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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

True to a point anyway.

His stats were skewed too much to value for that position. This has since been "taken care of" by the new generation of stat geeks who have more than taken over for James.

Offensive WAR per plate appearance shows the players who made the most of their times at the plate. To me, these are the ten greatest hitters, based on their production per plate appearance, of all time:

1 Babe Ruth
2 Barry Bonds
3 Ty Cobb
4 Willie Mays
5 Hank Aaron
6 Honus Wagner
7 Tris Speaker
8 Stan Musial
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Eddie Collins

Mickey Mantle is #12

I could live with that list except where the hell is Ted Williams. And Gehrig?

[packs]

How does it make sense to include Barry Bonds? If you want to talk about ability, then I would support Bonds being a part of the discussion. But none of his stats are authentic and I would not include him in any discussions based on stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I cannot imagine any serious metric that does not rank Ted in the top TEN of all time?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I cannot imagine any serious metric that does not rank Ted in the top TEN of all time?

Except offensive WAR per plate appearance. Where he ranks 11th.

He is within a scant 1.5 points of being in 8th, ahead of Musial and Collins and Hornsby.

There is a gap of 5 full points from Williams at #11 to Mantle at #12.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

How does it make sense to include Barry Bonds? If you want to talk about ability, then I would support Bonds being a part of the discussion. But none of his stats are authentic and I would not include him in any discussions based on stats.

If his stats were inflated, how do you know what his true ability was?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If his stats were inflated, how do you know what his true ability was?

You don't. But he certainly doesn't belong in a conversation about stats. He may as well have no stats to me. None of them are real.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I could live with that list except where the hell is Ted Williams. And Gehrig?

Williams = 11

Gehrig = 13

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Williams = 11

Gehrig = 13

I can't imagine excluding Williams from the top ten hitters of all time. I suppose you could argue Gehrig but I would put him ahead of Mantle and Collins, if not Hornsby.

[btcarfagno]

Hold on.

I was using an older list and oWAR calculations have been tweaked since then.

Updated list shortly..

[btcarfagno]

As of today, I do have a bit of newfound respect for Mr. Mantle. With the new oWAR calculations, he has moved up the list.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Willie Mays
7. Barry Bonds
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Dan Brouthers
10. Joe Jackson
11. Honus Wagner
12. Tris Speaker


WAR has added value to OBP and most especially walks in the intervening 8 years since the old list I had shown. That was lazy on my part....my apologies to all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Now that's more like it for Ted and Lou.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now that's more like it for Ted and Lou.

Any list of top ten hitters in history without Williams and Gehrig isn't worth its salt, imo.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

As of today, I do have a bit of newfound respect for Mr. Mantle. With the new oWAR calculations, he has moved up the list.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Willie Mays
7. Barry Bonds
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Dan Brouthers
10. Joe Jackson
11. Honus Wagner
12. Tris Speaker


WAR has added value to OBP and most especially walks in the intervening 8 years since the old list I had shown. That was lazy on my part....my apologies to all.

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

Funny, I think sort of the opposite, that baseball changes less than other sports. I think if we were transported, say, back to the 20s to watch a game, the similarities would far outweigh any differences. I very much doubt that would be the case with football or basketball.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

I have always been of the opinion that Mantle value is based more off of hype and emotion than statistical reality. I still think that this is true, but when a statistic that I put great credence in shows him to be better than I thought, it makes me take notice. I never said he wasn't one.of the all time greats. That is not what I am arguing and is a strawman at best. I merely said that Mantle is not one of the ten best players who ever lived. I stand by that, although I now think he may be closer to number ten than I had first thought.

Still not top ten though.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

As of today, I do have a bit of newfound respect for Mr. Mantle. With the new oWAR calculations, he has moved up the list.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Willie Mays
7. Barry Bonds
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Dan Brouthers
10. Joe Jackson
11. Honus Wagner
12. Tris Speaker


WAR has added value to OBP and most especially walks in the intervening 8 years since the old list I had shown. That was lazy on my part....my apologies to all.

LOL oh, there he is.

[tedzan]

Sorry guys, but I have to when I read some of these comments regarding Mantle. First of all, how many of you saw him play during the years 1952 - 1964 ? ?

Us older dudes were fortunate to see him play. You wouldn't believe the excitement Mickey generated every time he came to bat. I have traded stories with my
Father-in-law, who saw Babe Ruth play and the air of excitement was very similar. Like in the days of Ruth, our expectations every time were that Mickey would
drive the baseball 500 - 600 feet out of the ballpark.

OK, since you guys love to throw Stats, around, or even worst, that neo-term called "WAR" when comparing players......how's about these numbers......

