher to ride the pitch to stardom (and he had a great one), but he didn't come up with it.

[geezer]

All relievers are overrated, but Rizzuto was overrated.

And yes, my uncle says that Yaz is overrated.

[Sockeye]

Jackie Robinson
Joe Morgan
Roy Campanella
Barry Larkin
Phil Rizzuto
Sandy Koufax

All very good players just not as good as what they are made out to be.

[KenFougere]

Carl Yastrzemski. A few (2 or 3) great seasons surrounded by , what, 40 or 50 slightly above average ones.

Carl Yastrzemski was my baseball hero since I was 9. Granted he was no Ruth, Williams or Gehrig. He wasn't born with their talent. He was only 5' 10" 185 lbs.
He wasn't big, fast or a naturally gifted athlete. He was however, one of smartest and he had to work endlessly at his game to get the most out of his ability. Overrated? No way . . .

Carl Yastrzemski replaced Ted Williams in left field for the Boston Red Sox in 1961 and followed him into the Hall of Fame in 1989. When he retired after 23 years, Yastrzemski ranked first in career games (3,308), third in at-bats (11,988) and walks (1,845), sixth in total bases (5,539), seventh in hits (3,419) and doubles (646), and ninth in RBI (1,844) and he was the only American League player with over 3000 hits (3,419) and 400 homers (452).

Although he won three batting titles, (1963, '67 & '68) and lost out on a forth by .002 pct. points in 1970. He played in 18 All-Star games, and is still acknowledged as one of the finest defensive left fielders of ALL-time, Yastrzemski will be primarily remembered by Red Sox fans for his 1967 season when he won the A.L. MVP and the Triple-Crown.
Going into the final week of the '67 season, four teams were still in the race and three teams would finish within a game of one another. Yastrzemski single-handedly carried the club during the last month. In the final 12 games, he had 23 hits in 44 at-bats (.523), with five home runs, 14 runs and 16 RBI. The Red Sox needed to win the last two games with the Twins to avoid a three-way tie with them and Detroit. Yastrzemski went 7-for-8 with five RBI, including a three-run homer in the first game. He also snuffed out a Twin rally by throwing out Bob Allison at second base on what looked like a sure double.

Yastrzemski hit .400 with three homers in the World Series. He won the Triple Crown by hitting .326 with 44 HR and 121 RBI and also led the AL in hits (189), runs (112), total bases (360), and slugging average (.622). He missed a unanimous vote for the MVP award because one sportswriter thought that Cesar Tovar (.267, 6 HR, 47 RBI) of the Twins was more valuable.

Yastrzemski's .301 batting average in 1968, "The Year of the Pitcher," is the lowest ever to lead a league, but some saber metric analysts consider it the equivalent of Bill Terry's .401 in 1930 if the contexts are considered. Yastrzemski constantly tinkered with his batting stance, but remained consistent. Outside of the brilliance of 1967 and his three batting crowns, it was his consistency as much as anything that earned him Hall of Fame honors, but he was also a tremendous clutch hitter. Besides his 1967 feats, he hit .455 in the 1975 LCS and .310 in that year's World Series, and he hit a home run off the nearly-unbeatable Ron Guidry in the 1978 playoff game.
He was the MVP in the 1970 All-Star Game. He went 4-for-4 with two walks while playing both the outfield and infield.

In addition, Yastrzemski was one of MLB's greatest fielders with both a strong arm and an incredible glove who made himself expert in playing the tricky caroms off the Green Monster, Fenway Park's left field wall. In the 1975 LCS, he returned to left field after playing first base for three-quarters of the season and shone defensively. In 12 years as a left fielder, Yastrzemski won seven Gold Gloves and led in assists seven times, still the major league record. On July 21, 1982 he played centerfield and went 2-for-3 with a run and an RBI. Nearing 43 years, he may have been the oldest major leaguer to play center at such a high level.

http://www.dobrowolski.com/joeandpam/famouspols/yastrzemski.jpg

[538280]

I agree. I was disgusted to hear of his election to the HoF. Aside from a slightly lower ERA, Sutter's stats are very similar to Troy Percival's. Now, is anyone going to try to tell me that if Percival pitches for a few more years, he'll make the HoF? I think not.

I agree. Sutter was a reliever who rode a short hot streak. There are tons of relievers better. Lee Smith had more good years, and he has the saves record. Goose Gossage lasted much longer, and certainly should be in before Sutter (don't ask me how the writers went for Bruce). John Wetteland has a better ERA, and although he pitched less innings that's almost entirely because of modern usage patterns. John Hiller pitched about 200 more innnings, has about the same ERA+, and had what is probably the best season in history by a reliever in 1973 (why doesn't he get more support?). His AL contemporary, Dan Quisenberry, has much better ERA+. There were tons of more qualified relievers, or just as qualified ones, right with Sutter.

[The Dude]

Jackie Robinson
Roy Campanella


Please tell me you don't know their stories and that is why you're saying their overated. If you don't, I'd be more than willing to share them with you.


I will agree Sutter is overated. Is he a HoFer? In my mind yes, but not before Quiz and Gossage were in. That was the bigger crime.

[Alibi Ike]

How about Jim Rice?

[538280]

How about Jim Rice?

Certainly. Perhaps no player has benifited as much from improper interpretation of statistics than Jim Rice.

[FatAngel]

Koufax
Robinson
Brock
some old-timers:
Rixey
Maranville
Traynor

[538280]

Robinson


Frank or Brooks? If it's Brooks I can understand, if it's Frank....:confused:

[FatAngel]

Brooks and Jackie

[The Dude]

I don't understand how people are saying Jackie Robinson is overated...

[wamby]

If you are only looking at Jackie Robinson's stats, he can appear over-rated. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some players from his era thought Jackie Robinson was over-rated.

[Yankwood]

Brooks greatness probably won't show up in his stats.

[Naliamegod]

From what I read, Bruce Sutter is somewhat important in the development of the closer. Nothing that would get him in alone, but something worthy of mentioning for his case in.

[redbuck]

Ernie Banks. Started his career as a good slugger from the SS position and an okay fielder, still an very valuable player but not really the MVP he was made out to be.

Then he became a 1B and lost all his hitting skill. The 2nd half of his career is nothing, and while he was good in the first half he was a hitter overrated by the triple crown stats, because he didn't get on base very often and his SLGs aren't as good as you'd expect with all his HRs. Overall not all that special a player, my pick for one of the most overrated players of all time.

Yaz is not overrated in any stretch. He had a five year stretch as a truly tremendous player, and while I agree he wasn't truly great the rest of his career he still did have some value with around a 120 OPS+, and he was a great fielding LFer who was a good player for a ridiculously long time. He also started off his career as a very good, underrated hitter who was low on HRs but hit a ton of doubles and was constantly on base.

His spot as a top 50 player of all time is solid, Banks' isn't. I rate Yaz around #45, Banks in the 90s to out of the top 100.

The Cubs made this mistake many times- Wrigley was a hitter's park so average players had inflated stats. That's part of what kept them bad so long is that they held on to mediocre players who appeared to be better than they were. And they dealt away some good pitchers.

Same problem happened to the Rockies.

[baseballPAP]

The Cubs made this mistake many times- Wrigley was a hitter's park so average players had inflated stats. That's part of what kept them bad so long is that they held on to mediocre players who appeared to be better than they were. And they dealt away some good pitchers.

Same problem happened to the Rockies.
Funny thing....the Rocks have gone away from having 3 or 4 big "star" sluggers and no pitching to developing some good young quality arms and a mostly no-name offense. And look who's winning all of a sudden.

[The Big C]

538280, just for my curiosities sake, where do you rate Ernie Banks among shortstops? You don't have to put a whole list up or anything, I'm just curious of the number.

Overrated players to me: Pete Rose

Not on this site, but more casual fans tend to think of him as better than he was (from my experience).

[Taco De Muerte]

Ruth - As a pitcher.

[538280]

538280, just for my curiosities sake, where do you rate Ernie Banks among shortstops? You don't have to put a whole list up or anything, I'm just curious of the number.

Don't worry, I can post the whole list....all I have to do is copy/paste from my ratings file:

1.Honus Wagner
2.Pop Lloyd
3.Arky Vaughan
4.Alex Rodriguez
5.Robin Yount
6.Cal Ripken
7.Barry Larkin
8.Luke Appling
9.Willie Wells
10.Alan Trammell
11.Joe Cronin
12.Ozzie Smith
13.Ernie Banks
14.Lou Boudreau
15.George Davis
16.Jim Fregosi
17.Bill Dahlen
18.Dobie Moore
19.Derek Jeter
20.Pee Wee Reese
21.Maury Wills
22.Bert Campaneris
23.Luis Aparicio
24.Hughie Jennings
25.Vern Stephens

Banks' peak was certainly good, but his numbers in that peak were really inflated by Wrigley, and even then his OBPs weren't that high, and he wasn't a good defensive shortstop. His peak was probalby in the same general area as Cronin's or Applings, taking everything into account. The 2nd half of his career, like I said, was nothing. He was a 1Bman with around a 100 OPS+, and he wasn't even a very good fielder from there. Like Redbuck said, Banks really was a below average player the 2nd half of his career, the Cubs just were being fooled by their own park's effects and by RBIs.


Overrated players to me: Pete Rose

Not on this site, but more casual fans tend to think of him as better than he was (from my experience).

I would agree Rose is overrated by many casual fans, who may say he's better than a Mike Schmidt or Joe Morgan. But, Rose is underrated on this site IMO. He lasted extremely long (I don't count the crap decline phase, when he played himself to get the hit record, but even without that he played a long, long time). He gets remembered for his longevity (and rightfully so), but I think because of that people forgot what a great player he was at his peak too. Rose at his peak was a great contact hitter who would hit about .335 with 200+ hits, take a good number of walks for an OBP well over .400, and he was fast, so his OBP is worth more. He wasn't an elite slugger, but he was better than his HR numbers would indicate because of all his doubles and triples. Rose was a complete, smart hitter who could do just about anything at the plate, except he wasn't an elite HR hitter. Two things that do bring his peak down somewhat though is that he was a corner OF in his best hitting years, and from that position we're normally looking for more of a power threat. If he was a 2B or 3B in his best hitting years that would make him much more valuable. Another thing that brings him down is that he was really out of position where ever you put him, he wasn't a very good fielder anywhere.

But, still, I think Rose had a better peak than people realize, and he's probably a bit underrated on this forum. I have him #37 all time.

Don't get me wrong, though, I hate Pete Rose, wouldn't put him in the HOF, think he is a fool and an idiot. But, he was one hell of a player.

[GaryL]

Ernie Banks. Started his career as a good slugger from the SS position and an okay fielder, still an very valuable player but not really the MVP he was made out to be.

.
Hey, watch it!...you're talkin' about my favorite player from my youth!

Actually you may be right. His skills went downhill fast - bad knees - and the second half of this career wasn't much to speak of.

But just remember these facts:
1. When he retired, he was in the top ten home run hitters of all time, in an era when 500 home runs really meant something.

2. He never had the benefit of hitting even once off of the Cub pitching staff, perennially the worst in the league! Throughout the Fifties and Sixties the Cub pitching staff was usually atrocious. I wonder how many homers his contemporay NL sluggers - guys like Hank Aaron, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Stan Musial, Roborto Clemente, Eddie Matthews - hit off Cub pitchers? Banks never had that advantage.

OK...somewhat overrated...but still a pretty good ballplayer in his prime.

[The Big C]

Considering you don't have Ernie higher than 90-100 range overall, I think 13 isn't bad for him among shortstops. If I had a formal list I would most likely have him higher though. Don't mind my avatar and sig (no bias here, not at all).

[Monster Mike]

Jeter.
If he wasn't pretty and the media didn't love him, and his skin didn't have Yankee pinstrips on it from birth he wouldn't be looked at as such a special player. At least he consistent. Sorry Yank fans. Just my opinion.

[538280]

Hey, watch it!...you're talkin' about my favorite player from my youth!

Actually you may be right. His skills went downhill fast - bad knees - and the second half of this career wasn't much to speak of.

But just remember these facts:
1. When he retired, he was in the top ten home run hitters of all time, in an era when 500 home runs really meant something.

I would agree here. Banks was a great power hitter (especially for an SS), and that still made him a great player in his peak. But, you need to temper those power numbers a bit because of Wrigley, he wasn't on base all that often, he was playing in a high offensive era (in his peak years), and he wasn't really much of a shortstop. Plus, like I said, he was below average for more than half of his career.

500 home runs....Well, that's a good accomplishment, but it was done by just adding on a ton of time as a below average player, in which the only thing he could really do was hit home runs out of a bandbox park.
Banks actually kind of reminds me of another overrated player-George Sisler. Sisler, like Banks, was a great player in his prime, but still overrated then, and then the 2nd half of his career was pretty much nothing.

2. He never had the benefit of hitting even once off of the Cub pitching staff, perennially the worst in the league! Throughout the Fifties and Sixties the Cub pitching staff was usually atrocious. I wonder how many homers his contemporay NL sluggers - guys like Hank Aaron, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Stan Musial, Roborto Clemente, Eddie Matthews - hit off Cub pitchers? Banks never had that advantage.

Well, okay....but you could say that about any player who played for bad teams. That's not really a legitimate reason to say he's not overrated.

Don't get me wrong, either, I don't hate Ernie Banks. I sympathize with all black players from that era, I know their situation myself. But, I just think Ernie Banks has been made into far more than he was because he was "Mr. Cub", similar to how Jim Rice gets so much HOF attention for no other reason than he played for the Red Sox. I don't have anything against the Cubs either, but if he played for another team I think history would look at him much differently, and he wouldn't have made 500 HRs either.

[wamby]

For a different perspective on Ernie Banks, check out Jim Brosnan's comments about him in Wrigleyville.

[cavalier1968]

Rose
Clemente
Ryan
..............................

Cav

[GaryL]

For a different perspective on Ernie Banks, check out Jim Brosnan's comments about him in Wrigleyville.
I'd like to read that. Do you have a link?

[wamby]

I'd like to read that. Do you have a link?

I don't know of there's a link. I have the book Wrigleyville by Peter Golenbock. I found Brosnan's comments on Banks to be pretty interesting.

[leecemark]

--Would you care to share some of the interesting bits with the rest of us?

[wamby]

--Would you care to share some of the interesting bits with the rest of us?

Brosnan was a lot more cynical than in his books. He didn't call Banks any names, but it seemed to me that he thought that the Mr Cub persona was a fraud and that Banks was a phoney. Those are my words, not his. That was the impression I got from his comments. That said, I don't know if Golenbock edited any of his comments to make them sound like this.

This was the first time that I ever read of a fellow Cubs player who wasn't complimentary towards Banks. Before that, the only guy I ever heard if who ripped Banks was Leo Durocher

[Ubiquitous]

A home run is a run in the bank. A home run in a band box is still a run. Wrigley wasn't Coors Field and it wasn't like his team or everybody else was scoring 10 to 15 runs a game. Ernie Banks hit homers at home and yet his team scored pretty much the same at home as on the road. Ernie Banks at his height carried this team on his back at Wrigley. He was the offense.

[GaryL]

Ernie Banks at his height carried this team on his back at Wrigley. He was the offense.

You're exactly right, as any Cub fan from my era will gladly confirm for you.

Another point I forgot to add about Banks is that in the first half of his career, when he put up his HOF numbers, he did it without anybody else of star quality batting behind him in the order. The only hitter of any significance hitting behind him in the '50's - before Santo came along in 1960 - was Moose Moryn. How many other players would be able to put up power numbers like Banks did without another good hitter somewhere in the lineup? For a couple of years he had an over-the-hill Bobby Thomson, and flash-in-the-pan George Altman. Maybe Dale Long for a year or two. But really that's about it.

Not exactly like Mays having McCovey around him!

[ectobin78]

Here is my overrated list.

1. Mattingly (good player but not great)
2. Rizzuto
3. Piazza (mostly because of his horrendous defense behind the plate)

[Yankwood]

You're exactly right, as any Cub fan from my era will gladly confirm for you.

Another point I forgot to add about Banks is that in the first half of his career, when he put up his HOF numbers, he did it without anybody else of star quality batting behind him in the order. The only hitter of any significance hitting behind him in the '50's - before Santo came along in 1960 - was Moose Moryn. How many other players would be able to put up power numbers like Banks did without another good hitter somewhere in the lineup? For a couple of years he had an over-the-hill Bobby Thomson, and flash-in-the-pan George Altman. Maybe Dale Long for a year or two. But really that's about it.

Not exactly like Mays having McCovey around him!This being the case though, Banks never seemed to walk much, not even intentionally, so wouldn't the effects of having nobody hitting behind him be lessened by that fact. He seemed to get pitched to as I don't believe he was what we would call a "bad ball hitter."

[ThanksTheo]

Overrated players -

1) Sutter (no way deserves HoF, but then they don't ask me to vote...)
2) Rizzuto (in the right place at a fortunate time)
3) Harold Reese (just not up there, IMHO. Don't attack)

[JDD]

Overrated? Ha! There are soooo many. Sticking to players I actually saw with my own eyes, here is a list:

Don Mattingly
Yaz
Bobby Murcer
Jason Kendall
Mark Grace
Joe Carter
Marquis Grissom
Frank White
Kevin Appier
Chuck Finley
Armando Benitez
Jeff Shaw

But the first two really deserve their own page. If you look at Yaz's career minus his four really good ones, his numbers are average for a really long time... something like Harold Baines.

