Clemente: Inner circle of the elite, or on his way?

[71buc]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous I tend to discount pre-war players when having such debates. They didn't play night games, less travel, faced less specialized pitching, they were smaller, largely less athletic, and did not have to compete against others who were barred simply because of the color of their skin.

Today's baseball players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I think baseball today is better than it ever has been. Don't get me wrong, I love Clemente, and Hank Aaron. Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by 71buc

At the risk of sounding blasphemous I tend to discount pre-war players when having such debates. They didn't play night games, less travel, faced less specialized pitching, they were smaller, largely less athletic, and did not have to compete against others who were barred simply because of the color of their skin.

Today's baseball players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I think baseball today is better than it ever has been. Don't get me wrong, I love Clemente, and Hank Aaron. Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

I disagree rather strongly but will not get too into that but I have absolutely no faith in the players of today being able to put up with anything the pre-war players had to deal with as far as playing conditions, travel by bus, pay, spit-balls, scuffed baseballs, getting cut when they struck out as much as they do today, etc, etc (in other words I believe the best of the past would excel more in today’s game than today’s guys would having to go back in time and play the old style)

Bigger and stronger are largely overrated in my opinion, otherwise we wouldn’t see players like Jose Altuve, Jean Segura and Dee Gordon being as good as they are.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I always have a problem when people talk about the physical differences between players of now and then. Evolution doesn't take place in 100 years. So the players of yesteryear would have all the same training and nutrition advantages as today's players, why on earth would they be worse? Now baseball wasn't a global game back then so the player pool is massively expanded, but I think that affects the elite far less than it does the average. Of course there are almost 3x as many jobs on MLB rosters than there was prewar which does eat up a portion of the available increased talent pool.

[71buc]

Rhys I disagree with you but respect your knowledge and opinion. Like I said, my opinion wouldn't be popular. That's alright, and it's what makes these discussions interesting. By the way Dee Gordon, and Segura wouldn't be permitted on the field during that time.

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

I get the romance of the good old days but disagree that those players could compete at the same level today. However I do agree that the best players of any generation could play at any point in time. Nonetheless, their numbers wouldn't be the same facing today's players. Thier numbers were bolstered by comparatively less talented overall competition.

I am 5'5" on a good day and love Jose Altuve. However, size does matter. Jimmy Foxx was considered so large they called him the Beast and Double X. As the legend goes he was trapped not scouted. Mr. Foxx was 6ft 190 lbs. Today the average middle infielder is that size. How many pitchers sat at 90+ mph in Ruth and Cobb's day? Today the average fastball is 93 MPH. Today pitchers regularily light up the gun at 100 mph. Players do strike way too much today but the pitching does have some effect on those punchout totals.

As I said, I too am a dyed in the wool romantic. Why else would I collect this silly stuff? However, I am also a realist. A model T will never compete with a Ferrari, and a Sopwith Camel will never compete with an F-18. You can have Tris Speaker. I'll take Trout. You can have Honus Wagner I'll take Manny Machado. You can have Christy Mathewson I'll take Clayton Kershaw. These discussions are why I love baseball. No one argues for Bob Cousey over Stephen Curry or George Mikan over Labron. No one compares Johnny Unitas to Steve Brady. However in baseball we do exactly that.

[MacDice]

If I am putting together a greatest team from the 1960s. I don’t have Roberto in my starting outfield. Mantle, Mays and Aaron.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

Humans as a species have not evolved in 100 years. Our environment (Nutritition, training, etc) has.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

Yes when Olympic Bronze Medalist Andre De Grasse ran in the same conditions and same equiptment as Jesse Owens his time was 11 seconds

https://www.flotrack.org/articles/50...e-owens-spikes

I think Cobb, Ruth, Wagner etc. would do fine in today's game.

