|
|
|
#1
05-28-2004, 03:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The rest of the center fielders
My ranking of the top eligible center fielders not enshrined.
1. Dale Murphy 2. Vada Pinson 3. Al Oliver 4. Dom DiMaggio 5. Brett Butler 6. Doc Cramer 7. Cy Williams 8.(t) George Van Haltren 8.(t) Jimmy Ryan 10. Paul Hines 11. Wally Berger 12. Curt Flood 13. Cesar Cedeno 14. Jimmy Wynn 15. Dummy Hoy 16. Amos Otis 17. Fred Lynn 18. Reggie Smith 19. Willie Wilson 20. Mike Donlin Notes. a. I'd endorse, with steadily diminishing enthusiasm, the first dozen for the Hall. b. Murphy is head and shoulders the class of this field. He is the only person who will be in the top half of the Hall when he is inducted. c. Pinson, Oliver, Cramer -- 2700+ hits, among other achievements. d. Dom DiMaggio receives extra credit for the war years costing him much of his prime. e. Leadoff-hitting CF seem to be very overlooked. Several examples on this list, the most recent being Butler's quick bounce from the ballot. f. Ryan and Van Haltren are so close it's amazing. Both 2500+ hits, .300+ BA. g. Cy Williams was a four-time HR champion, two-time OPS champ. h. Paul Hines won a Triple Crown and had a ton of Black and Gray Ink. g. Berger led league in HR and RBI while playing for a 115-loss team, 61.5 games out of first. h. Flood is where he is because of his role as a pioneer/contributor who also happened to be an All-Star caliber player. i. Cedeno and Wynn are nearest misses. Astrodome made it hard on them. They both did everything well. j. Hoy got 2000 hits and stole nearly 600 bases -- and he was deaf. k. Lynn had two extraordinary seasons in 1975 and 1979; the remaining seasons, he was just a good player. l. Smith could be listed as easily in RF. m. Wilson, over various seasons, led the league in BA, hits, runs, stolen bases, and at-bats. He led the AL five times in triples. n. Donlin was perhaps the biggest head case of the turn of the 20th century -- and that's saying something. But he had a career BA of.333 
|
|
#2
05-28-2004, 08:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cougar, I recommend you give Berger a closer look. He is #1 on my list of CF not in. In fact, he is higher on my list of ALL Cf than on your list of CF not in the Hall (#10). I may have him a little overrated, but he was a great player. A couple things against him. He had a short career and that does have to count against him. He also started his career in 1930 and people tend to think of him as one of the inflated hitters of the 20s and 30s. That isn't really true. Hitting declined rapidly in the Nl in the 30s and by mid-decade the AL and NL were playing very different games. The AL remained a hitters paradise pretty much up to WWII. The NL turned into a pitchers league within a couple years of the 1930 explosion. He also played in one of the worst hitters park of all time. Braves field had a runs factor at 89% of league and a HR factor of 67% of league. His already impresive HR figures would have been about one third higher in an average field, about 50% higher at Wrigley Field. If you take a hard look at them both, Berger is clearly a better hitter (and fielder and baserunner) than Hack Wilson. I see him as the best NL centerfielder between Carey and Mays.