Donnie Baseball? He had a run with Henderson in front of him and Winfield behind him. Look a his years when he did not have both of those guys, and you have a very average ballplayer.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't understand how people are saying Jackie Robinson is overated...

Me, either. I am of the view that Morgan is #1 at 2B, but giving Robinson credit for 1939-1946, or perhaps 1940-1946 (depending on when in 1919 he was born), I probably rate him ahead of clubhouse cancer Rogers Hornsby for #2 at 2B. No lower than #3, though I'm a big fan of Eddie Collins.


Here is my overrated list.

1. Mattingly (good player but not great)
2. Rizzuto
3. Piazza (mostly because of his horrendous defense behind the plate)


What do veteran sitemembers think about Piazza?

He's clearly destined to be one of the most controversial players ever. Almost certainly the greatest offensive MLB catcher ever, Bill James says he's not nearly as bad a catcher as people think, and only has the one flaw... but WHAT a flaw. It's like saying Pavarotti only has one musical talent.

I know for sure who my Top 4 catchers are, and in what order, and he's not one of them. But he's probably #5. I almost surely take him over Fisk.

What are the views of this site's many veterans on this confounding problem?

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

This being the case though, Banks never seemed to walk much, not even intentionally, so wouldn't the effects of having nobody hitting behind him be lessened by that fact. He seemed to get pitched to as I don't believe he was what we would call a "bad ball hitter."


AGAIN I am struck by how refreshing this site is. I've never before heard anyone but me comment on Banks' allergy to walks. Is there any other player in the 500 Club with anywhere near such an allergy to walks? Sosa is the closest, but he has over 100 more walks in over 1,000 fewer plate appearances.

Y'all are probably tired of reading me "say" this, but I feel like I've died and gone to heaven. If I hadn't spent my career doing public-interest law, and if I therefore could afford to retire, I might spend the rest of my life on here.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF JOINING SABR, AND WHAT DOES IT COST PER YEAR?

BHN

[1905 Giants]

Jeter.
If he wasn't pretty and the media didn't love him, and his skin didn't have Yankee pinstrips on it from birth he wouldn't be looked at as such a special player. At least he consistent. Sorry Yank fans. Just my opinion.

You're crazy.
Yes, the fact that he plays in New York enhances his reputation, but the man is certainly better than shortstops like Vizquel, Rizzuto, and Ozzie Guillen

[538280]

I don't understand how people are saying Jackie Robinson is overated...

Me, either. I am of the view that Morgan is #1 at 2B, but giving Robinson credit for 1939-1946, or perhaps 1940-1946 (depending on when in 1919 he was born), I probably rate him ahead of clubhouse cancer Rogers Hornsby for #2 at 2B. No lower than #3, though I'm a big fan of Eddie Collins.

Robinson was not a great player in the Negro Leagues, and really only played two years there. He receives little Negro League credit from me, and doesn't deserve much from anyone. I agree strictly as a ballplayer, he's been underrated in much the same way Morgan and his style players (Whitaker being another) have been, he had a monster peak. What he lacks is longevity but his intangible contributions at least somewhat make up for that.

As much as a I like Jackie more than Hornsby, I really don't see a legitimate case for Jackie over Hornsby.

What do veteran sitemembers think about Piazza?

He's clearly destined to be one of the most controversial players ever. Almost certainly the greatest offensive MLB catcher ever, Bill James says he's not nearly as bad a catcher as people think, and only has the one flaw... but WHAT a flaw. It's like saying Pavarotti only has one musical talent.

I know for sure who my Top 4 catchers are, and in what order, and he's not one of them. But he's probably #5. I almost surely take him over Fisk.

What are the views of this site's many veterans on this confounding problem?

BHN

I think Piazza was certainly the best MLB hitting catcher of all time, and although he is not on the defensive level of other top catchers his amazing hitting skill more than makes up for the defense of most of them. What puts him behind Bench IMO is that he wasn't dominating for as long a time, but I don't know if there was a catcher in history (MLB, IMO Gibson is better) who can keep up with Piazza's hitting and value per game.

He's my #4 catcher, and I could see a case for him as the best catcher of all time. My top 10:

1.Josh Gibson
2.Johnny Bench
3.Carlton Fisk
4.Mike Piazza
5.Yogi Berra
6.Mickey Cochrane
7.Gary Carter
8.Buck Ewing
9.Biz Mackey
10.Roy Campanella

[BaseballHistoryNut]

He's my #4 catcher, and I could see a case for him as the best catcher of all time. My top 10:

1.Josh Gibson
2.Johnny Bench
3.Carlton Fisk
4.Mike Piazza
5.Yogi Berra
6.Mickey Cochrane
7.Gary Carter
8.Buck Ewing
9.Biz Mackey
10.Roy Campanella[/QUOTE]


You added someone to the mix. I specifically said "MLB catcher," so Josh Gibson would be left out. If Gibson's in the mix, I have no Piazza dilemma because he's OUT and Gibson, in my view, is a runaway #1. Nobody close.

But with Gibson out, and with Campanella getting credit for 1942-1947, I rate them as follows:

1. Roy Campanella [Yes, I know, this is a VERY unconventional choice;
by far my most unconventional #1; mea culpa]
2. Yogi Berra
3. Johnny Bench [very close to Berra]
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Mike Piazza

We're light years apart on #1. After that, we're pretty close: my #2 is your #4 (without Gibson); my #3 is your #1; my #4 is your #5; my #5 is your 3.

Let me admit my ignorance about something, so you can fill in the blanks for me. I have no clue how great, good, average or lousy Campy was in the Negro Leagues. So I've been assuming he would have been good in the majors, after a year or two of seasoning, had he been allowed to come up at age 20 (normal age for great players) in 1942 (born in NOVEMBER, 1921).

He MUST have been an excellent defensive catcher, or at least have had the same very powerful arm. What do you know about his overall skills in the Negro Leagues? Whatever you know, it's that much more than I know.

BHN

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth - As a pitcher.

How is that. OK we keep hearing about Ruth and his ERA number.

That he pitched in the dead ball era that should be considered.
OK that makes sense. But do we now make adjustments for Mathewson, Alexander and Johnson who all spent years in the dead ball era.

That his ERA would certainly have gone up had he continued pitching after 1920.
I'm buying that also. But so what, any pitcher going from the dead ball era to the live ball, no trick delivery, clean white ball change would see his ERA go up.

I'm certainly not saying Ruth would have made the HOF as a pitcher, no way to tell. He was not Johnson or Alexander, only pitched full time for three seasons 1915-16-17.

But if you look at his stats in those three seasons only Johnson and Alexander two of the greatest ever, were better than he was.

Don't take my word for it, look up some pitching stats both leagues for the seasons 1915-16-17, ERA, shutouts, complete games, SO/9 Inn, strikeouts, Wins, winning percentage, hits/9 Inn. You will see Ruth in the top 3 or 5 in almost all those stats.

His only weakness, number of walks. His greatest strength Hit/9Inn. He had the lowest hits per 9 inning averaged over those three seasons, lower than Alexander and Johnson.

So how is he overrated, he was called the best left hander in the game in those three seasons and he was. Why single out Ruth, everyone else in the seasons 1915-16-17 pitched under the same conditions and he was bested by only two pitchers, two of the greatest, Johnson and Alexander.

I don't think it's a stretch to say in those three seasons he was a damned good pitcher.

[wamby]

Jackie Robinson only played one season in the Negro Leagues, 1945 with the Kansas City Monarchs. If Rickey's offer hadn't come along, that may have been his only season as a professional ballplayer.

[redbuck]

Overrated

Pete Rose
Tony Perez
Roberto
Todd Helton

----

To 538280: Remember that the wind at Wrigley blows in as well as out.

For Banks' stats, multiply offensive stats by (100/103) (that's not a park factor. It's an independent ballpark influence calculation- see the ballparks forum)

[The Dude]

I wouldn't really say Todd Helton is overated. He's more underated than anything. In the 3 years i've posted here, I think i've only seen one Todd Helton focused thread, and I've never seen anyone post him near their top 1st basemen list.

The guy is a god at Coors, and one of the best 4-tool players in MLB during my lifetime away from coors.

[ElHalo]

I wouldn't really say Todd Helton is overated. He's more underated than anything. In the 3 years i've posted here, I think i've only seen one Todd Helton focused thread, and I've never seen anyone post him near their top 1st basemen list.

The guy is a god at Coors, and one of the best 4-tool players in MLB during my lifetime away from coors.

I concur.

I think he'd be much more highly regarded, albeit with much lesser statistical domination, on another team.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I wouldn't really say Todd Helton is overated. He's more underated than anything. In the 3 years i've posted here, I think i've only seen one Todd Helton focused thread, and I've never seen anyone post him near their top 1st basemen list.

The guy is a god at Coors, and one of the best 4-tool players in MLB during my lifetime away from coors.


Here's my two cents on that. LARRY WALKER is enormously overrated because of Coors, as his road stats just ain't that good. Todd Helton, by contrast, has good numbers on the road and phenomenal numbers at home. There are two players in baseball history with 2 seasons of 100+ extra base hits, and they both did it in farcical ballparks: Chuck Klein and Todd Helton.

But both of them, while dubious as Hall of Famers, were/are damned good players. I think Helton may get punished in many people's minds because everyone knows what a farce baseball in Denver is, and because people don't realize he's a much better legitimate hitter than Walker. In many minds, the two of them are inextricably linked.

Then again, Walker has been a very good RF, so....

[The Dude]

I would agree with you BNut and ElHalo. Him playing for Denver ruins peoples opinions of him.

I hate to agree with that, as I prefer a player to stay with a team his entire career.

[baseballPAP]

Let me admit my ignorance about something, so you can fill in the blanks for me. I have no clue how great, good, average or lousy Campy was in the Negro Leagues. So I've been assuming he would have been good in the majors, after a year or two of seasoning, had he been allowed to come up at age 20 (normal age for great players) in 1942 (born in NOVEMBER, 1921).

He MUST have been an excellent defensive catcher, or at least have had the same very powerful arm. What do you know about his overall skills in the Negro Leagues? Whatever you know, it's that much more than I know.

BHN
Campy actually signed with the NeL when he was 15! He played a few games in 1937, was a backup in 1938, and a starter by 1939 while still only 17. A link to his exploits (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/C/Campanella_Roy.stm)....

[flash143817]

Couple thoughts:


Campy is an extremely strange case because, for whatever reason, he seemed to be a HOFer one year and then the next he was awful. He would always alternate great and bad years. It was like he had Bret Saberhagen Disease. Anyone have any insight as to why he would be so up and down? Was it just strange fluke?


Todd Helton is a phenomenal hitter. His rate stats are simply staggering. Obviously he benefits from Coors, with Ruthian rate stats there, but he is still a good hitter outside of Coors. He still has a career OPS+ of 146, which I believe is Coors-adjusted.

But besides Helton's out of this world hitting, he is also generally considered one of the best fielding 1B's of his era. I don't have access to know if fielding metrics support this, but that is his reputation.

And on a side note, I personally hate Todd Helton because he had the worst year of his career last year for my fantasy team. I'm wondering if he was a 'roider because of the nose dive his power numbers took last season.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth - As a pitcher.

I did post a reply to this one earlier giving some facts on Ruth the pitcher only in the seasons of 1915-16-17 but let me add on to that.

If it were said that Ruth was a great pitcher yes that would be overrating him. He had only 3 seasons as a full time pitcher only, he would have to pitch around the level he did for more years than that to even be considered great.

If it were said that he had three very good seasons and was one of the best in those three seasons, I would say that was a fact.

He played on a very good team but also gave up few runs and less hits per inning in those three seasons. Less hits per inning than two guys named Walter Johnson and Grover Alexander.

In one 18 game stretch May 24 to September 16 in complete game he pitched in he was 16 wins and 2 losses. The two losses in those complete games were by scores of 2-1. In those 18 complete games he gave more than 2 runs in only one of them, that was one game where he gave up 4 runs. In those 18 games he threw 9 shutouts.

A great pitcher no, could have been but we will never know.

[538280]

.
But with Gibson out, and with Campanella getting credit for 1942-1947, I rate them as follows:

1. Roy Campanella [Yes, I know, this is a VERY unconventional choice;
by far my most unconventional #1; mea culpa]
2. Yogi Berra
3. Johnny Bench [very close to Berra]
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Mike Piazza

We're light years apart on #1. After that, we're pretty close: my #2 is your #4 (without Gibson); my #3 is your #1; my #4 is your #5; my #5 is your 3.

Let me admit my ignorance about something, so you can fill in the blanks for me. I have no clue how great, good, average or lousy Campy was in the Negro Leagues. So I've been assuming he would have been good in the majors, after a year or two of seasoning, had he been allowed to come up at age 20 (normal age for great players) in 1942 (born in NOVEMBER, 1921).

He MUST have been an excellent defensive catcher, or at least have had the same very powerful arm. What do you know about his overall skills in the Negro Leagues? Whatever you know, it's that much more than I know.

BHN

Campy played a long time in the Negro Legues, but I don't believe was a particularly dominant player there. I think (if I remember correctly) he made a few all star games but really wasn't ever close to the best player in his league. All he really deserves there is a bit of longevity credit.

BTW, like Wamby said, Jackie Robinson only played one year in the Negro Leagues, he doesn't deserve any of the credit you've been giving him.

[wamby]

If Jackie Robinson had been white, I don't think his big league career would have started until at least 1946. I Think it likely that if he had still moved to California as a child, he would have likely signed with the White Sox, or a PCL team, sometime between 1939 and 1941, played in the Minor Leagues and probably would have spent 1942-1945 in the Armed Forces. This is assuming that he would have wanted a baseball career, he may have ended up in the NFL or AAFC.

Robinson, as much as any other player in his era, lost time on the field due to the war.

[Ubiquitous]

Jackie probably would not have gone to minor league ball, or played all that much earlier then he did. Jackie was at UCLA until 1941. He got drafted in 1942 discharged in 1944 and started playing ball in 1945. It is unlikely that had the color barrier been broke before Jackie that he would have been in the major league system before 1945. His debut would have been at best in 1946 or at sometime during the 1945 season.

Now of course if the war hand't come alone then yes I could see him starting at a much earlier time then 1946, such as 1942.

[switch_hitter]

Johnny Damon, off the top of my head this moment, is one of the most overrated players in the game today.

[KenFougere]

Johnny Damon, off the top of my head this moment, is one of the most overrated players in the game today.

I disagree.
He's one of the (if not THE) premiere lead-off hitters in MLB today. Just look his OBP and the RBI's he has gotten leading-off for the Red Sox in his 4 years in Boston . . . http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/shocking.gif

[baseballPAP]

I disagree.
He's one of the (if not THE) premiere lead-off hitters in MLB today. Just look his OBP and the RBI's he has gotten leading-off for the Red Sox in his 4 years in Boston . . . http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/shocking.gif
Exactly the reason he's overrated. His OBP sucks for a leadoff guy. From 2002-2004 (my encyclopedia doesn't include 2005) JD's OB% was .361. Now the funny part...thats his calling card, and he was 67th! in the majors. He was behind Doug Mientkiewicz for cryin out loud. His RBI mean nothing without his teammtes getting on in front of him. He has decent pop, his speed has declined the last couple years, although he is still a very smart baserunner. He gets a lot of credit for his defense, but even with Manny on one side of him he couldn't even manage to have an average range factor in CF, and has never had a good arm.

O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D!

[538280]

Exactly the reason he's overrated. His OBP sucks for a leadoff guy. From 2002-2004 (my encyclopedia doesn't include 2005) JD's OB% was .361. Now the funny part...thats his calling card, and he was 67th! in the majors. He was behind Doug Mientkiewicz for cryin out loud. His RBI mean nothing without his teammtes getting on in front of him. He has decent pop, his speed has declined the last couple years, although he is still a very smart baserunner. He gets a lot of credit for his defense, but even with Manny on one side of him he couldn't even manage to have an average range factor in CF, and has never had a good arm.

O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D!

I agree. Damon is not a great leadoff man by any stretch. His OBP isn't awful, it's good when compared to the average but for a leadoff man it really isn't anything special. He is still pretty fast, but not nearly as fast as he was in his KC days, and his range right now is limited. His arm sucks, always has, and although he has good power it's nothing special (career SLG is below league average). Also, I don't have any data to support this, but watching the Red Sox frequently here in MA it seems to me that Damon really benifits from Fenway park, lifting doubles off that wall. I think that Fenway has probably masked what should be his decline phase, and I expect him to be a huge dissapointment in New York. The Red Sox got a steal in getting rid of Damon and getting Coco Crisp.

[Taco De Muerte]

I did post a reply to this one earlier giving some facts on Ruth the pitcher only in the seasons of 1915-16-17 but let me add on to that.

If it were said that Ruth was a great pitcher yes that would be overrating him. He had only 3 seasons as a full time pitcher only, he would have to pitch around the level he did for more years than that to even be considered great.

If it were said that he had three very good seasons and was one of the best in those three seasons, I would say that was a fact.

He played on a very good team but also gave up few runs and less hits per inning in those three seasons. Less hits per inning than two guys named Walter Johnson and Grover Alexander.

In one 18 game stretch May 24 to September 16 in complete game he pitched in he was 16 wins and 2 losses. The two losses in those complete games were by scores of 2-1. In those 18 complete games he gave more than 2 runs in only one of them, that was one game where he gave up 4 runs. In those 18 games he threw 9 shutouts.

A great pitcher no, could have been but we will never know.

I agree with this, but I've seen many of his supporters claim he's one of the best pitchers ever. Could he have been ? - Sure, but then again maybe not, we'll never know.