[packs]

I have always thought the best of the best and maybe even just the average major leaguer was far more talented in the dead ball era than they are today. So many more people played baseball in the dead ball era. Every single boy in every single town, and you had to be better than all of them. Now you only have to be better than the kids who decide to play baseball, which the news tells you is a smaller and smaller pool every year.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I have always thought the best of the best and maybe even just the average major leaguer was far more talented in the dead ball era than they are today. So many more people played baseball in the dead ball era. Every single boy in every single town, and you had to be better than all of them. Now you only have to be better than the kids who decide to play baseball, which the news tells you is a smaller and smaller pool every year.

But: (1) overall population I would assume has increased by a factor greater than baseball expansion; and (2) blacks and international players now part of talent pool.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by packs

I have always thought the best of the best and maybe even just the average major leaguer was far more talented in the dead ball era than they are today. So many more people played baseball in the dead ball era. Every single boy in every single town, and you had to be better than all of them. Now you only have to be better than the kids who decide to play baseball, which the news tells you is a smaller and smaller pool every year.

How many played organized ball and were scouted? How many dropped out of school at 12 to work on the family farm? I read that Carl Yaztrzemski's father was offered a pro contract, but turned it down to stay on the potato farm and help his family during the depression.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

That is a poor example. You are completely ignoring the advances in technology. Lighter shoes with better spikes, aerodynamic suits, better starting blocks and faster tracks.

Owens actually set that record in 1935 at the Big 10 championships during a 45 minute span in which he set or tied 4 world records. One of those records was a long jump of 26 8 1/4. That random jump would have placed him 6th against a field of modern athletes concentrating on one event, using modern equipment and modern training methods at the 2016 Olympics. Athletes aren't that different.

In Baseball, the greatest players run chronologically from Wagner and Cobb through the guys who debuted in the 50s. In the NFL, the greatest players start after that, from Unitas and Brown through today with Brady and Manning. In the NBA, the greatest players start after that, starting with Russell and Chamberlain through Jordan and to today with LeBron James (Durant, Curry, etc.).
I don't think it is a matter of today's Baseball players being better or worse athletes. I see it as Baseball going from the #1 sport to #3 and the best athletes choosing other sports. If Jackie Robinson graduated from UCLA this year, would he choose to play Baseball? In my opinion, no.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As for Owens, it's not only a matter of technology changing, it's quantum differences in training sophistication and focus. I don't think Owens had a Bobby Kersee or similar type planning 6 hours of his day all devoted to squeezing out that last bit of speed.

[jrawlsian]

Interesting thread. I can see this from three different perspectives.

As a collector, my main observation is that Clemente items command a premium from the so-called "deceased player" effect. No, he isn't going to sell for the same as Ruth and Cobb items, but there's still a healthy arbitrage to be had.

As a stats guy, I'd say 40th all-time in career WAR feels right - I could probably move him to the top 30 if certain normalizing adjustments were made.

As a baseball fan from Pittsburgh, I wouldn't rank him higher than Ruth, Cobb, etc., but I do own his jersey, wear it to each game and see that jersey's appearance on the rise. In Pirates history, he is clearly second after Honus, but benefits in "mindshare" from a recency effect. There is also a primacy effect - He wasn't the first Latin American MLB player, but he was the first Latin American player to be inducted into Cooperstown.

[ls7plus]

Imho, one must remember that while the international talent pool of players has greatly increased, we are losing a large number of elite talent to the NBA, NFL, NHL and soccer. I also personally agree that the players of yesteryear, given the advantages of nutrition, training, etc. that current players enjoy, could certainly compete quite well today, even at an elite level. Pitching wise, the slider was the big development and detriment to hitting between the early 40's and today, when it came into widespread use after WWII. Interestingly, when it did, Ted Williams' walks went up into the stratosphere: 156 in 1946, and 162 in his second triple crown year in 1947 (giving him an OBP of .499!!!) because with his 20-10 eyesight and reflexes, he could detect the spin (a small circle is seen at the center of the spinning slider), gauge where that pitch would end up, and take it for a ball. Joe DiMaggio, on the other hand, according to Ted in his book, "My Turn at Bat," had trouble with the slider, and his post WWI stats seem to largely verify this conclusion.