While on the topic of park effects, Wynn and Cedeno had their numbers supressed even more than Berger. The Astrodome had run and HR factors of 89 and 61% of league. Add the effect of the 60s into Wynn's numbers and he has to be one of the most underrated players of all time. I have him #13 amoung CF and probably underrate him myself. Cedeno was the most exciting and talented player in the NL before he hurt his knees. He had one of the greatest starts to his career of anybody ever, but comes up a little short for his career in my book. Dale Murphy has his own thread and I've endorsed him there. Reggie Smith is another guy I think was very underrated. He is at least a border line case. Freddy Lynn was a personnal favorite. I have him ahead of Murphy and Wynn, as well as at least 6 HoFers on my list. Him I may be overating. His numbers were never great after he left Fenway, although injuries were a factor as well. His start/peak were great though. Pinson's peak was a little short of the guys above and, while I'm willing to give some credit for hanging around and being a solid player after your peak, he hung around along time as a very average player. Oliver was all BA and that kind of one dimensional contribution has to be a little higher than his was to get my vote. He is just under my line. Doc Cramer also had a empty average, but his was lower than Oliver's in a better hitting era. He is way under the line for me. Dom DiMaggio and Brett Butler were very similar players. DiMaggio maybe a little better, but Butler played alot longer. I'd be happy to have either on my team, but I can't see either for the Hall. I'm pretty much out of the game of endorsing pre-1900 players regardless of their numbers so that leaves about a half dozen of your guys off my list. To Summarize: Yes 1. Berger 2. Murphy 3. Wynn Maybe 4. Lynn 5. Smith 6. Cedeno Close, but no 7. Pinson 8. Oliver 9 Otis 10. DiMaggio
|
|
#3
05-28-2004, 06:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Was I supposed to rank him behind Pinson, who had 1200 more hits, playing in the 1960's in an integrated league? Can't do it. Then Oliver is a lot like Pinson, then the leadoff hitters, whom I wanted to rank high because I think they've been slighted, and then the 19th century guys, again with 1000 more hits. So he ended up 11th. For what it's worth, I still endorsed him for the Hall, so we're just quibbling on tiers here. He obviously had a very high peak, and his home park was very tough on him, not to mention the lousy team surrounding him. He really didn't have a bad season between 1930-1938, but his AB started declining once he hit 30 years old, I presume from injuries (not really sure); he was really a part-timer, albeit a good one, starting in 1937. Then, suddenly, he was finished. You know what the shape of his career reminds me of -- Mattingly. He's a guy who had half a no-questions-asked HOF career, and then lost a good chunk of his effectiveness. Difference was Mattingly was able to hang on with his glove and BA and hit a few milestones; Berger just faded away short of any counting stat milestones to speak of -- although he did maintain a .300 career BA. I'd be leery of making too much of the comp with Hack Wilson, though, since a good argument could be made that Wilson himself is a mistake. Last edited by Cougar; 05-28-2004 at 07:04 PM.
|
|
#4
05-28-2004, 07:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think Mattingly is a reasonable comparison, although I would have picked Dale Murphy as the most similar recent player. Berger suffered a shoulder injury in 1936 that cut deeply into his power and wasn't really an impact player after that. Before that he was probably the most dangerous power hitter in the NL. In spite of his short tenure he holds the career HR record for Braves Field with 105 (in a park that was active for 40 years). During his 7 seasons with the Braves there were only 3 other years in which he had a teammate reach double figures in HRs - with a high of 13. Obviously the short career hurts him, but a career .522 slugging percentage in a park which played like the Astrodome is pretty impressive. At his peak he was better than Murphy and Murphy didn't play that much longer. Its close and I can see the argument for Murphy, but I'll go for the nearly forgotten Berger.
|
|
#5
05-28-2004, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
it seems to me like brett butler was very underrated while he played too. if memory serves he only made one all star team, but he was a very consistant hitter for several years. plus he came back to play after fighting cancer...that would have to at least give him somewhat of a push, imo.
i'd support fred lynn too, but his amazing start probably hurt his chances, despite putting up solid numbers throughout his career. i'm not reallt familiar with the other guys, so i'd have to do some more research.
|
|
#6
05-28-2004, 11:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
At the plate, their peaks are about the same, I'd say. Murphy then had a long decline period that Berger did not, building up his rate stats and dragging down his percentage stats. Whatever; what Murphy did when he was scuffling for the Phillies is not really relevant, I'd say. Sure, Murphy had a big park advantage, but the 80's were no richer an offensive environment than the 30's. And while Berger's teams were bad, Murphy's weren't much better. Still, given the park advantage, let's give Berger a small advantage at the plate. Murphy was a much better fielder, a gold glover; Berger was average in CF. Murphy was a better baserunner and basestealer. Murphy was more durable. (Modern medicine and training probably helped.) And just as another tiebreaker, Murphy played in an integrated league, with blacks and a large Latino presence. In Berger's day, of course, this was not so. This is not Berger's fault, of course, but it is undeniable that Murphy's competition was superior. Taking all these other factors into account, one must give the edge to Murphy. The others -- a good case for Berger could be made; I won't contest the point. You're more of a peak guy, I'm more of a career guy, so we're basically just looking at the subjective weights we put on different factors. The only players discussed with peaks that compare to Berger's are Murphy, Lynn, and perhaps a couple of the old timers. Last edited by Cougar; 05-28-2004 at 11:41 PM.
|
|
#7
05-28-2004, 11:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cougar, I must admit that I also believe the quality of play has improved in each decade and any close call should probably go to the more recent player. Given that, it is inconsistent for me to pick Berger over Murphy. I think we all probably "discover" forgotten stars and maybe build them up a little beyond where they belong on our all time lists. So I officially concede this debate to you and move Murphy up 2 places on my CF list just ahead of Berger. I'll be satisfied if this discussion has put Wally on the radar of some members who had perhaps not thought much of him before.