However, when he did pitch, he was very good, mike mussina in his prime type good, but not at an all-time great level.

[wamby]

Jackie probably would not have gone to minor league ball, or played all that much earlier then he did. Jackie was at UCLA until 1941. He got drafted in 1942 discharged in 1944 and started playing ball in 1945. It is unlikely that had the color barrier been broke before Jackie that he would have been in the major league system before 1945. His debut would have been at best in 1946 or at sometime during the 1945 season.

Now of course if the war hand't come alone then yes I could see him starting at a much earlier time then 1946, such as 1942.

In the history of segragation in Organized Baseball, I think Jackie Robinson is a strange case. I've heard a lot of hand-wringing about the unfairness of the time he missed because of his race. I think the time he lost was actually pretty minimal because of the war. Sometimes I'm more tempted to put him in the class of players who missed substantial time because of the war, rather than because he played in the Negro Leagues.

I've read a fair amounts of quotes from former Negro Leaguers who sound a little bitter that it was Jackie Robinson who broke the color line. I think it may be because he was seen as someone who didn't pay his dues in the Negro Leagues. I also think it may be because Robinson was pretty outspoken about both his dislike and his disdain for the Negro Leagues.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I agree. Damon is not a great leadoff man by any stretch. His OBP isn't awful, it's good when compared to the average but for a leadoff man it really isn't anything special. He is still pretty fast, but not nearly as fast as he was in his KC days, and his range right now is limited. His arm sucks, always has, and although he has good power it's nothing special (career SLG is below league average). Also, I don't have any data to support this, but watching the Red Sox frequently here in MA it seems to me that Damon really benifits from Fenway park, lifting doubles off that wall. I think that Fenway has probably masked what should be his decline phase, and I expect him to be a huge dissapointment in New York. The Red Sox got a steal in getting rid of Damon and getting Coco Crisp.
Johnny probably did hit some doubles off that wall but not much a difference home/away.

Damon's doubles---Fenway 70--- away 66. He probably did have 100+ more at bats on the road, not that much of a factor.

Want to see two other lefties that put a good number of dents in the Green Monster.

Yaz doubles at Fenway---382--- away 264.


Wade Boggs, bingo.

Doubles----Fenway---Away----1982-92
-------------30--------14
-------------34--------10
-------------17--------14
-------------30--------12
-------------35--------12
-------------29--------11
-------------29--------16
-------------37--------14
-------------30--------14
-------------28--------14
-------------13---------9

Nothing wrong with that, make use of whats given you. Noted some that hit away from the LF line and high enough may have been home runs in some other parks.

[ElHalo]

I'm having a hard time with this whole "Johnny Damon is overrated" thing. How is that possible? Who rates the guy highly at all? I don't know anybody who thinks he's anything more than an all-right CF'er. Better than CoCo Crisp, sure, but not as good as, say, Torii Hunter. Who's overrating him?

[Ubiquitous]

Mr. Steinbrenner

[STLCards2]

I'm having a hard time with this whole "Johnny Damon is overrated" thing. How is that possible? Who rates the guy highly at all? I don't know anybody who thinks he's anything more than an all-right CF'er. Better than CoCo Crisp, sure, but not as good as, say, Torii Hunter. Who's overrating him?

When people refer to "overrated", many are not looking at the opinions of members of BBF or similar "experts", but of general fans and media. If by overrated you mean that Damon's hair got more national attention (and commercial airtime) than Miguel Cabrera's play, then yes, Damon is vastly overrated. Damon's signing with the Yankees got more national attention than offseason moves with much bigger potential impacts such as Delgado going to the Mets. People around here know Damon is good but not great, but those not on the "inside"? Not so sure.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I agree with the semi-criticism of Damon. I wouldn't hate to have him on my team or anything, but I think he's overrated. When he was with Oakland, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

The link re Campy in the Negro Leagues suggests he was pretty damn good there, too. And one thing to remember about him is his great arm. I'm sure it was great in the Negro Leagues, too... at least after his 21st birthday or so, if not before then.

James has demonstrated that offense outweighs defense, even at shortstop, BUT:

If a catcher calls all the pitches, positions the fielders, etc., it seems to me that the total package of his "defense" may be more important than his hitting. Campy committed 25% fewer errors per inning than his average contemporary catcher. For whatever you think "range factors" are worth (there's a qualifier for you), his were tremendous--despite his having caught tons of games in the Negro Leagues, and thus god-knows-how-many in his career as a whole.

Toss in 3 years great enough offensively to win MVP Awards from the sportswriters of that time--not exactly NAACP members--plus the fact he was even harder to strikeout than he was to walk, plus the fact he didn't hit into many DP's, plus the fact he had other good years at the plate, PLUS the really big fact that when he had those bad years offensively, he was still Campy behind the plate....

Well, he's my #1 catcher of all time, IF the obvious choice (Josh Gibson) is ineligible by virtue of his never having played in MLB.

Obviously Campy gets no credit for games missed at the end of his career because of the accident. As I've said, I agree with James that two groups of players get extra years: (1) Clearly established stars who served in WWII (or Mays, for the 1.5 years lost in 1952-1953); and (2) players who lost years to segregation, but developed quickly--i.e., after 1 or 2 years of seasoning--in MLB (Campy, Doby and J. Robinson). Y'all have enlightened me to the fact that Robinson, despite his age, apparently didn't lose out on that much. But Campy did.

Obviously reasonable cases can be made for AT LEAST Bench, Berra, Cochrane (terrific OBP and foot speed, plus he got along with Lefty Grove) and Piazza; perhaps credible cases can be made for Fisk and others, as well. But I'll never apologize for my choice of Campy. He was one helluva catcher. The idea that he "only" made a few all-star games in the Negro Leagues, combined with his arm, doesn't seem like much of a deterrent to my ranking. It's an open question how much of a "minor" league that was, and his consistently outstanding FP and RF (in that order of importance) in MLB tell me he was a great defensive catcher in the Negro Leagues, too, when his arm was far less taxed by Father Time.

P.S. James said Campy had one rival for the greatest throwing arm of any catcher of his generation. Anyone know for sure who that rival was?

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

When people refer to "overrated", many are not looking at the opinions of members of BBF or similar "experts", but of general fans and media. If by overrated you mean that Damon's hair got more national attention (and commercial airtime) than Miguel Cabrera's play, then yes, Damon is vastly overrated. Damon's signing with the Yankees got more national attention than offseason moves with much bigger potential impacts such as Delgado going to the Mets. People around here know Damon is good but not great, but those not on the "inside"? Not so sure.

ANSWER: The media, and thus rank-and-file fans. They treated his defection to the Yankees from Boston as though it were a minor version of Ruth's departure all those decades ago. And Red Sox fans wept like mad.

[leecemark]

--BHN, I think it was Del Crandell.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Campy actually signed with the NeL when he was 15! He played a few games in 1937, was a backup in 1938, and a starter by 1939 while still only 17. A link to his exploits (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/C/Campanella_Roy.stm)....


See, here we are. His stats were very good. You put that together with what he did AFTER all of these games--at which time a catcher's arm is supposed to be shot, but his was instead either #1 or tied for the #1 best catching arm in MLB--and you've got a tremendous defensive catcher. Now toss in the fact that after going to multiple all-star games in the Negro Leagues, and perhaps being worthy of more awards than people here are conceding, he won THREE MVP's in ten years from sportswriters who probably wouldn't have written the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Put all of that together and what do you have? Well, you certainly don't have Josh Gibson. Campy was far his superior behind the plate, but obviously Gibson--the man so often called "The Black Babe Ruth"--has to win over Campy. But if you give Campy credit for all of the MLB years he missed due to WW II and due to institutionalized racism, well, it's certainly not irrational to pick him at #1.

BHN

P.S. I apologize to all for not being handy with all these toys yet. I'll SOON (I promise) learn to make single responses which incorporate multiple posts. :)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

--BHN, I think it was Del Crandell.

Thank you. His superiority in fielding percentage and "range factor" don't appear to be by as high a % as Campy's, but the former is close and he's got plenty of GG's and All-Star appearances. (I didn't know this; I just now looked it up.)

I suspect you're right, and again, I thank you.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Dear Wamby and Little Joe,

Thank you both. You are right. I've been overrating Robinson, because, as much as I respect peak value--and especially spectacular peak value--Robinson didn't have a spectacular peak value. He had about 8 really good years in a row. Add to that what James said about Robinson's outstanding and catholic talents defensively--outstanding at 2B, outstanding at 3B, outstanding in LF. Toss in the number of runs he scored in 10 seasons and his excellent career OBP. He looks like one hell of a package, doesn't he?

Then knock down the cancer, Rogers Hornsby, a bunch for semi-retiring in 1930, and playing only the equivalent of 2 more seasons from that point on--thereby avoiding his "decline phase" and artificially bloating his career stats, albeit not as much or as dramatically as Joe Jackson did.

Then toss in the fact that, as I admitted elsewhere, I just H-A-T-E Hornsby and find it hard to be fair to him. I can't declare him "retired after" a certain year, like I can with Bonds (after 1999, before the Etherton HR). But I have a felt need to knock Hornsby down not only below Morgan, which is legit, but also as much further as I can think of.

And I need to catch myself on that, because it's NOT right.

Well, if Robinson missed 1942-1946, rather than 1939-1946, that's a huge difference. If the available evidence suggests he wouldn't have been that good until 1946... well, I'm doubting that, unless it's based on a good deal more than 1946--a year when lots of players had to adjust after that dreadful war.

But several of you have now said--and on the basis of VASTLY more relevant knowledge than I possess--that Robinson didn't lose out on that much in terms of his MLB career.

So, GD'it, I may have to reconcile myself with rating Hornsby, the one superstar I'm sure I loathe more than Bonds, at the #2 slot in my 2B rankings. Thank god for Morgan.

Thank you folks for your info about Robinson's pre-MLB years. I'm not like certain Bonds-o-holics. I don't want to sit here, processing only the facts which suit my pre-conceived agenda, and rejecting what doesn't fit. I've always assumed, based on how great Robinson was until 1956, that he would have been great in his mid 20's, if not his early 20's. That's apparently not so, and thanks especially to you two for enlightening me.

Life's not always fair or happy, and I'd rather be fully and accurately informed, than I would be happily making misinformed ratings. As I said in another post 20 minutes ago, I can justify my ranking of Campy as #1 catcher forever (if we're just talking MLB, and the obviously superior Josh Gibson is excluded), but apparently I can't justify putting Robinson ahead of Hornsby (or Collins).

I'll redo my rankings for that position in a way that makes me feel clean and honest, regardless of how happy it makes me.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Frank or Brooks? If it's Brooks I can understand, if it's Frank....:confused:


Yeah, NO KIDDING. Franks Robinson was the Hank Greenberg of 1960's OF's.

For a long time, it was said--and probably still is, in many quarters--that the top three 1Bmen of all time are, in this order, Gehrig, Foxx and Greenberg. If you give Greenberg credit for the enormous amount of time he missed for WWII, that's still a reasonable view, though I'm not sure I'd share it.

Anyway, many people have said, "Poor Hank Greenberg. He's the #3 1Bman of all time, but he got stuck playing at the same times as #1 and #2."

The same could be said about Rickey and Raines as leadoff men, I suppose.

AND, while they're not 1, 2 and 3 as OF's, it's surely true that Mays, Aaron and Robinson were 3 of the very greatest OF's who ever lived. It would be difficult indeed to call Robinson "overrated," because he so often got obscured by Mays, Mantle and Aaron. I know; I was around then.

Well, Robinson was not their equal. But as James has said, in Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mays and Mantle (chronological order), you have not only an incredible group of 5 CF's, but probably 5 of the 10 greatest MLB players ever. And in Aaron, you have another monster.

Frank Robinson had to compete with Mays and Mantle, whom many people my age pick as the two greatest of those 5 CF's (albeit without knowing much about DiMaggio or ANYTHING about Speaker or Cobb--other than Cobb's racisim). He also had to compete with 3 pretty contemporaries in RF--the hugely overrated Clemente, Kaline and the one who was clearly his superior, Aaron.

I fear that in the eyes of the general public, Frank Robinson has gotten lost in the mix. Most of US agree he was the #3 RF of all time, and when you consider who the top 2 were, that is one hell of a compliment. But to the general public? He's certainly not overrated, and I fear he's become quite underrated. Hell, James used to rate OTT ahead of Robinson for "career value"--that's the Ott with 323 HR's in the Polo Grounds and 188 on the road.

BHN

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It would be difficult indeed to call Robinson "overrated," because he so often got obscured by Mays, Mantle and Aaron. I know; I was around then.


I fear that in the eyes of the general public, Frank Robinson has gotten lost in the mix. Most of US agree he was the #3 RF of all time, and when you consider who the top 2 were, that is one hell of a compliment. But to the general public? He's certainly not overrated, and I fear he's become quite underrated.
BHN

Agreed, no way was Frank Robinson ever overrerated. for some reason or another some player don't seem to get their due. Robinson, Spahn and Stan Musial to name a few. Don't know why, maybe their style of play, they just go about and play great but not appreciated by some, who can say.

If I recall Stan was not picked for the All Century Team, thats a laugher.
I saw Frank play and in my eyes he was only a shade below Mays and Aaron or any other in his time.

[The Big C]

No love for Pudge in all these catcher talks?

[drjjpdc]

Little Joe, we talked about Gibson the pitcher, but the Wizard of Oz overrated? Are you kidding? One of the greatest that I've ever seen and I remember the 60's and 70's. He had a terrific arm, great range etc. Also he improved as a hitter as he aged, something he didn't have to do to get to the HOF. He raised his average while on the Cardinals from the .230 range to having a number of .280/.290 seasons (even .300 once) to having a .260 plus lifetime. That is all on work ethic and pride, something modern players rarely understand.

[yankillaz]

I don't know if this topic has already been posted. But c'mon!! I'd vote for Joe Morgan all the way...who do you think????

[digglahhh]

I have a couple of candidates.

By casual fans: Ryan and sometimes Rose.

By pseudo-historians and supposed students of the game: Jim Rice

By the SABR crowd: Adam Dunn

I personally think that Sandy Koufax is rather overrated too. I really don't like seeing him in people's top 10 lists and I really don't like seeing him ahead of Pedro. But the regulars here know that about me.

[Windy City Fan]

Joe Morgan is certainly not overrated.

Among casual fans, Ryan and Rose are two good names. I'll add Jeter and DiMaggio to that mix as well. Koufax and Gibson too.

[yankillaz]

Ummm, it's true that the Media has something to do with these things...

But how can you place Dimaggio as an overrated player, and say Morgan isn't???

And i'm not meaning by casual fans. But by studied fans...

[Captain Cold Nose]

The fact a lot of people regard Pete Rose as the greatest hitter of all time (being near Cincinnati, I hear it all the time, and he certainly received his share of accolades before his suspension) and a lot of people regard Nolan Ryan as the greatest pitcher of all time puts them at the top of the list. Others would include Ozzie Smith, (he was awesome defensively, but that fact he was only decent offensively for a shortstop should hurt him in the all-time SS rankings, and a lot think Smith tops that list) Cal Ripken, (the streak got him more acclaim than his actual fine career) Brooks Robinson, (see Smith) and Reggie Jackson, who's was one of the best self-promoters I've ever seen but was an excellent home run hitter who didn't live up to initial promise.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

1. George Sisler
2. Bill Terry
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ernie Banks
5. Nolan Ryan

[Honus Wagner Rules]

double post

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Triple post

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Quadruple post

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Quintiple post :ughh

[Wee Willie]

Ernie Banks
Nolan Ryan
Matty
George Sisler
Jim Rice
Yaz
Brooks Robinson
Joe Jackson
Jimmie Foxx (in overall rankings; he's still the #2 1B)

[Francoeurstein]

1. George Sisler
2. Bill Terry
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ernie Banks
5. Nolan Ryan

Ha!!! Five times in a row... You are desperate for the most posts in 3 months thing.. :crazy

[1905 Giants]

Ernie banks
Nolan Ryan
Phil Rizzuto
Joe Cronin
Pete Rose

[flash143817]

Nolan Ryan is vastly overrated by the casual fan, but I think he tends to be underrated by the "knowledgeable" fan. Most of them would see him as just a strikeout pitcher that happened to stay around forever, which is partially true. But he also played for some bad Angels teams and was never really on good teams throughout his career, which costed him a lot of wins on his total. His real wins total was 324, against 292 losses, but Baseball Prospectus gives him an adjusted win total of 402 with only 200 losses. Besides this apparent tough luck that he was cursed with throughout his career, he was plain and simple the toughest pitcher to hit in the history of the game. That has to count for something.

[538280]

Of course, among casual fans it would go to Ryan, Rose, and Lou Brock.

For knowledgeable fans, the most overrated players of all time are Ernie Banks (probably #1 on the list), George Sisler, Jim Rice, Joe DiMaggio, Joe Jackson, and Jimmie Foxx.

[leecemark]

--Joe Jackson, George Sisler and Pie Traynor are the most overrated players at BBF. Thankfully Sisler and Traynor's stock does appear to be falling lately though. Regretfully Jackson still has lots of diehard fans.

[rsuriyop]

Chuck Klein and Hank Greenberg also seem to be pretty overrated.

[Gee Walker]

1. Don Drysdale
2. George Sisler
3. Jim Rice
4. Nolan Ryan
5. Rod Carew

Four HOF players... I liked Carew as a 2B, but as a singles-hitting 1B with no power there isn't much there to like.