And I believe the poster above is entirely correct regarding human evolution or the lack of same over the last hundred years. I often faced off against one of the best pitchers I had ever seen (he lived just a few houses away) in games of "strikeout" in the late '60's, and played with him on many summer league teams (they were good teams, with 8 guys going on to play in college), and he was F-A-S-T for any era, clocked just a year or so later in college at 94 mph. He was 5'9" and 170-175 pounds, and never worked out! Just think what he would have been with modern training methods--97 or 98 mph almost certainly.

I personally think that those who say Walter Johnson threw about 90 mph are absolutely nuts--human anatomy and coordination haven't changed since then, and if the neighbor/teammate I's talking about could hit 94 mph in the late '60's, Walter was dead solid certain to have thrown significantly faster than that. Walter had greater size and strength in general and his notoriously long arms would have given him greater leverage. Nolan Ryan was clocked at 102 mph in the '70's in the 9th inning, likely after having thrown 200 pitches. Jay Jaffe, in his recent book, "The Cooperstown Casebook," states at p 361 that Bob Feller was timed at 107.9 mph in 1946 (his 348 K year) in a test using two photoelectric cells. Even allowing for some reasonable margin for error given the methodology, I think we can rest well-assured that Rapid Robert was easily over 100 mph on his good days with his fastest pitches. IMHO--and it is just that--my personal opinon--most if not all of the greats of yesteryear would be among the elite of the elite today, given their adaptation to better training methods and so on.

Thanks again Gentlemen, for a most lively and interesting discussion. And yes, I think Jackie ranks well up with the all time greats at second, especially with (by recollection only) a .409 OBP. What a tremendous table-setter for Snider and Hodges! Hornsby is the highest ever for a right-handed hitter, just 24 points higher, .433. Jackie's performance would indeed have been even better had he been given his chance earlier, rather than 28. Both he and Roberto are to be truly treasured (and Kaline too, as he is in and around Detroit).

Highest regards,

Larry

[tschock]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

Yeah, and drop Alexander or Caesar into WWII (with their lack of knowledge and experience in the advancement of tools and tactics) and see how they would do.

[the 'stache]

Peter, I'm looking at Bill James' 2002 book now; he has Clemente ranked 74th on his list of the 100 greatest players of all-time. To be fair, eight of the guys on the list ahead of Clemente either never played in the Major Leagues, or played when their career was in its twilight. I take an issue with that. I have no doubt these guys were tremendous players, but unless it's Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige, guys who absolutely dominated the Negro Leagues, I don't think these other guys belong on the list ahead of Clemente, who proved himself day day in, day out for eighteen seasons. I think Roberto's ranking, and Robin Yount's, are both a bit low (Yount he had at 55). There's some personal bias, as they're my favorite two players of all-time, but I can make a compelling case for their being a few slots higher. Now, of course, both players have been knocked down some by the players that have come into their own since 2002.

The comments that Clemente wouldn't have gotten to 3,500 hits are rubbish. Clemente had a few nagging injuries that kept him from playing a full 1972 season, but towards the end of the year, he was close to full strength. From the start of September to the end of the year, Clemente played in 27 of the Pirates' 32 games, hitting .333, slashing .379/.511/.890. He was preparing to come back for spring training in 1973 when his plane crashed.

Clemente's game was built to play past 40. While the big power hitters often lose a step late in their careers, Roberto was getting better. His last four seasons-1969 to 1972, age 34 to 37, he hit a combined .339 with a 153 OPS+ (.345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1971 and .312 in 1972). He played in 480 games combined. Look at his 162 game averages for this period-103 runs scored, 209 hits, 31 doubles, 13 triples, 19 home runs, 101 RBI, and a slash line of .387/.521/.908. And BBR has his WAR for 480 games at 25.0. He averaged 8.3 WAR per 162 games played.