BA = .313 (1952 - 1964)

RBI's = 102/year (avg. based on 162 games/year)

HR's = 454 (1952 - 1964), which translates to a HR every 13.4 AB's

18 HR's in 11 - World Series (including a Grand Slam in the 1953 W.S.)

Trust me guys, Mickey was a better CLUTCH HITTER than most.

And, no one talks about his fielding ability. For half of each season, Mickey excellently covered the most expansive CF in baseball (Yankee Stadium) back then.

I will never, ever forget watching him run a "country mile" in the 5th game of the 1956 World Series to catch a 440-foot drive by Gil Hodges right in front of the
Monuments (which saved Don Larsen's Perfect game).



Type 2 ................................... Double Printed ....................................... Type 1
. .




And, I might add....any comparison of these ballplayer that doesn't include Ted Williams in the top ten is completely worthless. Forget his great statistics.
You had to see him play to really appreciate him......and, I was very fortunate watching Ted play from 1947 - 1960.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by tedzan

OK, since you guys love to throw Stats, around, or even worst, that neo-term called "WAR" when comparing players......how's about these numbers......

what is a "neo-term"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

what is a "neo-term"?

I thought it was very well stated actually.

To Ted's point about generating excitement at the plate, I only saw Mantle very late in his career, but I would make a similar observation about Reggie Jackson, it was always an event with him at the plate.

[hedgefund96]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Sorry guys, but I have to when I read some of these comments regarding Mantle. First of all, how many of you saw him play during the years 1952 - 1964 ? ?

Us older dudes were fortunate to see him play. You wouldn't believe the excitement Mickey generated every time he came to bat. I have traded stories with my
Father-in-law, who saw Babe Ruth play and the air of excitement was very similar. Like in the days of Ruth, our expectations every time were that Mickey would
drive the baseball 500 - 600 feet out of the ballpark.

OK, since you guys love to throw Stats, around, or even worst, that neo-term called "WAR" when comparing players......how's about these numbers......

BA = .313 (1952 - 1964)

RBI's = 102/year (avg. based on 162 games/year)

HR's = 454 (1952 - 1964), which translates to a HR every 13.4 AB's

18 HR's in 11 - World Series (including a Grand Slam in the 1953 W.S.)

Trust me guys, Mickey was a better CLUTCH HITTER than most.

And, no one talks about his fielding ability. For half of each season, Mickey excellently covered the most expansive CF in baseball (Yankee Stadium) back then.

I will never, ever forget watching him run a "country mile" in the 5th game of the 1956 World Series to catch a 440-foot drive by Gil Hodges right in front of the
Monuments (which saved Don Larsen's Perfect game).



Type 2 ................................... Double Printed ....................................... Type 1
. .




And, I might add....any comparison of these ballplayer that doesn't include Ted Williams in the top ten is completely worthless. Forget his great statistics.
You had to see him play to really appreciate him......and, I was very fortunate watching Ted play from 1947 - 1960.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted,

My father can attest to your comment as well as he grew up in Flushing, NY and was a BIG Yankee fan. He LOVED the Mick and he went to countless games in the 50's and 60's...

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Sorry guys, but I have to when I read some of these comments regarding Mantle. First of all, how many of you saw him play during the years 1952 - 1964 ? ?

Us older dudes were fortunate to see him play. You wouldn't believe the excitement Mickey generated every time he came to bat. I have traded stories with my
Father-in-law, who saw Babe Ruth play and the air of excitement was very similar. Like in the days of Ruth, our expectations every time were that Mickey would
drive the baseball 500 - 600 feet out of the ballpark.

OK, since you guys love to throw Stats, around, or even worst, that neo-term called "WAR" when comparing players......how's about these numbers......

BA = .313 (1952 - 1964)

RBI's = 102/year (avg. based on 162 games/year)

HR's = 454 (1952 - 1964), which translates to a HR every 13.4 AB's

18 HR's in 11 - World Series (including a Grand Slam in the 1953 W.S.)

Trust me guys, Mickey was a better CLUTCH HITTER than most.

And, no one talks about his fielding ability. For half of each season, Mickey excellently covered the most expansive CF in baseball (Yankee Stadium) back then.

I will never, ever forget watching him run a "country mile" in the 5th game of the 1956 World Series to catch a 440-foot drive by Gil Hodges right in front of the
Monuments (which saved Don Larsen's Perfect game).



Type 2 ................................... Double Printed ....................................... Type 1
. .




And, I might add....any comparison of these ballplayer that doesn't include Ted Williams in the top ten is completely worthless. Forget his great statistics.
You had to see him play to really appreciate him......and, I was very fortunate watching Ted play from 1947 - 1960.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

+1 in all respects, Ted.

Always good to hear from you,

Larry