Drysdale's HOF case basically comes down to:
- the scoreless streak (So why aren't Doc White and Orel Hershiser in the HOF?)
- the head-hunter attitude.
- playing in LA and having movie-star good looks
- being Sandy Koufax' teammate

I think Drysdale was a good pitcher, just like his contemporaries Milt Pappas, Mickey Lolich, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Sam McDowell, and Jerry Reuss.

[Taco De Muerte]

George sisler, hands down. I don't think he even deserves to be in the HOF.

[flash143817]

Of course, among casual fans it would go to Ryan, Rose, and Lou Brock.

For knowledgeable fans, the most overrated players of all time are Ernie Banks (probably #1 on the list), George Sisler, Jim Rice, Joe DiMaggio, Joe Jackson, and Jimmie Foxx.

I agree with Rice, DiMaggio, Jackson, and Sisler being overrated generally, but why do you think Jimmie Foxx is? I always got the sense he was overshadowed by Lou Gehrig in most discussions. Foxx in his prime rivaled both Gehrig and is probably a top 5 hitter all time. Granted his career was basically done after the age of 32, but for peak value especially and even career value, Foxx was a great, great hitter and I've never seen him particularly overrated.

[Ubiquitous]

Of course, among casual fans it would go to Ryan, Rose, and Lou Brock.

For knowledgeable fans, the most overrated players of all time are Ernie Banks (probably #1 on the list), George Sisler, Jim Rice, Joe DiMaggio, Joe Jackson, and Jimmie Foxx.


Well then I'm not a knowledgeable fan because I wouldn't put Ernie Banks #1 nor would he even be on that list, nor would Foxx. Jackson and Dimaggio would probably be on the bottom of a very lengthy list and it has nothing to do with their own performance but the media that surrounds them.

I must be a casual fan because I would put Brock, Ryan, and Rose nearer the top then any of the other guys you listed.

[Wee Willie]

I agree with Rice, DiMaggio, Jackson, and Sisler being overrated generally, but why do you think Jimmie Foxx is? Foxx in his prime rivaled both Gehrig and is probably a top 5 hitter all time. Granted his career was basically done after the age of 32, but for peak value especially and even career value, Foxx was a great, great hitter and I've never seen him particularly overrated.
The reason I think he's overrated is because I've seen him on several polls here showing up in the top-15 or top-dozen players of all time, which I think is too high. When The Sporting News chose its top 100 players (which included pitchers) several years ago, it had Foxx at #15 overall and #11 among non-pitchers. SABR conducted a similar poll in 1999 that had Foxx 14th overall and 12th among non-pitchers. The writers and SABR folks were putting too much stock in Foxx's raw batting numbers and not taking into account his HUGE home park factor in achieving those stats.

His BA/OBP/SLG and HR splits are as follows:

Home: .345/.453/.663, with 299 HR
Road: .307/.405/.561, with 235 HR

Even though most players perform at least a little better at home, very few have that large a disparity. Shibe and Fenway Parks had Foxx licking his chops every at-bat. Furthermore, he played in one of the most batter-friendly eras of all time. Both of those conditions lead me to believe that he is, at best, barely a top-10 hitter, and more likely a top-12 or 13 hitter. His overall rating among position players should be between 21-25 instead of 11-15.

[Ubiquitous]

If Foxx is playing in the best or one of the better hitting parks that means by definition his road parks will be in general less hitter friendly then a true neutral park. Meaning while his home park stats might be high his road stats are also probably lower then they really should be.

Playing in a truly neutral environment perhaps his road stats are 250 HR's or 260 and his home stats could be 280 or so. Putting him at basically the same level he was at already.

[baseballPAP]

DiMaggio has to win this "award". He is constantly mentioned in people's top 10 or 15, when he should be somewhere in the 25-40 range. His career was short, I don't give him an ounce of war credit, because he never went anywhere near a war, he was arrogant and he retired early because Mantle was going to bump him out of CF. He was however an awesome talent in his 13 or so years, and in the end, that short career is the only thing keeping him from the elite.

I can't imagine Greenberg is overrated...he barely gets a mention around here, and the casual fan doesn't even know who is is. Morgan is overrated by a select few, but even more fail to see his contributions for what they were...so he still comes off as somewhat underrated to me.

I'd say, in something like this order, the top 5 over-hyped players:
1-Joe D.
2-Oscar Charleston....he's either the greatest CFer ever, or barely top 10...depends on how you rank the NeL's quality, and I rank it pretty low as a whole.
3-Cal Ripken...a streak does not a superstar make...he was great, but not godly.
4-Christy Mathewson...many still have him top 3 or 4....probably more like 8 or 9.
5-Roberto Clemente...a world of talent, but his ego kept him from being even better. Still top 7 in RF, but not 3 or 4 as many have him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

DiMaggio has to win this "award". He is constantly mentioned in people's top 10 or 15, when he should be somewhere in the 25-40 range. His career was short, I don't give him an ounce of war credit, because he never went anywhere near a war, he was arrogant and he retired early because Mantle was going to bump him out of CF. He was however an awesome talent in his 13 or so years, and in the end, that short career is the only thing keeping him from the elite.

If it's your opinion that Dimaggio was overratted that fine but to say no war credit because he never saw any action, thats a non issue. It's not what any player did during the war it's the fact that they missed some prime years, away from the game.

Same thing with being arrogent, how does that factor in when the issue is evaluating any player on the field.

Too often Joe's charactar flaws are factored in when they have nothing to do with Joe the player.

I see you do treat him fairly in your closing, a great player but losing some value due to that short career.

[Wee Willie]

If Foxx is playing in the best or one of the better hitting parks that means by definition his road parks will be in general less hitter friendly then a true neutral park. Meaning while his home park stats might be high his road stats are also probably lower then they really should be.

Playing in a truly neutral environment perhaps his road stats are 250 HR's or 260 and his home stats could be 280 or so. Putting him at basically the same level he was at already.
I think that's unlikely, though. Foxx played in 7 other parks on the road in the AL. Even if all 7 averaged out to be slightly less than favorable to hitters, that's not enough to account for the nearly 16 percent OPS difference between his home/road stats.
You're supposing that his road homers might have been 260 in a neutral environment. Well, that would be an 11 percent increase from his actual (235) road homers. Even 250 would be a 6 percent increase I seriously doubt that the average conditions of the 7 road parks he played in were anything close to 10 percent (or even 6 percent) below "neutral". It would more likely be 2 or 3 percent at most and may not have even been below neutral at all. Plus, a more "even" homer split would not necessarily imply a more even BA or OPS split.
But the main issue is that he played half his games at the two most hitter-friendly parks (Shibe/Fenway) in the league, and benefitted greatly. Yes, he'd likely have slightly better road numbers had he been a Yankee, but I think he'd have significantly worse home numbers and wouldn't be rated quite as high as he sometimes is.

[Ubiquitous]

You are not understanding I'm not saying if he played in another park his away stats would be different. I'm saying that road stats are not neutral stats. You cannot look at road stats and assume that because it is road stats those stats are neutral or indicative of a players true talent. If a player is playing in the best hitters park in the league then his road parks will be unbalanced toward pitchers parks. The parks overall will not be neutral. Then it becomes a question of degree. Does Foxx home park truly inflate his OPS by 16%? I doubt it, and the true diffence between home park and neutral is probably something smaller then 16% any way. True neutral vs home park might be something like 10 or 12% and the actual park and design might be worth 5% or 6% with the rest being bonuses because of it being at home and a player adapting to his surrounding. The same applies to his home runs. The disparity between true neutral and the advantages one recieves because of his park is probably not as large as it appears by looking at his home/road splits.

[Wee Willie]

You are not understanding I'm not saying if he played in another park his away stats would be different. I'm saying that road stats are not neutral stats. You cannot look at road stats and assume that because it is road stats those stats are neutral or indicative of a players true talent. If a player is playing in the best hitters park in the league then his road parks will be unbalanced toward pitchers parks. The parks overall will not be neutral. Then it becomes a question of degree. Does Foxx home park truly inflate his OPS by 16%? I doubt it, and the true diffence between home park and neutral is probably something smaller then 16% any way. True neutral vs home park might be something like 10 or 12% and the actual park and design might be worth 5% or 6% with the rest being bonuses because of it being at home and a player adapting to his surrounding. The same applies to his home runs. The disparity between true neutral and the advantages one recieves because of his park is probably not as large as it appears by looking at his home/road splits.
Actually, I do understand what you're saying. My point is that his road stats, while probably not technically neutral, are much closer to neutral than his home stats. You're said that if someone plays in Shibe/Fenway half the time then his road stats are unbalanced toward "pitchers parks". I'm saying that because there are seven other parks, there is not that much of a tilt toward the "pitchers park" end of the spectrum. There may be a little, but not nearly as much as Foxx's tilt toward his benefit. I don't believe Foxx's home park inflates his OPS by 16%, but I think it inflates it by at least half that much, probably 8-10%. I think true neutral vs home park average is much less than 10 -12 %, more like the 5%, with the player's comfortable surroundings accounting for most of that advantage.

[Ubiquitous]

So you think his park inflates his OPS by 8-10% and you also think that in general home parks inflate stats by about 4% or so, correct? So wouldn't that mean you believe Foxx' home park inflates his OPS by about 4 to 6%?

Again that isn't a big spread and it doesn't look anything like simply looking at Home/Away splits. Thats a 10 point difference.

[Wee Willie]

So you think his park inflates his OPS by 8-10% and you also think that in general home parks inflate stats by about 4% or so, correct? So wouldn't that mean you believe Foxx' home park inflates his OPS by about 4 to 6%?

Again that isn't a big spread and it doesn't look anything like simply looking at Home/Away splits. Thats a 10 point difference.
No, I mean Foxx's OPS is inflated by 8-10% on top of the regular 5-6% bump most players get from playing at home. That's why I think it's a sizable enough difference to deem him overrated by some.

[Yankwood]

When assessing the MOST overrated, we should probably stick to Hall of Famers because if they're not in the Hall, how can they be the MOST overrated, since just by nature being in the Hall of Fame means they're rated high. :noidea Well, I know what I mean, anyway. Of the players I have seen that are most overrated: Cal Ripken, Kirby Puckett and Carl Yastrzemski.

[Ubiquitous]

No, I mean Foxx's OPS is inflated by 8-10% on top of the regular 5-6% bump most players get from playing at home. That's why I think it's a sizable enough difference to deem him overrated by some.

So you think his 16% boost is justified? Does every other player that played his home games alongside Foxx have a 16% boost?

I'm at work but what does his away line look if you added in his home stats to that line weighted properly to equalize with the 7 other parks?

Personally I don't beleive a park that wasn't all that extreme compared to norm is solely responsible for a 16% advantage in OPS and over 60 HR's. Or even a 10% advantage.

[Wee Willie]

So you think his 16% boost is justified? Does every other player that played his home games alongside Foxx have a 16% boost?

I'm at work but what does his away line look if you added in his home stats to that line weighted properly to equalize with the 7 other parks?

Personally I don't beleive a park that wasn't all that extreme compared to norm is solely responsible for a 16% advantage in OPS and over 60 HR's. Or even a 10% advantage.
Well, I have no idea whether every other player has a 16% boost, but again - I'm not saying the entire 16% is due to his home park makeup, but at least half of it is, IMO.
Two other examples regarding Shibe Park are Bob Johnson and Al Simmons. Johnson hit 252 homers while playing for the A's. He hit 149 career homers in Shibe. That's close to 60% (about the same disparity as Foxx in homers). Al Simmons hit 209 homers while playing for the A's. He hit 123 career homers in Shibe. Even though he did play for the White Sox/Senators for awhile, I estimate that at least 55% of his homers were at home while he was with the A's. That's a pretty sizable disparity. And of course, Fenway has always, with rare exception, been a boon to most Red Sox hitters.

[538280]

2-Oscar Charleston....he's either the greatest CFer ever, or barely top 10...depends on how you rank the NeL's quality, and I rank it pretty low as a whole.


I'd rate it pretty low as a whole too, but Charleston played at a time when the Negro Leagues were more organized than they were at just about any time. Rube Foster was the head of the show, and he was black baseball's greatest executive, and kept the game in control as best he could. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Oscar played at a time when there was only one true "major" Negro League, that being the Negro National League. Oscar was a great player, as best I can tell just as good, probably better than Cobb and just a sliver below Mays.

Sometimes he can be a bit overhyped though (but not overrated). I used to have him #1, if you're not aware, that was a prime example of overhyping.

[Ubiquitous]

Well, I have no idea whether every other player has a 16% boost, but again - I'm not saying the entire 16% is due to his home park makeup, but at least half of it is, IMO.
Two other examples regarding Shibe Park are Bob Johnson and Al Simmons. Johnson hit 252 homers while playing for the A's. He hit 149 career homers in Shibe. That's close to 60% (about the same disparity as Foxx in homers). Al Simmons hit 209 homers while playing for the A's. He hit 123 career homers in Shibe. Even though he did play for the White Sox/Senators for awhile, I estimate that at least 55% of his homers were at home while he was with the A's. That's a pretty sizable disparity. And of course, Fenway has always, with rare exception, been a boon to most Red Sox hitters.

In the end it looks like we are quibbling over a couple of % points. It looks like you believe Foxx got an8 to 10% boost because of his park and I think he got around 6 to 8% boost because of his park.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I think this is a matter of semantics. Ozzie was one of the greatest SS's ever. By the vast majority of reckonings, including that of Bill James (the last I knew), he was THE greatest defensive SS ever. Though not nearly as bad offensively as the average fan thinks (due to reasonable BB %, SB's and SB%), his claim to fame rests solely on his glove. On that alone, James rates him as the #7 SS of all time.

The thing is, as James correctly says, the average fan would rate him #2, if not #1. The average fan thinks an unparalleled glove is worth more at SS than great offense. SABR members (of whom I'm not one) know better, but the average fan doesn't and has seen zillions of Ozzie's spectacular defensive highlights. We, on the other hand, know that if Eddie Mathews had been an average defensive SS (instead of a 3B), he would have been a MUCH better player than Ozzie Smith.

BHN

[baseballPAP]

I'd rate it pretty low as a whole too, but Charleston played at a time when the Negro Leagues were more organized than they were at just about any time. Rube Foster was the head of the show, and he was black baseball's greatest executive, and kept the game in control as best he could. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Oscar played at a time when there was only one true "major" Negro League, that being the Negro National League. Oscar was a great player, as best I can tell just as good, probably better than Cobb and just a sliver below Mays.

Sometimes he can be a bit overhyped though (but not overrated). I used to have him #1, if you're not aware, that was a prime example of overhyping.
Pretty much what I meant Chris.....
While it can be adjusted with at least some mathmatical basis for league quality in MLB, the NeL have no statistical baseline. While I personally believe that NeLers were probably as good at the superstar level as MLBers of the same period, their league quality overall makes it nearly impossible to compare. I decide to err on the side of caution with the NeLers....I have Charleston at #18 overall...right behind Josh Gibson, and the highest of 4 NeLers in my top 50. The second 50 would include 7-9 more I would think....thats on my list of updates I need to do...stretch my 50 to 100.

[julusnc]

Sandy Koufax or Hal Newhouser

Most Negro League players are overrated due to the lack of stats.Much is still heresay.I am not talking about the Josh Gibson's or the Leroy Paige's but more along the lines of the Biz Mackey's.

[leecemark]

--Actually the more info that comes out on Mackey's stats the lower I rank him. He just wasn't that special as a hitter. If you want an underated Negro League catcher, try Louis Santop on for size.

[FatAngel]

If overrated is defined by historical perspective vs playing days´ perspective I´d go with Rose, Koufax and Di Maggio.

[STLCards2]

If we are referring to mainstream media and casual baseball fans, I would say Nolan Ryan is a good choice for most overrated player. I agree that Rose and Koufax are also reasonable choices.

[digglahhh]

How about an honorable mention for another Dodger, Gil Hodges.

[baseball junkie]

Nobody is going to like this choice but the most over-rated player of baseball history is Joe Jackson. Now hear me out before you start screaming about his .356 career batting average.

First off, Jackson played in the deadball era. Second off, take a wild guess how many batting titles Jackson won: zero. That's right, not a single batting title.

Jackson is credited with 202 stolen bases in his career. Records exist that show he was also thrown out at least 61 times. That means he was thrown out on 30.1% of his attempts. Consult any sabermetrician and see if that is failure percentage is good. It's not.

So far we've established although he could hit for average that he never led the league in hitting or stolen bases and he hurt his team more by attempting to swipe bases than he helped it.

Anecdotal evidence is all that exists to suggest his fielding abilities. But let's just go ahead and assume he was the best fielding player of his era.

He had power but didn't hit home runs. Most of his extra base hits were double and triples. This leads to him knocking in more than 100 runs just once in a 13 year career.

Leaving character issues and an apparent lack of intelligence aside, he certainly took part in throwing the 1919 World Series. This action of course lead to his lifetime ban from baseball. This also created his legend.

Had Jackson been allowed to play through his 30s and suffer the same type of physical decline that all players do his numbers would have trailed off and his greatness would have evaporated.

The liveball era began in 1920 -- Jackson's last year in MLB. America became and remains enamored with the home run. How would Jackson have fared in that era -- luckily for his legend nobody will ever know.