Does that sound like a guy that is about ready to hang 'em up? The Pirates were 98-57 in 1972. Clemente was raking the last month of the season, and had every motivation to come back, and keep playing beyond 1973. Willie Stargell was NL MVP runner up in '73. Richie Zisk was a star on the rise-between 1973 and 1976, before being traded, Zisk hit .302 as a Pirate with a 138 OPS +. Al Oliver would hit .305 between 1972 and 1977 for the Pirates, with a 124 OPS +. Dave Parker was a rookie in '73, and by '75 he would lead the NL in slugging. What kind of lineup would the Pirates have had with Zisk, Oliver, Clemente, Stargell and Parker as the top five in the order?

[Exhibitman]

All this WARing and JAWing misses the essence. Clemente isn't a top tier card collecting favorite because of his stats alone, he is at the pinnacle because of the other factors that make his story so compelling and that make people want to have his cards. Clemente was a great ballplayer, but he was an even greater human being. You can fling stats at each other like monkeys slinging poo but it won't change the reality on the ground, which is that if you had a son who said Al Kaline is his role model, you'd say that's nice but if he said Roberto Clemente was his role model you'd be a very proud papa.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who said Roberto wouldn't have made it to 3500? The responses were to the suggestion he would have ended up as the all time hit leader.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who said Roberto wouldn't have made it to 3500? The responses were to the suggestion he would have ended up as the all time hit leader.

You're right, Peter. I misread the comment. I saw it as north to 3,500 hits when it said north of 3,500 hits. I retract my statement.

I don't think there's any way Clemente got close to Cobb. Though he was still an elite player, the years of running and sliding, crashing into walls, making diving plays, etc had started to take a toll. Roberto was still in ridiculous shape though, and with the outfield depth Pittsburgh had, I think he'd have stayed fresh throughout the season. He was still going to be good for 125 games a year, and could play at a high level (.310 + AVG, elite defense. The arm was still pristine). But he wasn't going to get the 200 hits a season that used to be his norm in his prime. Just not enough at bats. But it's not a stretch to see him getting another 500 hits, and raising his career average north of .320.

He also was a good bet to crack the top ten all-time in triples. If my memory serves me correctly, nobody who started their career after WW II has more triples than Clemente's 166. He had a real shot at going over 200.

I'm guessing Roberto would have played another three or four years. I have to assume his overall game does decline some, but there's no reason why he couldn't have been worth 5 WAR a season. Even if he only plays to age 40, 15 WAR puts him right next to Mantle.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

All this WARing and JAWing misses the essence. Clemente isn't a top tier card collecting favorite because of his stats alone, he is at the pinnacle because of the other factors that make his story so compelling and that make people want to have his cards. Clemente was a great ballplayer, but he was an even greater human being. You can fling stats at each other like monkeys slinging poo but it won't change the reality on the ground, which is that if you had a son who said Al Kaline is his role model, you'd say that's nice but if he said Roberto Clemente was his role model you'd be a very proud papa.

Absolutely, Adam. It's just fun for me, as such a huge Clemente fan, to wonder about what might have been.

I think Clemente's enduring popularity, in baseball circles and within our hobby, is due to a number of factors. Yes, there's the ultimate sacrifice he made in trying to help those earthquake victims in Managua. That was the kind of man Roberto Clemente was. But, I have always chosen to focus on how he lived, and not how he died. He was a man that the Latino community could look to with pride. He was taunted for being both a black man and Hispanic, and his speech was mocked by reporters. Yet he held his head high, and was outspoken for his people. When he won the World Series MVP, he addressed his followers in Spanish on national television. And on the field, he was one of the most exciting men to ever play the game.