P.S. If you want to keep Murphy climbing the next guy I have ahead of him is Larry Doby.
|
|
#8
05-29-2004, 12:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Close call on Murphy-Doby, but given Doby's huge dose of extra credit for integrating the AL, I'm disinclined to argue against him.
Anyway, once a guy's in the Hall, I don't much like to rank them against each other anyway. It seems like bringing up your SAT scores after you've graduated college somehow.
|
|
#9
05-29-2004, 12:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
On Wynn -- it's such a hard case, because putting him in the Hall requires giving him massive credit for the 60's, and also for the Dome and Dodger Stadium -- while at the same time, overlooking his early and abrupt decline. Essentially, you've got to give him every benefit of the doubt possible, while papering over any negative factors (such as the terrible season following the stabbing by his wife). That's asking a lot. I think we can strongly suspect that Wynn was much better than his stats appear, and that he was probably a Hall of Fame-caliber player, but I'm not sure we have enough solid evidence to put him in the Hall. I suppose Wynn may have just been unlucky; someone has to be the best CF not in the Hall, and it may well be him.
|
|
#10
05-29-2004, 12:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Smith has similar career numbers to Lynn, without the signature seasons, but with more production in the typical season. Fine player, but more an All-Star than a HOF.
|
|
#11
05-29-2004, 01:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Oliver was a more ordinary fielder and baserunner, but like Pinson, his average was not empty -- he had great extra-base power, despite his HR power being only moderate. No one has it more doubles than Al Oliver and not gotten to the Hall of Fame or been a mortal lock to get there (or been Pete Rose). He was the CF on a WS winner ('71 Pirates), flanked by Stargell and Clemente, and had his best season for Montreal in 1982, leading the NL in BA, hits, extra-base hits, total bases, doubles, and RBI. Now we get to Cramer; he's the closest thing to an empty average in here, but 2705 hits and a .296 average (well over .300 in his prime) is contributing something, I'd say. Furthermore, he didn't just get on base -- he scored: 90 or more runs in nine consecutive seasons. He was also a fantastic defensive CF and a monster in the postseason, hitting .387 in two WS. In the 1945 WS (where he got most of his postseason PT), he probably would have been the MVP if they awarded them at the time -- him or Greenberg. Cramer is one of the leadoff hitters that doesn't get enough credit, in my opinion. DiMaggio and Butler are two of the others. DiMaggio missed three seasons during WWII; if he hadn't he'd certainly have well over 2000 hits and perhaps a .300 average too. Scored a ton of runs on the great Red Sox teams of the '40's. Had decent extra base pop, leading the league in triples once and placing in the top 10 in doubles several times. For the era, he stole a lot of bases. And he was an exceptional defensive outfielder, about as good as his brother(s) from both most contemporary accounts and modern statistical analysis. Butler, as Tibber points out above, gets some inspirational points for beating cancer. When a player has a public triumph like that, it's good for the game. He was similar to Dom, but with less extra-base power -- he did hit a lot of triples, but he got them with his legs. He stole many more bases, 558, 23rd all time, and 11th in the live ball era. A very good defensive outfielder (though not in the class of DiMaggio). Led the league in runs twice, and scored 100 runs six times and 90 eight straight. Led the league in hits one year and walks the next -- an odd combination. Both those years he led in Times on Base. The year after that, he led in sacrifice hits. Led in triples four times, and was in the top ten 11 of 12 consecutive seasons. Last edited by Cougar; 06-07-2004 at 04:37 PM.
|
|
#12
05-29-2004, 01:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
All I can say about Van Haltren, Ryan, Hines, and Hoy is check out their numbers. Van Haltren and Ryan both have 2500+ hits with a .300+ average and boatloads of SB, extra base hits, and runs scored. Hines was the games first superstar, with more Gray Ink than Eddie Murray. Hoy stole 600 bases and drew enough walks and HBP to add 100 points to his OBP vs. his BA -- while deaf. Last edited by Cougar; 05-29-2004 at 01:58 AM.
|
|
#13
05-29-2004, 07:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
On Hoy, being deaf makes him a nice story, but doesn't get him extra credit as a player with me. Same with Butler and cancer. Great story, no extra credit. Guess I'm just not very sentimental.