I'm not saying Jackson was not a great hitter. I am saying that the legend that surrounds him is bogus. Jackson compares, in my opinion, to a guy playing today named Ichiro.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Your best point, imo, is the lack of a decline phase. The same concern applies to Clemente (my pick for the #1 most overrated player ever), Gehrig, Hornsby (who 3/4 retired at age 34), Albert Belle (of whom I'm an ardent supporter), and a lot of others.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'd rate it pretty low as a whole too, but Charleston played at a time when the Negro Leagues were more organized than they were at just about any time. Rube Foster was the head of the show, and he was black baseball's greatest executive, and kept the game in control as best he could. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Oscar played at a time when there was only one true "major" Negro League, that being the Negro National League. Oscar was a great player, as best I can tell just as good, probably better than Cobb and just a sliver below Mays.

Sometimes he can be a bit overhyped though (but not overrated). I used to have him #1, if you're not aware, that was a prime example of overhyping.

Buck O'Neil, who knew a fair amount on the subject, once said that Willie Mays was the greatest major leaguer he ever saw, but that Oscar Charleston was the greatest baseball player he ever saw.

Oscar Charleston is a lot of things, but "overrated" is not one of them.

[SABR Matt]

I think perhaps I'll mention Whitey Ford here too. :D

This is one I feel pretty strongly about because it exemplifies my chief problem with doing analysis of pitching through the ERA and W-L prism only.

A sabermetrician's work is never done I suppose. :)

[wamby]

Buck O'Neil, who knew a fair amount on the subject, once said that Willie Mays was the greatest major leaguer he ever saw, but that Oscar Charleston was the greatest baseball player he ever saw.

.

Is that really saying anything, though? That could be O'Neil saying what he believes to be the truth. It could also sound like an opinion that O'neil is giving to validate the Negro League experience as being on par with MLB. It somewhat reminds me of the 1919 Reds saying the White Sox didn't throw the Series. What else are they going to say?

[yankillaz]

I agree entirely with posts #18 and #24. Both Drysdale and DiMaggio are vastly overrated. This brings me to assure, as i did before, that media coverage has a lot to do.

This means that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs, White Sox and Reds (til the 1980's), had the ease of media coverage, which allowed their players to be considered greater than they really were. Check out the inmmortals for each team, and you'll see what i mean.

[STLCards2]

I think perhaps I'll mention Whitey Ford here too. :D

This is one I feel pretty strongly about because it exemplifies my chief problem with doing analysis of pitching through the ERA and W-L prism only.

A sabermetrician's work is never done I suppose. :)

I agree that Whitey Ford was not qute as good as his record shows, but you would have to adjust awfuly hard to make a .690 winning % and 132 ERA+ not be pretty darn impressive.

[baseballPAP]

I agree entirely with posts #18 and #24. Both Drysdale and DiMaggio are vastly overrated. This brings me to assure, as i did before, that media coverage has a lot to do.

This means that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs, White Sox and Reds (til the 1980's), had the ease of media coverage, which allowed their players to be considered greater than they really were. Check out the inmmortals for each team, and you'll see what i mean.
I was with you until you included the Reds...they have never been a media darling. The White Sox have long been slightly overlooked by the Chitown media as well...present years excluded. The 1970s, the time I suspect you mean by including the Reds, had them in the NATIONAL media....not at all the same thing. They deserved it, playing in the WS in 1970, 72, 75, and 76, finishing lower than 2nd only once(in 1971), and featuring a stock of HOFers that were all pretty good interviews (except Perez....quiet man with poor English skills). It wasn't the case that the Cincinnati media has a national following....when is the last time you saw someone in an airport reading the Enquirer...the Cincinnati one? :)

[yankillaz]

I was with you until you included the Reds...they have never been a media darling. The White Sox have long been slightly overlooked by the Chitown media as well...present years excluded. The 1970s, the time I suspect you mean by including the Reds, had them in the NATIONAL media....not at all the same thing. They deserved it, playing in the WS in 1970, 72, 75, and 76, finishing lower than 2nd only once(in 1971), and featuring a stock of HOFers that were all pretty good interviews (except Perez....quiet man with poor English skills). It wasn't the case that the Cincinnati media has a national following....when is the last time you saw someone in an airport reading the Enquirer...the Cincinnati one? :)

Sure the Big Red Machine wasn't overexposed??? Considering that in the 70's we saw teams like The A's who were clearly better, Baltimore and Pittsburgh, all playing at a high level, and yet, didn't get the same treatment players from Cinci had. (Except for Baltimore a bit). And dare name the list of HOF'ers from the team, and you'll see that some of them are not that all...

PS. You got me. I got an anti-Cinci thing going lately. So excuse me if i'm not that objective.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Is that really saying anything, though? That could be O'Neil saying what he believes to be the truth. It could also sound like an opinion that O'neil is giving to validate the Negro League experience as being on par with MLB. It somewhat reminds me of the 1919 Reds saying the White Sox didn't throw the Series. What else are they going to say?

Only if you have some reason to believe that Buck O'Neill, like our recently acquired "Nomar," was a blind agendist who was intellectually disingenuous and had an inflexible agenda to sell. That's a pretty cynical assumption to make, and since I know of no reason to make it, I'm not going to. On the other hand, O'Neill either didn't see Babe Ruth at all or saw him only at the tail end, and he certainly didn't see Speaker, Cobb or Wagner, so there are some real inherent qualifications in his remark. At least two guys (Ruth and Cobb) easily could go ahead of Charleston, and since I'm something of a maverick in how "low" I rate Wagner (not in my Top 10), I'd say the norm is more like "at least three" could go ahead of Charleston, even if you accept 100% of O'Neill's analysis.

But yeah, I put a LOT of stock in that remark of his. And, given what I've read of Charleston's depth and breadth of talents--he clearly was the Willie Mays of the Negro Leagues, but probably a better hitter--I take strong exception to the idea he was overrated. PERHAPS it is overrating him to say he must be seriously considered for the distinction of the #1 player ever, or to say, as I do, that he's the one and only guy who MAY have been better than Ruth. (I'm satisfied that Mays and Cobb, my only two other credible candidates, were not.)

But I know this: NO living human is in a position to prove or disprove that assertion intelligently. And any serious student of baseball history who doesn't consider that a dirty shame is one I don't care to talk with, I'll tell you that. EVERYTHING I've read about this guy is consistent with the notion that he, and not Josh Gibson, was their greatest player. And I say that, mind you, as someone who considers Gibson to have been, hands down, the greatest catcher in the history of baseball.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

I agree that Whitey Ford was not qute as good as his record shows, but you would have to adjust awfuly hard to make a .690 winning % and 132 ERA+ not be pretty darn impressive.

The .690 career winning percentage is worse htan the W% of other yankee left-handers in the 1950s.

And the 132 ERA+ becomes about a 112 ERA+ when you factor in the Yankee defense and the extreme disadvantage RH Batters would have at home against Ford.

[wamby]

Only if you have some reason to believe that Buck O'Neill, like our recently acquired "Nomar," was a blind agendist who was intellectually disingenuous and had an inflexible agenda to sell. That's a pretty cynical assumption to make, and since I know of no reason to make it, I'm not going to. On the other hand, O'Neill either didn't see Babe Ruth at all or saw him only at the tail end, and he certainly didn't see Speaker, Cobb or Wagner, so there are some real inherent qualifications in his remark. At least two guys (Ruth and Cobb) easily could go ahead of Charleston, and since I'm something of a maverick in how "low" I rate Wagner (not in my Top 10), I'd say the norm is more like "at least three" could go ahead of Charleston, even if you accept 100% of O'Neill's analysis.

But yeah, I put a LOT of stock in that remark of his. And, given what I've read of Charleston's depth and breadth of talents--he clearly was the Willie Mays of the Negro Leagues, but probably a better hitter--I take strong exception to the idea he was overrated. PERHAPS it is overrating him to say he must be seriously considered for the distinction of the #1 player ever, or to say, as I do, that he's the one and only guy who MAY have been better than Ruth. (I'm satisfied that Mays and Cobb, my only two other credible candidates, were not.)

But I know this: NO living human is in a position to prove or disprove that assertion intelligently. And any serious student of baseball history who doesn't consider that a dirty shame is one I don't care to talk with, I'll tell you that. EVERYTHING I've read about this guy is consistent with the notion that he, and not Josh Gibson, was their greatest player. And I say that, mind you, as someone who considers Gibson to have been, hands down, the greatest catcher in the history of baseball.

BHN

How much did O'Neil see Charleston? I don't know if they even played at the same time, xince Charleston was a contemporary of Babe Ruth's. I don't think O'Neil has a blind agenda, but what is he going to say about the Negro Leagues? I think it's human to put something like this in either the best possible light, like I think O'Neil tries to do, or the worst possible light, like Jackie Robinson did.

I'm sorry if you find my attitude cynical. But I don't generally take much stock in old ballplayers talking lyrically about the past and how great their contemporaries were. If you could show me that fellow players were saying great things about Charleston in 1925, I would put a lot more stock in that than something said about Charleston loing after he retired.

My feeling about guys like Charleston and Gibson is that just because they dominated Negro League play doesn't mean they would have dominated in the Majors. They may have, but they also may have been like other guys who dominated at the Minor League level, but didn't dominate in the Majors.

[flash143817]

I don't think O'Neil had a blind agenda. But I think it would be erroneous to take his word at gospel. He was a human just like any of us that are trying to rate these players throughout history. He didn't have some added quality that made his personal ratings more important than ours (except possibly seeing them play, but that doesn't mean everything). I appreciate everything that O'Neil has done for the Negro Leagers, but I'm not ready to rate a certain guy higher or lower just because O'Neil feels that way.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'm not taking his word as gospel (and please don't put words in my mouth). Obviously any rating of Charleston is guesswork, whereas I do NOT think it's guesswork to rate Gibson as the #1 catcher of all time. I am as comfortable with that as I am with rating Ruth as the #1 RF or Wagner as the #1 SS--and I know full well how strong a statement that is.

But I'm persuaded that Charleston, not Gibson, was the Negro Leagues' greatest player. Am I absolutely, positvely, 100% convinced of this fact, as I am that Gibson is the all-time greatest catcher? No, of course not. Charleston played too long ago, and there is too little proof one way or the other. But ALL of the anecdotal evidence about him that I have read, from both white and black sources, says he was the first Willie Mays--only a better hitter.

He and Gibson were, reportedly, 17 years apart in age. In the context of how much we know about them, that 17 years is a huge amount. It's enough that I can say with absolute confidence Gibson is the #1 catcher, without being able to say where Charleston rates vis-a-vis The Immortal Five MLB players in CF.

And as I say, that's a stinking shame, because this is the one and only guy I M-I-G-H-T be willing to put ahead of Ruth. Mays and Cobb are not going ahead of him in my book. And Wagner and Aaron aren't within a mile of him.

BHN

[Oriolesfan1810]

My 5 Most overrated players:

1. Alex Rodriguez (And to think he was my hero when I was 11)
2. Derek Jeter
3. Joe DiMaggio
4. Barry Bonds
5. George Sisler

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I doubt you could call Barry Bonds overrated. Most people I know won't rate him at all.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My 5 Most overrated players:

1. Alex Rodriguez (And to think he was my hero when I was 11)
2. Derek Jeter
3. Joe DiMaggio
4. Barry Bonds
5. George Sisler

Gee... thats strange, the first 3 on your list wear or once wore the pinstripes. Could that and that NY on the uniform have anything to do with your picking them......nah. Who hates trhe Yankees, I must be dreaming.

[SABR Matt]

Right now, I think Bonds is drastically UNDERrated by serious fans of the game. We're all a little ticked off right now. He's a jerk...he's a racist...he's not a good steward of the game...and he took steroids to enhance his performance and won't admit it. Yeah...we're ticked.

As a result there's a massive rush to correct our ratings dramatically...even guys I have always thought of as very rational people who base the beginnings of their rankings on the facts and figures and make adjustments from there...even those guys are overreacting to the Bonds controversy and knocking him completely out of their top 10 or even top 20 because they don't like him.

The rhetoric is so thick right now that some fans here can't get past the misuse of the phrase "he cheated." Yeah...he did things he shuldn't have done...no steroid use is not the kind of thing we'd like our heroes to be associated with, but taking steroids is NOT cheating. It does not compromise the integrity of the rules of baseball when it is NOT prohibited by the game. Bonds did everything he was allowed to do by the baseball establishment to maximize his potential. We can fight to change the rules to make these unfriendly things go away. We canshake our heads at players who abused the system. We can even rationally claim that Bonds would have been a slightly less impressive player without the steroidal boost, but we cannot and should not call him a cheater and no one in their right mind can or should knock him out of the top ten when it's statistically quite obvious was a top ten player before he got anywhere near the roids.

In about ten years, when the smoked has cleared from the steroid disaster and people have cooled off, maybe Bonds will get the credit he deserves in spite of himself. Until then, he's underrated at Fever...rather severely so.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Right now, I think Bonds is drastically UNDERrated by serious fans of the game. We're all a little ticked off right now. He's a jerk...he's a racist...he's not a good steward of the game...and he took steroids to enhance his performance and won't admit it. Yeah...we're ticked.

As a result there's a massive rush to correct our ratings dramatically...even guys I have always thought of as very rational people who base the beginnings of their rankings on the facts and figures and make adjustments from there...even those guys are overreacting to the Bonds controversy and knocking him completely out of their top 10 or even top 20 because they don't like him.

The rhetoric is so thick right now that some fans here can't get past the misuse of the phrase "he cheated." Yeah...he did things he shuldn't have done...no steroid use is not the kind of thing we'd like our heroes to be associated with, but taking steroids is NOT cheating. It does not compromise the integrity of the rules of baseball when it is NOT prohibited by the game. Bonds did everything he was allowed to do by the baseball establishment to maximize his potential. We can fight to change the rules to make these unfriendly things go away. We canshake our heads at players who abused the system. We can even rationally claim that Bonds would have been a slightly less impressive player without the steroidal boost, but we cannot and should not call him a cheater and no one in their right mind can or should knock him out of the top ten when it's statistically quite obvious was a top ten player before he got anywhere near the roids.

In about ten years, when the smoked has cleared from the steroid disaster and people have cooled off, maybe Bonds will get the credit he deserves in spite of himself. Until then, he's underrated at Fever...rather severely so.

Well, you're entitled to this opinion, but I'm not going to agree with it in 10 years, nor when I draw my final breath, and I can assure you of that.

With that said, I do have Bonds in my Top 10, and perhaps in my Top 5, but I'm NOT recognizing, and giving "full faith and credit to," his steroid/HGH numbers. I'm accepting the reasonable projections of the numbers he'd have racked up without cheating.

I strongly disagree about his "not cheating." Steroid use violates federal law. That baseball's inner circle was deliberately complicit-by-silence matters not a whit to me, and it won't on the day I die, either. And, to be clear, I feel the same way about McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc.

Bonds, however, is an enormously better player au naturel than any of those guys, and since there's zero evidence steroids/HGH are good for longevity (au contraire, from what evidence we have, e.g., McGwire), I do credit Bonds with recouping a lot of the lost phony numbers because of the enormous number of AB's he would get back upon losing all those walks.

There's nothing "emotional" about this, b.t.w. I live in far Nor Cal, have watched the insufferable $@#* for many years, and have had a very long time to think this through. I'm just about the only fan I know in real life who believes: (1) that he should get into the Hall; and (2) that his stats should not be simply placed into a trash receptacle. Most I know are contemptuous of my putting him in the Top 10, but it seems clear to me he'd have made his way there--and probably into the Top 5, without cheating one iota.

BHN

[Goosenoggle Slipgear]

I've always maintained to my friends that Nolan Ryan is the most overrated baseball player ever. Certainly not the greatest pitcher of all time (though on a given day he could be among the best).

[Blackout]

My 5 Most overrated players:

1. Alex Rodriguez (And to think he was my hero when I was 11)
2. Derek Jeter
3. Joe DiMaggio
4. Barry Bonds
5. George Sisler

let me guess, your 6-10 are Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Berra and Rivera, right? :crazy

[Goosenoggle Slipgear]

Right now, I think Bonds is drastically UNDERrated by serious fans of the game. We're all a little ticked off right now. He's a jerk...he's a racist...he's not a good steward of the game...and he took steroids to enhance his performance and won't admit it. Yeah...we're ticked.

As a result there's a massive rush to correct our ratings dramatically...even guys I have always thought of as very rational people who base the beginnings of their rankings on the facts and figures and make adjustments from there...even those guys are overreacting to the Bonds controversy and knocking him completely out of their top 10 or even top 20 because they don't like him.

The rhetoric is so thick right now that some fans here can't get past the misuse of the phrase "he cheated." Yeah...he did things he shuldn't have done...no steroid use is not the kind of thing we'd like our heroes to be associated with, but taking steroids is NOT cheating. It does not compromise the integrity of the rules of baseball when it is NOT prohibited by the game. Bonds did everything he was allowed to do by the baseball establishment to maximize his potential. We can fight to change the rules to make these unfriendly things go away. We canshake our heads at players who abused the system. We can even rationally claim that Bonds would have been a slightly less impressive player without the steroidal boost, but we cannot and should not call him a cheater and no one in their right mind can or should knock him out of the top ten when it's statistically quite obvious was a top ten player before he got anywhere near the roids.

In about ten years, when the smoked has cleared from the steroid disaster and people have cooled off, maybe Bonds will get the credit he deserves in spite of himself. Until then, he's underrated at Fever...rather severely so.

You can see it anyway you want but I'll always see him as a cheater (not the only one). That being said the talent was always there and I consider him a first-ballot HOFer. He didn't have to do the stuff but he chose to and whatever happens he can suffer the consequences (good or bad) as far as I'm concerned.

[SABR Matt]

I never said we should accept his steroid boosted numbers as is, BHN...I tend ot agree with Scott Barzilla's method, wherein he used typical aging curve data to correct Bonds' numbers down out of the stratosphere and make a more reasonable projection of his decline phase.