Wagner may be the greatest shortstop to ever play the game, but there's absolutely no question that nearly half a century after his death, Roberto Clemente is still the face of the Pittsburgh Pirates franchise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I saw him play two of the 1971 WS games in Baltimore. As I recall he lit up the place and my Dad, who grew up on DiMaggio and then early Mantle, was very impressed with him.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

All this WARing and JAWing misses the essence. Clemente isn't a top tier card collecting favorite because of his stats alone, he is at the pinnacle because of the other factors that make his story so compelling and that make people want to have his cards. Clemente was a great ballplayer, but he was an even greater human being. You can fling stats at each other like monkeys slinging poo but it won't change the reality on the ground, which is that if you had a son who said Al Kaline is his role model, you'd say that's nice but if he said Roberto Clemente was his role model you'd be a very proud papa.

Well said

[PowderedH2O]

Of course there is no way to know the answer, but would Clemente's cards carry the same values if he had played another 2-3 years, then retired to his home in Puerto Rico and wasn't really visible in the mainland US for the rest of his life? There are dozens of solid Latin American players that go home and do great things in their communities that we never hear about. Clemente might have been one of those.

[packs]

Assuming he would have still been playing, a 1974 and 1975 Topps Clemente card probably would have been a blazer.

[Anish]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

All this WARing and JAWing misses the essence. Clemente isn't a top tier card collecting favorite because of his stats alone, he is at the pinnacle because of the other factors that make his story so compelling and that make people want to have his cards. Clemente was a great ballplayer, but he was an even greater human being. You can fling stats at each other like monkeys slinging poo but it won't change the reality on the ground, which is that if you had a son who said Al Kaline is his role model, you'd say that's nice but if he said Roberto Clemente was his role model you'd be a very proud papa.

Umm. Yes. This.

Clemente is an icon who transcends baseball. Great players come and go, but a story like Clemente’s will likely never be replicated.

[Johnny630]

Mantle, Clemente, and Jackie are the 3 most valuable post war players. Not many collectors I know wanna sell their cards of said players, they only want to buy more !

That doesn’t mean they have the best stats or were the best players. We’re they great players? Absolutely.

More importantly when it comes to value is iconic, popularity, and all around amazing character.

People that don’t know jack about baseball know who Jackie, Clemente, and Mantle are when you mention their names. Just as they know Ruth.

[glynparson]

Some of these answers seem to forget baseball is no longer just primarily a US sport with a minor Latin influence and is much more global with a huge Latin influence along with population explosions making the fact that baseball is now the # 3 sport in America rather irrelevant. American Football is only number one in the USA nowhere else. Baseball is still much larger than football
Globally. Though I understand soccer trumps
Them all in popularity.

[Tabe]

So many thoughts:

1) As a player, Clemente isn't even close to inner circle HOF.

2) As a person, Clemente is definitely inner circle HOF.

3) As for Kaline vs Clemente - how does the fact that Kaline played in a really small RF impact his TZR and assists? Certainly fewer guys would be running on Kaline given how short Tiger Stadium's RF was, especially compared to Forbes.

4) Folks in this thread are giving Jackie Robinson waaaaaaaaay too much credit as a 2B. The guy played 748 of his 1382 games at 2B - 54%. Yeah, it was his most-frequent position but he played 256 games at 3B, 197 at 1B, and 162 in the OF. Guys who played 5 seasons at a position aren't in the conversation for "best ever" at that position. Period.

5) The Owens/De Grasse comparison thing is nonsense. Owens ran a 10.3, De Grasse ran an 11.0. Yep, he was slower. The very time ever wearing that particular kind of shoe, without blocks, etc. Does anybody REALLY think De Grasse wouldn't have been faster with a month of practice using the same equipment? C'mon.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So many thoughts:
The Owens/De Grasse comparison thing is nonsense. Owens ran a 10.3, De Grasse ran an 11.0. Yep, he was slower. The very time ever wearing that particular kind of shoe, without blocks, etc. Does anybody REALLY think De Grasse wouldn't have been faster with a month of practice using the same equipment? C'mon.

Maybe, maybe not. Nonsense is comparing the time of Jesse Owens, on a cinder track, without blocks etc. against an Olympic athlete with today's advances in technology and training.