Donlin and Williams are below the Hall line on thier merits not when they played. Donlin was a terriffic hitter - when he felt like playing. He felt like playing barely a thousand games and drove in 543 runs. Nowhere near overcoming his many negatives - as you say he was the biggest headcase of his time. Cy Williams has a better case than Donlin was his career was a little short too and the Baker Bowl deserves alot of credit for his HR totals.
|
|
#14
05-29-2004, 07:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Pinson you'll never sell me on. I actually saw him play a fair amount int he late 60s and into the 70s and was definately not impressed. Thats a little unfair as his prime years were well behind him, but it covers alot of years. His case is unusual. I don't know of anybody who was quite the star he was early and was an then an average player for soooo long. He is a little like Lynn, except both his peak and his long lower level career were both worse than Freddy. The ONLY edge I'd give him over Lynn is better health. Thats worth something, but not enough.
Pinson's career pct stats of 286/330/442 would be amoung the worst in the Hall. He had a flukish 25 steals in 1971 (first double digits since 68) and I guess that must be his late grey ink appearance. Looks like his first good number since the 67 season. Pinson played through 1975 and got 400+ AB through 1974. Below are his last good numbers in various categories: 300 BA - 1965 350 OBP - 1965 450 SLG - 1967 20 HR - 1970 (first since 65) 90 run - 1967 90 RBI - 1965 30 2B - 1966 10 3B - 1967 190 hits - 1965 (and his hit total is his biggest Hall argument) I'm not even asking for great numbers over the second half of his career, just good ones. They aren't there. He was an average or worse hitter for longer than he was an All Star type guy. Al Oliver was a better hitter than Pinson. If he had been a good CF I'd support his case. He was below average out there though. Not very good range and a weak arm. I always liked him better at firstbase, but his teams thought they got more value by having him in center most of his career. They may be right because I wouldn't like his bat as much at first. I like his case better than Pinson's and I wouldn't surprised if the VC likes it someday too. He is a little below the line for me though. Just a quick note on Lynn. When I moved Murphy up 2 spots to get him over Berger the other guy he passed was Lynn.
|
|
#15
05-29-2004, 07:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Doc Cramer posted a 340 OBP when great hitters were posting 340 BAs. His career slugging was 375 when great players were slugging over 500. He wouldn't have hung around long enough to get 2700 hits or "win" his hypothetical Series MVP if not for the war. I wouldn't want him leading off for my team in any circumstances, much less in an all time context. Dom DiMaggio was a much better player than Cramer. Give him max credit for the war years and he is close to the border of the Hall. Still a pretty short career without any truely great seasons though. Butler drew walks and played a good centerfield. He really didn't have much punch though and his baserunning is way overrated. He stole 500, but was thrown out almost 1/3 of the time. You can make a case his baserunning hurt his team more than it helped. I probably wouldn't go that far, but I won't give him much credit for it either. Again better than Cramer, but short of the Hall
|
|
#16
05-29-2004, 08:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cougar, I think we've agreed that Jimmy Wynn played in the most difficult hitting conditions of any player we've discussed - quite possibly the most difficult hitting conditions of any player in the modern era. He still had more HR and RBI than Cy Williams who played mostly in the Baker Bowl. His OBP is terrific even without giving him any adjustment at all. He was a very good defensive CF and baserunner. I don't think you have to give him the benifit of every doubt to get him over the line. If you give him credit for half of what be would probably have done under normal conditions he is a Hall of Famer. I know many people here and amoung real life voters can't get by the 250 BA, but if you look at his all around game, you have a hard time arguing he wasn't a great player. Worst case, I'd put him in the top 5 of the players on your list.
|
|
#17
05-29-2004, 08:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
--I've been thinking of what we mean when we say someone should or should not be a Hall of Famer. There is a pretty wide range of opinion on what we think the Hall of Fame standard should be.