All of this "cheater" rhetoric does grow tiresome though...Bonds is no more of a cheater than guys who take greenies (of which there are thousands in the annals of baseball history. If the only thing you believe divides steroids from other methods of getting an edge is what Federal Law says...you have too much faith in our government to define morality,..

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I never said we should accept his steroid boosted numbers as is, BHN...I tend ot agree with Scott Barzilla's method, wherein he used typical aging curve data to correct Bonds' numbers down out of the stratosphere and make a more reasonable projection of his decline phase.

All of this "cheater" rhetoric does grow tiresome though...Bonds is no more of a cheater than guys who take greenies (of which there are thousands in the annals of baseball history. If the only thing you believe divides steroids from other methods of getting an edge is what Federal Law says...you have too much faith in our government to define morality,..

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're putting words in my mouth. Sheesh, I'm a hippie and a defense attorney and haven't had a haircut in 10 years and I'm anything but a government pawn. This is an improper forum for an extended discussion about our government, but trust me, you don't hold our current government in any greater contempt than I do, and THAT you can take to the bank.

If you feel we should project Bonds' numbers since the start of 2000--the year it was OBVIOUS to those of us who see him every day that he was cheating, plus the year the long-distance HR's made it obvious--rather than accepting his phony numbers, then you and I are on the same page, brother. (As we are on Ford, after I found those stats re other Yankee southpaws from 1950-1957 last night.)

And I agree with those who feel Bonds' curve should still be going, because as far as I know, there's zero evidence that HGH or steroids do a single thing to prolong one's career. As far as I can tell, Bonds is playing right now because his enormous natural talent includes very good longevity genes.

But he WAS, and probably still IS, a cheater. So were McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Brady Anderson, and a bunch of others, and I really don't care a whit whether Bud Selig and his scrofulous crew addressed the issue or not. Like a baseball player needs MLB to tell him that artificially turning himself into a small mountain range is improper? And while greenies were also illegal, I find that parallel inapt because it's so obvious which one helped more... and by an "enormous" amount.

Rest assured, though, I'm fair about this. I have Bonds third on my LF list at the moment (reflecting his value through 1999), but as soon as I have a SOLID, RELIABLE set of career projected stats for him--and I would love to see yours, incidentally, because I think they'd probably be very close to dead on--I'll doubtless move him to #1 at that position, and much higher overall. McGwire, by contrast, is not in my Top 5 first basemen--whereas he'd be #2, ahead of Foxx, if I believed in his stats.

BHN

[ichiro262]

I never said we should accept his steroid boosted numbers as is, BHN...I tend ot agree with Scott Barzilla's method, wherein he used typical aging curve data to correct Bonds' numbers down out of the stratosphere and make a more reasonable projection of his decline phase.

All of this "cheater" rhetoric does grow tiresome though...Bonds is no more of a cheater than guys who take greenies (of which there are thousands in the annals of baseball history. If the only thing you believe divides steroids from other methods of getting an edge is what Federal Law says...you have too much faith in our government to define morality,..

very well said. it's ridiculous that people feel like they have some kind of moral highground over steroid users, when 1)you have to realize that most of our government's drug policies are based on $$$ and 2)i have heard from countless of baseball's past generation greats (mike schmidt, bob gibson and hank aaron to name a few) saying they would have done anything to get an edge. these are the same players that are "hallowed" by people who HATE alleged steroid users like bonds and sosa.

[SABR Matt]

Let me clear about something.

I hate that Bonds felt he had to take steroids to be at his best...hate that the establishment in baseball (this is the players...not just the ownership cronies) feels a constant drive to do whatever it takes to win instead of playing by a moral code and a pure joy. But the steroids thing is just ONE EXAMPLE of the many ways this drive to maximize contract dollars and endorsement deals has destroyed any chance baseball had of being a good source for heroes and role models.

The media has singled out steroids now because the government has decided that steroids are the vote-getting issue to stand next to and smile. Steroids are no more evil or cheat-worthy than greenies...they're both drugs that players feel gives them the ability to focus and maximize their talent on the field. Why hasn't there been an equivalent sworm of scrutiny on every clubhouse when it comes to the use of amphetamines? You, they're in the new CBA/drug policy, but if it turned out tomorrow that Albert Pujols was caught using greenies, do you think he was be the center of a media firestorm? Do you think everyone here would be shrieking at the top of their lungs that he's a dirty cheater and should never be allowed entrance to the HOF?

Because that kind of stuff has been posted here a LOT lately about the steroid users...please...someone tell me why steroids are so much worse?

The problem is...we're looking to big muscular grown-up man-children who play a boy's game for a living and who feel enormous pressures to succeed at ANY COST and live hard, immoral lives as a result, and we're hoping they'll be beacons of morality...role models for our children. If you took Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker et al and transported them into the future, I'd stake my life on at least one of them choosing to use steroids. Baseball players aren't demigods...they're not places to look for moral leadership...they're boys who'll never grow up.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...do you honestly believe that you would pass up ten million dollars a year to keep your integrity when it comes to the use of performance enhancing drugs? And before you answer that...I remind you that you are speaking hypothetically...it's a much different situation when you're sitting there actually facing that choice.

Barry Bonds is no different from any of the other greats who have played this game except that he had opportunities to commit "crimes" that other players did not.

And BTW, I'd be willing to bet anyone a million dollars that Pujols has used greenies routinely throughout his career...that dirty cheater.

[SABR Matt]

Incidentally...here's Bonds' career arc through 2004 by PCA (in terms of normalized wins created), and next to the years since 1999, my estimate for a more normal decline phase.
Yr Wins
1986 7.12
1987 9.18
1988 10.25
1989 11.06
1990 15.81
1991 14.09
1992 18.80
1993 20.54
1994 12.50
1995 13.63
1996 19.69
1997 16.82
1998 15.77
1999 9.97
2000 14.21 - 13.5
2001 19.63 - 15.0
2002 22.48 - 16.0
2003 18.16 - 13.0
2004 22.75 - 10.5

The little increase around 2001/2002 is to account for the typical late career upward blip players like Bonds (and Aaron) have that is caused by their improving plate discipline catching up with their other fading skills and resulting in a brief power surge (they're picking better pitches to swing at).

You can see I would shave about 28 wins from his actual total...which drops him from third all time according to the GI Method with PCA to about 5th.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'd prefer to see more conventional stats for him, year by year, starting with 2000. Trust me, as someone who saw him every day until last year--2000 was the year it was painfully obvious to all but the most hopelessly in-denial that Bonds was suddenly enormously larger and stronger in a way which COULD NOT be legit, and that's before the long-distance HR data were released.

Do you have projections for his runs, RBI's, HR's, OBP, SLG, RC and total bases, and maybe 2B and 3B, without all the garbage? THAT'S what I want to see. Oh, and also his SB? I remember that the one set of adjusted stats I saw before had his SB's over 700, with which I absolutely agree. And it had his HR over 600, with which I also agree. That combination, plus his spectacular defense for most of his career, would make me pretty comfortable putting him ahead of Williams, even though Williams would have the edge at the plate, which normally is pretty much dispositive.

Trust me on something else: The media don't (it's a plural noun, b.t.w.) shape my mind on things. I cannot remember the last time I watched a network newscast, national or local, and I laugh at the slant presented on ESPN "newscasts."

If you take the view that all cheating is per se equal, because all cheating involves a willful and deliberate violation of the game's rules and an intention to alter the game's outcome artificially, then of course greenies are as bad as steroids. But nobody seriously can argue that greenies have the same MAGNITUDE of effect. Just compare the number of records broken from 1950-1990 to the number broken from 1990-2000. Hell, I believe we went from Ted Williams' 1957 season until 1994, or something, in between .700 slugging seasons. Then suddenly we had an orgy of .700 sluggers, and Bonds was up with Ruth in the .800 club--unthinkable territory which even Ruth Himself only entered at the Polo Grounds. NO WAY did greenies help players anywhere near as much as this garbage did.

Of course, there's that line of Robert Shaw's from "The Sting": "What was I supposed to do? Accuse him of cheating better than me?" Maybe that's all I'm really talking about, but steroids and HGH unquestionably produce MUCH BETTER CHEATERS.

Now, do I doubt players of yesteryear would have, in large numbers, done this garbage if they'd been able to (1) use it and (2) get away with it? No, I don't. If you read Timothy Gay's bio of Tris Speaker, you will learn that A WHOLE LOT OF FAMOUS PLAYERS in the Dead Ball Era were involved in throwing games, including World Series games (including Speaker). Throwing Series games--no matter how corrupt and deserving the betrayed owners were--is as egregious as it gets. Thank heaven Ruth wasn't involved in THAT (other than being on the receiving end of such charity, apparently, in 1918).

But it didn't happen. Mantle, Mays, Schmidt, Aaron, McCovey, Killebrew, Frank Howard (how's THAT for a scary thought), etc., did not use steroids. And I'm sure I needn't tell you that the magnitude by which stimulants artificially alter stats absolutely pales next to garbage like HGH or steroids. That's an ineluctable fact, no matter how morally superior the steroids apologists want to sound about it.

To be clear, my biggest problems with all of this are with the following:

(1) MLB, for not having AGGRESSIVELY stepped into this years--or decades--ago; and

(2) A lot of fans I know who feel that Bonds' stats, and Bonds' stats alone, should be thrown out, because he's the biggest star of all the cheats, and an example needs to be made of him. I know a LOT of people who feel this way, and I frankly think most of them feel this way largely because of racism, though Bonds DOES make it very easy to hate his guts just because of what a $&*@##(@#% he is. I'd respond that if only one player is going to get that treatment, it should either be McGwire because he was so flagrant and obvious (King Kong plays baseball), or Palmeiro because he got caught. The better approach, however, is OUR (it does sound like I'm not wrong in using the first person plural here, right?) approach of calculating adjusted stats for historically important players who cheated.

Bonds, who is at least the greatest player since Mays and Aaron retired (and I put him ahead of Aaron, as I'm pretty sure you do), is inarguably a "historically important player." As I've said elsewhere on this site, rating him will be historians' greatest problem in coming decades/centuries, and our approach is the only appropriate one, IMO.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

You are correct to use the FP Plural "our"...although my published statistical charts on this site have not been adjusted because I have preferred to allow readers to make the adjustment they deem appropriate, when I start looking at ranking Bonds once his career is over, that is how I will approach it. The thing to do IMHO is look at players to whom Bonds was quite similar in 1999 and see how they did following their age 36 season...because from age 37 on, Bonds' numbers are so out of context with his career that he becomes statistically similar to NO ONE...up until that point...the 2001 season...Bonds was pretty similar to Aaron except faster and a better fielder in his aging seasons.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

The .690 career winning percentage is worse htan the W% of other yankee left-handers in the 1950s.

And the 132 ERA+ becomes about a 112 ERA+ when you factor in the Yankee defense and the extreme disadvantage RH Batters would have at home against Ford.


So, in your upcoming book, when you throw in the part about Lopat and the other lefties of the 1950's, am I going to get an acknowledgment? (j/k, by the way. It is I who am indebted to you, for enlightening me about my "#6 LHP." Thanks again.)

[SABR Matt]

Scott and I will definitely be discussing Ford (Scott has him 10th on his lefty list...I have 25th...that's going to be a fun debate. :D )...and I think I will mention the helpful historian who pointed out Lopat is a good comparison to Ford in terms of W-L records for Yankee lefties.

Of similar note...here are the ERA+ figures for Lopat as a Yankee:

1948 - 111
1949 - 124
1950 - 124
1951 - 131
1952 - 131
1953 - 152
1954 - 97

The upward trend until he started to fade physically tracks well with the upwraed trend in the Yankees' team defense as a unit. This early 50s Yankees got progressively more impressive with the leather as time went by...they were even better by the time Ford showed up.

I don't think anyone here realized that Ed Lopat once registered a 152 ERA+...which is in line with some of Ford's better seaosns. Add to that the fact that for a big stretch in the middle of his career, Ford was running 110 ERA+s...which in any other context would be closer to 95..........

[BaseballHistoryNut]

So Lopat had that last big W-L year with a 97 Adjusted ERA. That just about says it all, doesn't it? Well, your comment about the 110's during a big stretch in the middle of Ford's career is the one that says it all.

I have to tell you I really was amazed when I saw those stats. I was prepared to come back here full of ammunition to use in an argument with you. By the time I got to 1954 or 1955, I knew there wasn't going to be an argument.... :)

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

By the way, does all of this mean I can count you with me among the ranks of those who rate Grove as the greatest pitcher ever, despite the oft-noted (at this site) blemishes on those two huge seasons? I mean, what he did in Fenway from 1935-1939 is the opposite of what Ford and Lopat did (except I don't know much about the left side of the defense, until Williams and his indifferent defense came along, in 1939).

Welcome to the heavily populated Grove-is-#1 club.

And goodnight for now.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

Not quite...sorry man. :D

I have Grove 4th on my pitching list right now, which goes:

1 - Walter Johnson
2 - Cy Young
3 - Roger Clemens
4 - Lefty Grove
5 - Grover Alexander
6 - Christy Mathewson
7 - Greg Maddux
8 - Pedro Martinez
9 - Randy Johnson
10- Tom Seaver

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And I agree with those who feel Bonds' curve should still be going, because as far as I know, there's zero evidence that HGH or steroids do a single thing to prolong one's career. As far as I can tell, Bonds is playing right now because his enormous natural talent includes very good longevity genes.

Address the Bonds situation however you must, but his situation is certainly unique. Using the amounts and the types, at the age he used used them, makes it so. It screams of helping not only longevity, but production, make no mistake. Rather than declining like he should have been, he enhanced his physical ability, which when combined with all his experience and knowledge, produced what we have in front of us. You say there's no proof that those things help longevity. Those substances, by definition, do exactly that. Fountain of youth properties galore.

I think its an absolute joke to have him in your top 10 at this point, and even more of a joke for anyone (not saying you did)to say that people are being too harsh on him when it comes to rankings or anything else. I prefer the younger, more athletic Bonds and agree that he would have likely ended up top 20, probably 15, barring injury. I think what we would have had though, is a guy who stole a lot of bags (mainly because that was his role), had a below average (strength) to good (accuracy, thanks to turf and ice-rink smooth fields) arm, had a great glove early on, and just good later, at an unimportant defensive position, a SA nowhere near where it is, an OBP nowhere near where it is, a BA easily below .300, and a guy who would end up with a lot of homers, but those homers would be viewed much the way Hank's are. Just very steady over a long period of time. No standout seasons. Certainly wouldn't have sniffed .849 in a single season. Before '99 he only barely came within 200 points of it ONE time, and there's no reason to believe that he'd come any closer in his mid 30's. Also, his post-season reputation would be still be that of complete failure, which may or may not matter to some.

While I'm disagreeing with you, I might as well mention something else. Jackson's decline phase was brought up earlier. I think its very unlikely that at 30 years old and entering into a great hitters era, that Jackson would have immediately suffered a decline phase. I find it equally as puzzling that you feel Bonds should still be given a curve up to this point, when he's around 12 years older. Do Jackson's numbers look greater than they would had he been able to finish out his career? Who knows. Counting stats wise, certainly not. Would his career average have fallen below .356? Who knows.

I do this for the most part anyway, but because of circumstances, it becomes magnifield when judging Jackson, DiMaggio, Sisler, and some others; that is judging them more on their actual greatness as ballplayers. Jackson finished in the top 5 in SA 8 of 9 years and his lack of batting titles means nothing to me when Tyrus is in the league. His peers accounts speak volumes about his all around ability. Some feel he's hyped because of the scandal. I think the scandal detracts from the great player he was. Shifting our focus. Tapping us on the shoulder. We shouldn't look. Usually I put him on something of a 8 year hypothetical plan just for fun. A safe and comfortable assumption that he would build from one of his best seasons in '20, and adjust even more to the new changes in '21. So from '21-'24 I think he'd have great seasons, then from '25-'26 he'd level off, and from '27-'29 he'd suffer a decline like everyone naturally does.

For the thread topic: Although I'm inclined to go with Negro Leaguers, I can't. Can't say they're over-rated, because for all we know, we might be under-rating them. Nothing to really go on, and that's the problem I have with ranking them in the first place. Peers accounts are nice and generally hold weight with me, but its important to also keep in mind who the subject is and who the accounts are from. The Negro Leagues especially.

Answer: Cal Ripken Jr.

[SABR Matt]

You do know that the pre-roidal Bonds was well on his way to more than 500 HRs and 600 SBs...that's never been done before.

[Lou Diamond]

what a surprise, this thread was hi-jacked by the #1 babe ruth fan in the world, and a guy who refers to himself as a nut...they managed to turn it into yet again another bonds/steroid thread...with the same misinformed crap spewed out again and again.

BTW, SABR Matt, what the hell is PCA ?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You do know that the pre-roidal Bonds was well on his way to more than 500 HRs and 600 SBs...that's never been done before.

That was all touched on Matt.

Lou Diamond, as if one of your 5 screen names has never veered off topic to dismiss Bonds' steroid use or to bash Ruth.

[538280]

Answer: Cal Ripken Jr.

I won't comment on the Bonds stuff, I"m sick of going over that. It just would make me mad at several people around here, and I don't want that.

But, Cal Ripken....I thought I set you straight on that a long time ago? Ripken was one of the best players in the basebal his time in the 1980s as well as 1991, lasted longer than just about anyone, was a great hitter for a SS and a very good fielder as well. He' underrated IMO, very much so. Perhaps some casual fans may overrate him and say he's better than a Schmidt or Morgan, but he's well deserving of a spot in the top 50 players of all time, I would suspect many on this board wouldn't place him there.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I won't comment on the Bonds stuff, I"m sick of going over that. It just would make me mad at several people around here, and I don't want that.