-- What we can't disagree on is who actually is a Hall of Famer. That, of course, would be those already inducted. Whatever we may think about the wisdom of some of these choices they are all actual Hall of Famers and they represent the standard that exists in the real world. So when someone says inducting Dale Murphy lowers the Hall standards it isn't hard ot see if that is really true or not. If he is better than at least half of the members of the Hall he is elevating the overall quality of the Hall. If he is better than a quarter of them, he is at least not lowering the standard. --There are 21 CF in the Hall. Three are Negro Leaguers (Bell, Charleston and Stearns) and two were 19th century guys (Duffy and Hamilton) so I will leave them out of this comparison for now. That leaves 16 CF as a basis for comparison to CF not in the Hall. Anyone better than #9 then should be admitted to the Hall in the interest of improving the overall quality of CF in the Hall. Anyone better than #13 could be admitted without reducing the overall quality to a noticable degree. Whether you agree with my rankings doesn't really matter unless you have a problem around spot 8-9 or 12-13 because those are the cutoff points for "should be admitted" and "could be admitted". 1. Cobb, 2. Mays, 3. Mantle, 4. Speaker, 5. DiMaggio, 6. Snider, 7. Puckett, 8. Doby, 9. Carey, 10. Averill, 11. Roush, 12. Ashburn, 13. Wilson, 14. Waner, 15. Combs, 16. Manush So any centerfielder better than Max Carey absolutely is a Hall of Fame quality player and any player better than Hack Wilson deserves serious consideration. Murphy easily meets this standard and many of the other players we have discussed on this thread have a pretty good case for being better than Wilson and/or Carey. Last edited by leecemark; 03-16-2005 at 10:00 AM.
|
|
#18
05-31-2004, 12:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Butler: Ditto, more or less. Donlin -- Yeah, he's well below the line, no kidding. I said I could support the top dozen on my list for the HOF -- Turkey Mike was 20, and he mainly landed there because it felt awkward to stop at 19 and I had to pick someone. Cy Williams: Short career? He played 2000 games, 19 seasons, was a regular for 14 of them (with chaff at beginning and end of career). His career looks weird because it straddles the dead ball and live ball eras, but he lived on the league leaderboard in both eras. He ought to be recognized for adjusting his game effectively. Home parks helped, sure, but only so much -- the player's still got to do the job, and Williams did.
|
|
#19
05-31-2004, 12:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yeah, Pinson's last big-time year was 1965. Coincidentally, 1966 was the beginning of the offensive nadir in baseball. Everybody had a bad year in 1966. How bad was it? .288, with 35 doubles, 6 triples, 16 HR, and 18 SB. Pretty good for a guy, who, when you're fair about it, wasn't really a power hitter. Next season, 1967, was a little better -- .288 again, with 28 doubles, 13 triples (led league), 18 HR, and 26 SB. Oh, and he's still a great CF glove who'd be winning GG were it not for Mays, Clemente, and Flood. Had first real subpar season in 1968 -- 1968, mind you, when again, everyone was struggling -- and got traded. Bad year in 1969, traded again to Cleveland, where he had a comeback season -- for an awful team. Next year, he slipped, but still stole 25 bases. Then he was a pretty ordinary OF for two teams in four years (still batting OK and fielding and stealing bases well), before retiring. It's just not as bleak as you paint it. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Cougar; 05-31-2004 at 02:52 PM.
|
|
#20
06-01-2004, 12:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
--When are 600 (or 594) steals not 600? When all but 80 of them came prior to the modern stolen base rules like Hoy's did. I'd guess half of his were extra bases taken on hits rahter than what we would call stolen bases.
I guess saying Cy Williams had a short career was kind of foolish on my part. What I might have said was that he only had 6,000 AB abd only six seasons where he batted 500 times. On the other hand, two of the seasons he didn't bat 500 times he led the league in homers. It wasn't all Baker Bowl either as he led once when with the Cubs. I tend to think of him as a Philly of the 1920's, but he actually was 32 when the live ball era got started . I don't have him in my top 25, but maybe I should. Although Wynn did get more HRs and RBIs under more difficult conditions. And was a better fielder and baserunner. One last shot at Pinson and then I promise to quit picking on him. There were three distinct phases to his career. His first 5 years from 1959-63 were very good. He was the second best CF in the NL and posted averages of 310/357/495. If he had sustained that another five years he is a Hall of Famer. There was a drop off starting in 1964. I agree it was partly that numbers were falling across the board, but some of it was actual decline. He fell to the middle of the pack of NL centerfielders behind Willie Mays, Curt Flood, Willie Davis, Matty Alou and Jimmy Wynn. Pinson's averages for his 2nd five years (1964-68) fell to 284/326/442. If he had sustained that another 5 years he still had a strong Hall case. However, phase three of his career was distinctly not what you are looking for in a Hall of Famer. He was traded to the Cardinals for 1969 and they moved him to RF. That started a journeyman career where Pinson moved from one bad team to another as an underpowered corner OF. For his last 7 seasons Pinson posted averages of 262/301/385. That would be unacceptable for a Hall of Fame SS much less an OF. Last edited by leecemark; 03-16-2005 at 10:02 AM.
|
|
#21
06-01-2004, 01:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
A lot of those seasons under 150 games you note are seasons where there weren't 150 games played. World War I disrupted schedules quite a bit, and more prosaically rainouts and games halted by darkness were not as consistently made up in those days for easily imaginable reasons. But since you're conceding my point on Cy W., I won't pile on anymore, except for one last thing -- imagine if he'd played his whole career with the live ball. He'd probably have at least 100 more HR and a slugging pct. somewhere over .500. You're talking career numbers probably comparable to Duke Snider. Last edited by Cougar; 06-07-2004 at 04:42 PM.
|
|
#22
06-01-2004, 02:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
(Anyway, who was posting .340 career averages in the period 1929-1948? Not exact contemporaries, but close: Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, Musial -- Al Simmons and Jimmie Foxx come close. If that's the standard you can house the whole Hall in a nicely appointed Winnebago.) Cramer was a very good hitter for a long career. That's the plain meaning of a .296 career BA and 2705 hits. And if you want to ding him for the war years, you've got to cut him some slack for not getting regular PT until he was 26 because he was bottled up in the A's system while they enjoyed one of the best teams ever. In retrospect, not playing Cramer over Mule Haas (who?) in CF was pretty clearly a mistake on Mack's part. (Not that it hurt the teams much; he probably just didn't want to rock the boat). More generally, we're too slow to appreciate the abilities of well-rounded players who just happen to lack a power stroke. Cramer was a Gold Glove caliber CF (key defensive position) who hit .300 pretty much every year and was a good baserunner (albeit not a base stealer). Dom DiMaggio, in a shorter career interrupted by the war, did the same things, plus had moderate power, walked a lot and stole bases too (albeit with a higher than optimal caught rate). Brett Butler was very similar to DiMaggio, but had less power, ran much more, and played longer. Probably not the fielder the other two were (Cramer and Dom were two of the best dozen or so ever over extended careers), but very good -- never won a gold glove, but it wouldn't have been shocking if he did. These are winning ballplayers who just lack gaudy home run totals. Shoot, Pinson's like that too -- he hit 20-odd home runs in his very best year, but he really wasn't a power guy -- he hit more for average, plus was great on the basepaths and in the field. And there are guys like this at other positions -- Stan Hack at 3b, Willie Randolph at 2b, and now perhaps Alan Trammell at SS come to mind. Sterling defense at key defensive positions, good-to-great baserunning, and good hitters. Power hitting is an important skill, maybe even the most important, but not the only one. When you've got guys that excel at every other important skill over a long career, that makes them pretty great players in my eyes.
|
|
#23
06-01-2004, 02:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here's how I'd summarize about where we are. Murphy is #1, and is around the median for CF. He's a "should be admitted" After that, there's a pretty good jumble of players with competing claims for the #2 spot -- Berger, Pinson, Lynn, Oliver, and Wynn have all come up -- and while these players and others discussed would all be in the lower half of CF in the Hall, several might not be in the bottom quartile, and thus at least "could be admitted" under this construct. If there's only one "should be" not inducted, the HOF has actually done a pretty fair job with CF. Last edited by Cougar; 06-01-2004 at 02:41 PM.
|
|
#24
06-01-2004, 03:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
--Cougar, I agree the Hall has done a better job at CF than most postions. After a quick check on Manush I see that you are correct -he only played about 300 games in center and was primarily a LF- so I would say 12 of 15 CF (post 1900 major leaguers - all the 1800s guys and Negro leaguers were good choices) were guys who truely belong to the Hall. There are at least a dozen CFers not in who have a case for being better than Wilson, Waner or Combs. We've agreed now that Murphy is the #1 CF not in the Hall and I'll be promoting him whenever the opportunity comes up.