But, Cal Ripken....I thought I set you straight on that a long time ago? Ripken was one of the best players in the basebal his time in the 1980s as well as 1991, lasted longer than just about anyone, was a great hitter for a SS and a very good fielder as well. He' underrated IMO, very much so. Perhaps some casual fans may overrate him and say he's better than a Schmidt or Morgan, but he's well deserving of a spot in the top 50 players of all time, I would suspect many on this board wouldn't place him there.

Easy on the "set you straight" comment young Chris. Its surprising at times the knowledge you show given your age, and you're not below being able to enlighten and inform on your best days, but that comment is overboard, bordering on insulting.

I believe Ripken is over-rated based on A)the streak B) good guy image C)staying in one city D) huge number of AB which lead to stats being compiled

That's not to say he wasn't a very solid player for a long time. When talking about over-rated though, I look at the margin between what the player actually was, and what he's perceived to be. Those things above create that false margin in the minds of the casual fan.

[SABR Matt]

what a surprise, this thread was hi-jacked by the #1 babe ruth fan in the world, and a guy who refers to himself as a nut...they managed to turn it into yet again another bonds/steroid thread...with the same misinformed crap spewed out again and again.

BTW, SABR Matt, what the hell is PCA ?

Sorry...I tend to talk about the system as thought it is common language around here because long-lived members have been talking to me about PCA results for a couple of years now and they know what the system in general is.

PCA (Pythagorean Comparative Analysis) attempts to attribute team success to the players much like WS does. It would take a very technical book to explain the system entirely, but the value it returns can be thought of as similar to WS (only not multiplied by three) although th answers are very different because I made entirely different assumptions/decisions when designing the system.

[astrotech66]

My top 10:

1.Josh Gibson
2.Johnny Bench
3.Carlton Fisk
4.Mike Piazza
5.Yogi Berra
6.Mickey Cochrane
7.Gary Carter
8.Buck Ewing
9.Biz Mackey
10.Roy Campanella

I'd put Louis Santop in the top 10 list of catchers. From what I've read, he was second only to Gibson in the negro leagues.

My overrated players:
Nolan Ryan
Pete Rose
Derek Jeter

[SABR Matt]

My top 10 catchers

1 - Josh Gibson
2 - Carlton Fisk...and I continue to stand my the detailed analysis I did of his career
3 - Mike Piazza
4 - Johnny Bench
5 - Gary Carter
6 - Yogi Berra
7 - Ivan Rodriguez
8 - Gabby Hartnett
9 - Bill Dickey
10- Mickey Cochrane

(11 - Buck Ewing...juuuuust behind Cochrane)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

My top 10 catchers

1 - Josh Gibson
2 - Carlton Fisk...and I continue to stand my the detailed analysis I did of his career
3 - Mike Piazza
4 - Johnny Bench
5 - Gary Carter
6 - Yogi Berra
7 - Ivan Rodriguez
8 - Gabby Hartnett
9 - Bill Dickey
10- Mickey Cochrane

(11 - Buck Ewing...juuuuust behind Cochrane)


Well, this is a subject you and I don't even need to TRY and discuss. My #1 catcher, other than Gibson--whom I consider a runaway #1, every bit as clearcut as Ruth and Wagner are at their positions--is Roy Campanella. And Fisk is certainly not in my Top 6. And Cochrane is in my Top 5.

1. Josh Gibson (our only agreement, though we're close on Bench)
2. Roy Campanella
3. Johnny Bench
4. Yogi Berra (also fairly close)
5. Mickey Cochrane (miles apart)
6. Mike Piazza (when his career ends, I could be persuaded to move him up to #4 or #5; note, I'm aware Cochrane missed his decline phase by very nearly losing his life to that pitch, but until Piazza is done, this is where I have him)

That's it for now. Fisk makes my top 10, but nowhere near as high as yours, and possibly AS #10. Dickey, Carter and Pudge probably get the other 3 slots, but I could be persuaded to give the short-careered, park-favored Dickey's spot to Hartnett, perhaps.

Anyway, we're miles off, and since I doubt you're budging--and there's no chance in hell you're going to persuade me to come around to anything close to your list--this is a subject we might as well not spend much time on.

BHN

[538280]

2. Roy Campanella
BHN

Roy Campanella? I've always thought he was a rather overrated player. First, he deserves nowhere near the Negro League credit that is often given to him. He did spend a lot of time in the Negro Leagues, but that was more a development period and he was not a particularly dominating player there. Sure, he made a few Negro League All Star games, but he wasn't a truly great player.

When he got to the majors, he did have a few great seasons, MVP type seasons, but they weren't really truly amazing seasons, his hitting in context of league and park, was not revolutitionary (about 155 OPS+, great but not all time great), and of course he was extremel inconsistent. He mixed in bad seasons with MVP ones. The Dodgers may have thought Campanella was going to be MVP, but you never really did know what he was going to give you.

The way I see it, Campanella's entire reputation as a great player is based on three great seasons, and while they were great, I don't see how they were all that much better than the peak seasons of Bench, Berra, or even Fisk. His three top WS seasons are 33, 33, and 28. For top three seaons, that is behind Berra, Bench, Piazza, Torre, and tied with Gary Carter and Carlton Fisk. For a catcher who's supposed to be such a great peak performer, according to WS his peak seasons weren't better at all than the other great catchers. And that's all he's got-after that there's a big dropoff to two seaosns of 22, and after that he's nothing. The way I see it, his entire repuatation is based on three great seaons which have been overrated, and the supposition that he was great in the Negro Leagues, which he wasn't.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

You do know that the pre-roidal Bonds was well on his way to more than 500 HRs and 600 SBs...that's never been done before.

Yes, and just so the record's clear, I think the sans-roidal Bonds would have 600 HR's by now, and 700 SB's. And I don't agree with Sultan about the longevity. Sultan thinks the HGH, steroids and so forth have also helped Bonds' longevity. I don't. From what I can tell, using that garbage has shortened people's careers. It sure didn't help McGwire's longevity, to say nothing of Caminiti, and Sosa washed up young, too.

I think, as I said, that Bonds is not only blessed with legitimate amounts of tremendous athleticism, but also with legitimate amounts of uncommon longevity. None of that excuses what he did (or what ANY of them did), but I think it's true. And I absolutely believe he'd still be playing today, with over 600 HR's and over 700 SB's--a combination which nobody else has ever come within light years of--if he hadn't used what Sultan correctly alludes to as all that garbage.

And Lou Diamond? Not only did you misread my post, as usual, but I'm not even close to being this site's #1 Ruth fan. Sultan clearly has that distinction.

Now, the last time you came on here calling me names and acting like a world-class jerk while going out of your illiterate way to pick a fight with me, I wound up getting into it with a monitor on a power trip (an exchange of which I still have copies).

YOU STAY OUT OF MY FACE AND STOP CALLING ME NAMES, GOT IT? If you want to pick fights with other people here, you go ahead and do it. If you pick fights with me, I will copy all of your pissy little posts to Mr. Burgess and tell him that one of us is going to leave here permanently. Once he's read all of your posts, I doubt it will be me.

BHN

[538280]

Easy on the "set you straight" comment young Chris. Its surprising at times the knowledge you show given your age, and you're not below being able to enlighten and inform on your best days, but that comment is overboard, bordering on insulting.

I believe Ripken is over-rated based on A)the streak B) good guy image C)staying in one city D) huge number of AB which lead to stats being compiled

That's not to say he wasn't a very solid player for a long time. When talking about over-rated though, I look at the margin between what the player actually was, and what he's perceived to be. Those things above create that false margin in the minds of the casual fan.

So Ripken is overrated more by casual fans than Nolan Ryan?

BTW, sorry about the "set you straight" comment, if you find it to be insulting. I did not intend it to sound that way.

[RuthMayBond]

5-Roberto Clemente...a world of talent, but his ego kept him from being even better. Still top 7 in RF, but not 3 or 4 as many have him.I guess he should be included, since he's not even a top 7 RF

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I guess he should be included, since he's not even a top 7 RF


I agree with you, RMB. I'm not at all sure Clemente is a Top 10 RF, but it's close.

[RuthMayBond]

Gee... thats strange, the first 3 on your list wear or once wore the pinstripes. Could that and that NY on the uniform have anything to do with your picking them......nah. Who hates trhe Yankees, I must be dreaming.If people would stop ranking these guys way high, they wouldn't be overrated. Why can't Yank fans wrap their mind around that?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I disagree in every respect, and think it would have been more respectful to do what I did with Matt and just accept the fact that we're so far apart there's no point in debating the matter.

FIRST, the guy was a GREAT defensive catcher, with a beyond-great arm.

SECOND, from what I've heard about his Negro Leagues performance, I disagree. I think he was a very fine catcher there, and wound up catching a hell of a lot more than the 1,900 games Bill James says are the most a human body can catch before reaching its breaking point.

THIRD, while the National League was desegregated in the 1950's, sportswriters were just about as racist as ever, and this guy still won 3 MVP Awards in 10 years, which tells me he was one hellacious player. And in the years he had those lousy stats, he was still a great catcher. Catcher is the one position where I think fielding may matter more than hitting, depending on how many duties are put on the catcher's shoulders.

Since the war and segregation cheated him out of six more MLB years--I'm giving him credit from 1942, the year he would have been 20 while playing, NOT from when he was 16 and first playing in the Negro Leagues--and at that, six years when he would have been in his physical prime for catching, like Bench was when he was so hellacious at first (god, do I recall that!), I think the total package makes him second only to Gibson.

Now, I know this is a point of view not held by many. It's easily my most maverick #1 pick at any position. And when I saw Matt's perspective on the top 10, and realized how far apart we are on ALL OF THEM (especially Campy and Fisk, where I again disagree strongly), I respecfully thought it best not to debate all of it.

But, having been dragged to the table, these are my reasons for pretty comfortably putting Campy ahead of the other 3 MLB candidates I would consider as candidates for #1--Bench, Cochrane and Berra. I don't consider Piazza a candidate now, but will look hard at him when he's done. He's the greatest hitter, with all due respect to Cochrane's OBP, and one cannot dismiss out-of-hand a candidate who's the best hitter ever at a position, unless the man was Dave Kingman defensively. That's what people seem to think of Piazza, but it's not true.

BHN

[RuthMayBond]

but that comment is overboard, bordering on insulting.Yeah, if anyone's gonna do the insulting around here, Sultan is perfectly capable

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan thinks the HGH, steroids and so forth have also helped Bonds' longevity. I don't. From what I can tell, using that garbage has shortened people's careers.


The key point is when he started using BHN. Just before he was supposed to be sliding down the cliff, he jumped and grabbed onto a hang-glider. That's a huge swing. I do agree with you about those who start younger do tend to breakdown and in that case, its not condusive to having longevity. Bonds' situation is very unique. If only they could do a case study. Let's not hold our breath for that one, huh.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, if anyone's gonna do the insulting around here, Sultan is perfectly capable

Hello pot.

Examples please?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So Ripken is overrated more by casual fans than Nolan Ryan?


I never mentioned Nolan Ryan but that's a close call.

[AG2004]

I do this for the most part anyway, but because of circumstances, it becomes magnifield when judging Jackson, DiMaggio, Sisler, and some others; that is judging them more on their actual greatness as ballplayers. Jackson finished in the top 5 in SA 8 of 9 years and his lack of batting titles means nothing to me when Tyrus is in the league. His peers accounts speak volumes about his all around ability. Some feel he's hyped because of the scandal. I think the scandal detracts from the great player he was.

Jackson is hyped because of the scandal. Let's compare Jackson to one of his contemporaries, Frank Baker.

Career WS: Baker 301, Jackson 294.
Win Shares, Best 3 Seasons: Baker 39, 38, 36; Jackson 39, 37, 37
Win Shares, Peak 5 Consecutive Seasons: Baker 173, Jackson 150

Black Ink: Baker 26, Jackson 14
Gray Ink: Baker 196, Jackson 186

When considering ink totals, remember that Jackson was a corner outfielder, while Baker played third base, a key defensive position during the deadball era.

If there had been no Black Sox scandal, and Jackson had suffered a career-ending leg injury on the morning of September 28, 1920, we would see Jackson and Baker as being about the same in overall value. It would be difficult for me to decide whether Jackson or Baker was the better player.

But Jackson didn't suffer a career-ending leg injury. Instead, he was kicked out of baseball for accepting money in exchange for throwing the 1919 World Series. Thus, for me it is no contest: I must rank Baker higher than Jackson.

Today, Jackson is well-remembered and rated rather highly by many people, while Baker is obscure, known only for his "Home Run" nickname. Jackson is overrated, and he's overrated precisely because he helped throw the World Series.

[Yankwood]

The way everyone on this forum fawns over Joe Morgan, I'm starting to think it's him. Back in the 70's when the Oakland A's were winning World Series it was common for announcers and writers to constantly refer to Joe Rudi and the "most underrated player in baseball". They started to say it so often that before long he was actually one of the most overrated players in baseball. Morgan was a Hall of Famer for sure and maybe even a great player but now he's getting compared favorably with Lou Gehrig. I don't think so.

[RuthMayBond]

Hello pot.Howdy, kettle

<Examples please?>

Just repost your responses to me

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Howdy, kettle

<Examples please?>

Just repost your responses to me

Other than some posts to one ignorant poster who seems to get under everybody's skin, you don't have much of a point here.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Jackson is Today, Jackson is well-remembered and rated rather highly by many people, while Baker is obscure, known only for his "Home Run" nickname. Jackson is overrated, and he's overrated precisely because he helped throw the World Series.

Maybe just a difference in opinion. I believe starting in '21 he would have had a few of his best seasons.

[Mattingly]

what a surprise, this thread was hi-jacked by the #1 babe ruth fan in the world, and a guy who refers to himself as a nut...they managed to turn it into yet again another bonds/steroid thread...with the same misinformed crap spewed out again and again.

BTW, SABR Matt, what the hell is PCA ?
What exactly is the issue here as to the posts you're referring to? Can you please explain?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

The way everyone on this forum fawns over Joe Morgan, I'm starting to think it's him. Back in the 70's when the Oakland A's were winning World Series it was common for announcers and writers to constantly refer to Joe Rudi and the "most underrated player in baseball". They started to say it so often that before long he was actually one of the most overrated players in baseball. Morgan was a Hall of Famer for sure and maybe even a great player but now he's getting compared favorably with Lou Gehrig. I don't think so.

No, I don't think Morgan was better than Gehrig.

I think Gehrig was slightly better than Morgan. But only that. And I think that if Morgan had gotten to bat cleanup for the Yankees in the era that Gehrig did, with Babe Ruth batting in front of him and reaching base(s) safely 47.4% of the time, Morgan would have had a ton of RBI's, too. Not as many as Gehrig, but a ton of them.

Although, now that I'm on this goofy topic, I'll say that if Morgan had played then, Gehrig would have been better than him by a larger margin than is the case now. And Foxx would have been better than Morgan, too... something I do NOT believe was the case. The reason? A big part of Morgan's value was his tremendous baserunning package: (1) huge number of walks--third most all-time when he retired, behind only the Bambino and Teddy Ballgame; (2) huge number of SB's; (3) great SB%; and (4) essentially impossible to pick off.

Although (1) obviously matters at any time to any great player (which is why Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente and a whole lot of others weren't great players), #'s (2), (3) and (4) wouldn't have been such big deals if Morgan had played when Gehrig (and Foxx) did. That, IMO, would have put Gehrig far ahead of him, and probably would have put Foxx ahead of him, too.

As it is, I put Gehrig slightly ahead of Morgan and Foxx comfortably behind Morgan. And I have Gehrig as hands-down the #1 first baseman, at least until Pujols' career is 8 to 10 years further along.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

But, Cal Ripken....I thought I set you straight on that a long time ago? Ripken was one of the best players in the basebal his time in the 1980s as well as 1991, lasted longer than just about anyone, was a great hitter for a SS and a very good fielder as well. He' underrated IMO, very much so. Perhaps some casual fans may overrate him and say he's better than a Schmidt or Morgan, but he's well deserving of a spot in the top 50 players of all time, I would suspect many on this board wouldn't place him there.

I'm not yet real comfortable on where to rate Ripken, but for now, I have him rated very generously, indeed. Specifically, I have him as my #2 shortstop. Considering that being #1 is an almost unattainable goal--i.e., it's gonna take a real superman to overtake either my #1 SS or my #1 RF, even though I don't rate Wagner as high as most of y'all do on the "big list"--my putting Ripken at #2 is huge praise. No way do I put Vaughan ahead of him. Nor Banks, no chance, no way. Vaughan goes ahead of Banks, and Yount probably does, too.

I WAS prepared to consider A-Rod for #1 at SS, but it appears he's now out of the running. What the hell are these ego-trip positionings about? Does anyone seriously think Jeter is a better defensive SS than A-Rod? With what they pay Jeter, can't they TELL him he has to settle for 3B?