-- Next in line we haven't agreed on. I think Wynn, Lynn and Berger are the next group. You've given me something to think about on Oliver and Williams. I sort of agree with you on DiMaggio and Butler, although Butler remains outside my top 25. Pinson is in my top 25, but a ways behind where you have him. He actually may sink due to my deeper look at him. Cramer can't sink, because he was never on the radar for me. Clearly you value longevity related stats to a greater extent than I do. There are lots of different ways to look at players and I don't know that one is neccessarily better than another, just personal preference. It been a fun discussion. I wish we had drawn in a few more participants. Last edited by leecemark; 03-16-2005 at 10:04 AM.
|
|
#25
06-01-2004, 05:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, I agree. I'm rather surprised more of the usual suspects didn't jump in here. This has been a very good discussion.
We do have different subjective weights on peak vs. career, etc. Yours are probably as good as mine. Here's the amazing thing -- the longer I looked at Pinson, the more I liked him, exactly the opposite of what you found. Funny. I had a lengthy response written up, but I accidentally deleted it. Here's the short version: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's how I'd segment Pinson's career: Cup of Coffee (1958) -- Welcome to the bigs; unnoteworthy Early Reds (1959-1965) -- Great. Probably best CF in league other than Mays (who may be best CF ever, so no shame there). Late Reds (1966-1968) -- Slips a little. Hard to tell if it's part of the overall offensive drought -- certainly it's partly that -- but he does fall back to the pack. There's a cluster of quality CF of which Pinson is a part, as is Mays (who had started to slip), Wynn, both Alous (Matty and Felipe), and Flood. (Willie Davis didn't really hit full stride until later.) But -- Pinson is still among the league leaders in hits, runs scored (11th - 1967, with 90), total bases, doubles, triples, extra-base hits, and stolen bases during this period. In 1966, he's 8th in the league in hits, 9th in stolen bases, and 3rd in doubles. In 1967, he is 3rd in the league in hits, is 4th in steals, 6th in extra-base hits, and leads the league in triples, plus 90 runs scored as noted above. In the worst year of all, 1968, (both for him and for every hitter in the live ball era), he still finished in the top 10 in doubles, triples, and steals. This is still a very good player. Cardinals (1969) -- Bottoms out here. Also moved to RF. Just a bad season all around. It happens. Indians (1970-1971) -- Comeback year with Cleveland in 1970, finds power stroke, hits 24 HR, drives in 82 runs, bats .286. Not All-Star level, but rather good. In 1971, he hits for power less, runs more -- steals 25 bases while hitting .271. RBI and runs scored quite low, but Indians are an awful 102-loss team. Also moves back to CF for last full season in 1971. I suspect he led off in '71 based on stats, but don't know for sure. Anyway, he and Nettles are easily the best players on this team over these two years; maybe Fosse's in the discussion too, before Rose leveled him at '71 ASG. Sudden Sam McDowell is the best pitcher. Angels/Royals (1972-1975) -- Now he's the underpowered, part-time corner OF you refer to, although the only season I'd call him unhelpful is '75, when he was apparently done. Still runs well on the bases and fields well; hits for average OK. Summary -- Seems to me that Pinson had about 7 years as great and 3 years at very good on the Reds; maybe 6 and 4 if you want to throw 1964 into the lower category. St. Louis was a bust, but he bounced back in Cleveland with two more good years before winding up his career with a couple expansion teams. 12 good seasons, half of them great ones. That's pretty typical of a lower half HOF, which is all I've thought Pinson was all along. ------------------------------------------------------ Last point -- Your phase 1, 2, 3 model of Pinson's career (Great, Good, Hanging On) -- You could apply the same model to Tim Raines' career, which had three distinct segments of about 6-7 years each. Does that make Raines any less a Hall of Famer? Actually, the fact that both Raines and Pinson had their HOF caliber seasons early in their careers and then had long post-prime careers may have something to do with why Pinson never made the Hall and why Raines may have more trouble than he should. By the time Raines reaches the ballot, it'll be 25 years after his peak -- memories of his greatness will be rather remote, and memories of his merely being a useful player, like he was with the Yankees or toward the end in Chicago, will be much more proximate. Pinson, same thing. Leece, you say you saw Pinson at the end and were never impressed. Well, if your memories of Raines only extended to, say, 1994, you'd wonder what all the fuss was about with him too. By the way, before people flip out on me, Raines was better than Pinson. There's just a similarity in the shape of their careers I'm taking note of here. Last edited by Cougar; 06-02-2004 at 01:08 AM.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