BHN

[baseballPAP]

I completely agree on the ARod/Jeter thing..... Jeter had all the makings of a SS headed to 3B....bad range, good instincts, very good arm. ARod could have stayed at SS long term (although I don't think he was ever a challenge to Ozzie :) ), with possibly a Banks like transition to a pretty good 1Bman in 6 or 8 years. By then BJ Upton, or Player X, the next young SS phenom, will be a free agent and George can sign him. Oh, it must be nice to be a Yankees fan in free agent season.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't think he was ever going to challenge Ozzie as a defensive SS, either. Not by a bunch. But he was certainly going to have a greater overall career as a SS than Ozzie. And he was the only player I've ever seen that I could have considered rating ahead of Wagner at SS. Now, because of Jeter's prima donna ego and mountebank Steinbrenner's uncharacteristic caving in, all of that is gone.

[538280]

I never mentioned Nolan Ryan but that's a close call.

All right, where exactly do you rate Ripken? I honestly can't see him out of the top 50. He had one of the longest careers of all time and was also the best player in baseball for at least 3 years. That's definitely enough to make you top 50.

You are aware just about every casual fan has Ryan as the #1 pitcher of all time, right?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Maybe just a difference in opinion. I believe starting in '21 he would have had a few of his best seasons.
Oh, I'm sure his raw stats sould have looked mighty impressive, perhaps even hitting .400, but relative to the league he would have come way down just like Cobb.

[538280]

I disagree in every respect, and think it would have been more respectful to do what I did with Matt and just accept the fact that we're so far apart there's no point in debating the matter.

FIRST, the guy was a GREAT defensive catcher, with a beyond-great arm.

That's another thing I forgot to mention about him. He may have had a great arm, but what did that translate to for his team? I can't see that is translated to much, as he played at a time when basestealing was not a big part of the game at all. The catchers at that time required other skills to be great, throwing runners out stealing, which was Campy's strength, was not something all that important while he played.

SECOND, from what I've heard about his Negro Leagues performance, I disagree. I think he was a very fine catcher there, and wound up catching a hell of a lot more than the 1,900 games Bill James says are the most a human body can catch before reaching its breaking point.

I have always questioned whether or not catching the Negro Leagues was all that demanding, nearly as much as it was in MLB. Remember, the games always had sort of sandlot/pickup sort of atmosphere. It's hard for them to be so grueling. Second, it appears to me like catchers in the Negro Leagues hit much better than MLB catchers. There is, obviously, no real data to support this, but when you look at the top Negro League catchers like Gibson (who I am in agreement with you is #1 all time, BTW, though not by as big a margin as you seem to think), Santop, Trouppe, and such, it just looked like the Negro Leagues produced a lot of great hitting catchers, and far more than would come in the next 55 years (to the present) of black baseball.

Also, Campanella was certainly NOT such a dominating player in the Negro Leagues. He spent a lot of time there (since he was 16 I believe), but it was more of a development period than anything else. From what I've read, he was a good, solid Negro League catcher. Maybe you can provide evidence to the contrary?

THIRD, while the National League was desegregated in the 1950's, sportswriters were just about as racist as ever, and this guy still won 3 MVP Awards in 10 years, which tells me he was one hellacious player. And in the years he had those lousy stats, he was still a great catcher. Catcher is the one position where I think fielding may matter more than hitting, depending on how many duties are put on the catcher's shoulders.

What? Maybe the sportswriters were racist, but that sure didn't show up in the results. Let's look at 1950s NL MVP voting:

1950-Jim Konstanty
1951-Roy Campanella
1952-Hank Sauer
1953-Roy Campanella
1954-Willie Mays
1955-Roy Campanella
1956-Don Newcombe
1957-Hank Aaron
1958-Ernie Banks
1959-Ernie Banks

The MVP was won by a black man every year but 1950 and 1952. There may have been a few racist writers, but as a whole there is no evidence to suggest that the BBWAA as a whole had something against blacks.

Anyway, I don't really see how Campanella deserved any of those awards. Like I said, he was a great hitting catcher, with OPS+ around 155. 155 OPS+ is a great figure, but several people have gotten higher than that. He was a great defensive catcher, but catcher defense wasn't quite as important. I think the writers gave him lots of credit for playing on a great team. Also, it makes you wonder how great seasons those really were when the Dodgers won even in between the MVPs when he was hitting around .210. The Dodgers won before Campanella, while Campanella was having his famous off years, and after he left.

Win Shares basically agrees with me that Campanella shouldn't have won those awards. I have the deserving MVPs in Campy's MVP years as 1951, Jackie Robinson. 1953, Eddie Mathews, and 1955 Willie Mays.



Since the war and segregation cheated him out of six more MLB years--I'm giving him credit from 1942, the year he would have been 20 while playing, NOT from when he was 16 and first playing in the Negro Leagues--and at that, six years when he would have been in his physical prime for catching, like Bench was when he was so hellacious at first (god, do I recall that!), I think the total package makes him second only to Gibson.

It is unrealistic to suggest that Campy would be a great MLB catcher in his early 20s, I think, because my general impression, like I said earlier, was that he was not a particularly great Negro League player.

Now, I know this is a point of view not held by many. It's easily my most maverick #1 pick at any position. And when I saw Matt's perspective on the top 10, and realized how far apart we are on ALL OF THEM (especially Campy and Fisk, where I again disagree strongly), I respecfully thought it best not to debate all of it.

I think rating Campy above Fisk is a strage thing. Fisk obviously (even if you give Campy lots of Negro League credit) has better longevity, and I don't see that the difference in their top seasons is much different. Win Shares has their three year peaks equal, with LQ adjustments I'd put Fisk ahead. And those 3 great seasons are all Campy has, after that he's buried. I think it is unrealistic to suggest any of his Negro League seasons would have been like his MVP seasons.

But, having been dragged to the table, these are my reasons for pretty comfortably putting Campy ahead of the other 3 MLB candidates I would consider as candidates for #1--Bench, Cochrane and Berra. I don't consider Piazza a candidate now, but will look hard at him when he's done. He's the greatest hitter, with all due respect to Cochrane's OBP, and one cannot dismiss out-of-hand a candidate who's the best hitter ever at a position, unless the man was Dave Kingman defensively. That's what people seem to think of Piazza, but it's not true.

BHN

I couldn't agree more about Piazza, the man is SUCH a great hitter from a defensive position, that almost everyone just thinks he has to be a horrible defensive catcher. That is not the case, I would say he is a slightly above average defensive catcher. That along with his unbeliveable hitting (best MLB hitting catcher by far) make him a truly great player.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Sigghhhh.

Boy, you just don't let go of people, do you? And remember, I'm probably as strong a fellow advocate as you have where Morgan's concerned. He's in my Top 15 MLB players for sure, and might even be in my top 15 total, with Charleston and Gibson included. I have no qualms whatsoever about rating him ahead of Hornsby and Collins, let alone Gehringer, and I'm a huge Gehringer fan.

Campanella was an All-Star catcher repeatedly in the Negro Leagues, and it's either dogmatic or naive to think he peaked from ages 28 to 35, after having BEEN A CATCHER since he was 16. Moreover, as Bill James says, the Negro Leagues produced Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Campy, Banks and a couple of other big-time greats in their final few years of existence. And those are just the ones whom the majors accepted, and that's not counting Josh Gibson, who died before he could play MLB.

I absolutely don't get why people here are so supercilious about the Negro Leagues. Whatever the reason(s), I disagree vehemently and think Campy deserves major credit for his all-star years in the Negro Leagues. It's just silly to think a guy could have caught for all of those years, and been an all-star at that level to boot, but have had his only great years in MLB.

Now, WE DISAGREE. And we're going to CONTINUE TO DISAGREE.

Perhaps Mr. Burgess enjoys endless debates with you, trading all sorts of special SABR stats. I don't. Can we please just agree to disagree, because it's painfully obvious to me--and it SHOULD be painfully obvious to you--that we're not going to agree on this? You'd better take good care of your top-of-the-line Morgan allies, because you seem to need them. :)

BHN

[538280]

Sigghhhh.

Boy, you just don't let go of people, do you? And remember, I'm probably as strong a fellow advocate as you have where Morgan's concerned. He's in my Top 15 MLB players for sure, and might even be in my top 15 total, with Charleston and Gibson included. I have no qualms whatsoever about rating him ahead of Hornsby and Collins, let alone Gehringer, and I'm a huge Gehringer fan.

Campanella was an All-Star catcher repeatedly in the Negro Leagues, and it's either dogmatic or naive to think he peaked from ages 28 to 35, after having BEEN A CATCHER since he was 16. Moreover, as Bill James says, the Negro Leagues produced Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Campy, Banks and a couple of other big-time greats in their final few years of existence. And those are just the ones whom the majors accepted, and that's not counting Josh Gibson, who died before he could play MLB.

I absolutely don't get why people here are so supercilious about the Negro Leagues. Whatever the reason(s), I disagree vehemently and think Campy deserves major credit for his all-star years in the Negro Leagues. It's just silly to think a guy could have caught for all of those years, and been an all-star at that level to boot, but have had his only great years in MLB.

Now, WE DISAGREE. And we're going to CONTINUE TO DISAGREE.

Perhaps Mr. Burgess enjoys endless debates with you, trading all sorts of special SABR stats. I don't. Can we please just agree to disagree, because it's painfully obvious to me--and it SHOULD be painfully obvious to you--that we're not going to agree on this? You'd better take good care of your top-of-the-line Morgan allies, because you seem to need them. :)

BHN

I have more Morgan allies who haven't seemed to show up in the past few days. But, I will agree to disagree here. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion a ton.

[AlecBoy006]

Most overrated homerun- Kirk Gibson's homerun- there is no doubt it would be #1 IF it won the World Series. True, LA would sweep Oakland, but people dream of winning THE world series not just a world series game.

Most Overrated play- Willie Mays basket catch. David Wright's 05 bearhander and Jim Edmond's over the wall leap beat that by 50 miles.


Most overrated hall of famer- Bill Mazeroski- oh boy- 100+ hr's, and his status rests on one homerun.


Most overrated team in baseball- Yankees- exactly why do people think they'll win every year? They'll be back but who knows when? They went from 62-77, they survived. 77-96. They survived. The Yankees fans have to learn to deal with loosing.

[Dodgerfan1]

Most overrated homerun- Kirk Gibson's homerun- there is no doubt it would be #1 IF it won the World Series. True, LA would sweep Oakland, but people dream of winning THE world series not just a world series game.

Most Overrated play- Willie Mays basket catch. David Wright's 05 bearhander and Jim Edmond's over the wall leap beat that by 50 miles.


Most overrated hall of famer- Bill Mazeroski- oh boy- 100+ hr's, and his status rests on one homerun.


Most overrated team in baseball- Yankees- exactly why do people think they'll win every year? They'll be back but who knows when? They went from 62-77, they survived. 77-96. They survived. The Yankees fans have to learn to deal with loosing.

First of all, LA did not sweep the '88 Series, they won it 4-1.

Secondly, Mays' catch was amazing, but many people do agree that it was rated so high because it was in a WS game, but at that time, it was among the best ever. Most of the catches that were better have come in modern times. At least the ones we have been able to actually see. Even ESPN's all-time Web Gems program ranked Mays' catch at #10 (I believe).

As for Maz being the most overrated HOFer, I won't argue that one. I can make a case for a few others, but I don't think they're any more overrated than Maz. About on a par, I'd say.

Regarding the Yanks, how can a team that has absolutely dominated the record books with World Series appearances and wins be overrated? I don't get your logic on this one. Or are you just talking about the CURRENT version of the Yankees? Please expound a bit.

[AlecBoy006]

The current Yanks. And my mistake about the 88 team. I wasn't born for another 3 years.

[KCGHOST]

Most overrated hall of famer- Bill Mazeroski- oh boy- 100+ hr's, and his status rests on one homerun.

Apparently all you know about Mazeroski is he hit a famous HR. Equal obvious is you have no interest in learning. He was the Ozzie Smith/Brooks Robinson of 2B's. Maz may well be a "mistake" but there are a number that are worse. Sorry about him having so few HR's. I am sure that as soon as you advise the HoF of their mistake they will take down his plaque as well as Honus Wagner's (only 101 HR's).

[Rookie1914]

Apparently all you know about Mazeroski is he hit a famous HR. Equal obvious is you have no interest in learning. He was the Ozzie Smith/Brooks Robinson of 2B's. Maz may well be a "mistake" but there are a number that are worse. Sorry about him having so few HR's. I am sure that as soon as you advise the HoF of their mistake they will take down his plaque as well as Honus Wagner's (only 101 HR's).

*nod* I agree.
:)

[AlecBoy006]

Wagner= better at his position than MAZ.

[CTaka]

Wagner= better at his position than MAZ.

Wow, that's going out on a limb with that one!:laugh

Can't recall Honus ever coming up on those "worst hall of famers" threads...

[DoubleX]

Just heard this on Mike and Mike (hope I remembered all the players correctly). I like some of Stark's choices and scratch my head at others. So I'll give my reactions by position (feel free to give yours as well).

C: Benito Santiago - Since when has Santiago been overrated? If anything, he's probably a little underrated, but I don't see it as an issue either way.

1B: Steve Garvey - This is a pretty good choice and is probably more poignant for people who were fans when Garvey played and when he was regarded as a bonafide star. There are a number of other good choices here such as George Sisler (yeah I went there), and Gil Hodges.

2B: Steve Sax - This may have been apt when Sax was still playing, but history has really passed Sax by. I don't see how anyone really overrates Sax's place in history now. Guys like Lazzeri, Evers, and Mazeroski would be better choices here because they are questionably in the Hall of Fame. Even Rogers Hornsby because many might argue that his defense tempers his ranking, though it is hard to drop Hornsby more than a few spots, IMO.

SS: Phil Rizzuto - This is a pretty good call.

3B: Graig Nettles - I'm really scratching my head at this one. I'd put Nettles on the underrated list, along with many other 3Bmen. I'd probably start this list with Pie Traynor. George Kell would probably be on there as well.

LF: Lou Brock - Another pretty good choice. I'd probably have given some consideration to Jim Rice as well.

CF: Andruw Jones - Historically, there has to be players more overrated at CF than Jones, no?

RF: Dave Winfield - I don't get this one. Winfield's perceived place in history seems to be pretty right to me. I think Clemente, though a great player, tends to get overrated as a player.

DH: Ron Blomberg - This was qualifed as a symbolic choice so there's not much to say about it.

RHP: Nolan Ryan - I agree completely here. Ryan was a great pitcher, but he's not particularly close to being the greatest ever that many perceive him as.

LHP: Sandy Koufax - I actually think this was a good pick. Koufax, at his best, is among the best ever, but it was only a 6 year period and people tend to overly-extrapolate on that six year period. Koufax was great, but like Ryan, not as great as popular perception.

RP: Lee Smith - I don't see Smith as that overrated. If he got in the Hall, then maybe, but he's not getting in anytime soon, so no one is making a big deal about his saves record (well, former record), and as more people pass his saves mark, Smith's reputation will fade. I probably would have went with Sutter or Fingers here.

[Victory Faust]

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

[DoubleX]

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

I was thinking the same thing, though I'm surprised when ESPN remembers that sports existed before 1985. ESPN, in all respects, really does a piss-poor job at acknowledging sports history beyond the last 20-25 years. It's like ESPN thinks all sports played before ESPN existed is irrelevant.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'd have to think about this one myself, but I do agree that Andruw Jones is getting up in the "overrated" scale. I wouldn't mind to see him leave via trade or free agency. In fact, I'm encouraging it. His defense is slipping (he's getting the Gold Glove on reputation at this point) and I can't stand his streaky hitting any longer.

[Victory Faust]

I'd have to think about this one myself, but I do agree that Andruw Jones is getting up in the "overrated" scale. I wouldn't mind to see him leave via trade or free agency. In fact, I'm encouraging it. His defense is slipping (he's getting the Gold Glove on reputation at this point) and I can't stand his streaky hitting any longer.


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.

[DoubleX]

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.

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).

[RuthMayBond]

All-overrated
P Koufax, Ryan, Hunter, Lemon
C McCarver, Schalk
1B George Sisler, Hodges, GKelly
2B Evers, Maz
3B Pie Traynor, Lindstrom, Kell
SS TJackson, Rizzuto
LF Hafey, Manush
CF Combs, LWaner, HWilson
RF Tommy McCarthy, Ross Youngs, Maris, Oliva, CKlein

[KCGHOST]

As far as ESPN is concerned if they don't have video, it didn't happen.

[cardsfanatic]

Here are my over/underrated teams. Keep in mind I'm limiting my teams to players I personally witnessed and know first hand the kind of press they received. Going back to players before I was born would mean I'd have to base my opinion off someone else's opinion and I might as well not even bother. These are my own opinion on the over/under rated status of players I personally saw play.

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.


Most Underrated
Catcher - Ted Simmons
First Base - Will Clark
Second Base - Lou Whitaker
Third Base - Scott Rolen, apparently
Shortstop - Barry Larkin (I personally never hear his name mentioned in the top 5 SS of all-time, which he is.)
Outfield - Larry Walker / Tim Raines / Gary Sheffield / Dale Murphy / Brian Giles / Jim Edmonds
DH - Harold Baines
SP - Mike Mussina / Bret Saberhagen / Roy Halladay / Bert Blyleven
RP - John Franco / Rich Gossage (I mean, I believe closers are overrated in general. But if you're going to pimp the guys of today who get 2/3rds of an inning saves and such, you might as well pimp two bullpen studs like Franco and Gossage.)

[2Chance]

It's interesting that the players chosen always seem to garner controversy.
Whoever you pick from Stark's list, you could find somebody to argue that they were overrated, and someone else to pick up the torch and say they were underrated.

[PopTop]

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:

[ChrisLDuncan]

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.

Yes he's top 20 as opposed to top 5...I don't know many people that conisder him top five...peoole forget overrated here is different from overrated in the mainstream.