BaseBall Survivors

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous 

http://www.concentric.net/~Jkubatko/baseballsurvivor/index.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

This list makes no sense to me. How can you rate Wagner ahead of Cobb; Mantle ahead of Gehrig and Joe D.; Clemens ahead of Mathewson; Bonds ahead of Mays and Robinson ahead of Joe D. Any thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

right before Ruth and Wagner were named to the top spots. I was disappointed at how few 19th century players there were, and I still don't know about Bonds being better than Mays. Or some other people, either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

...and just maybe TOO many "Old-Timers" are on the list as a homage to the "Good Old Days". Ruth on top??
Let's stop and think about this. Babe Ruth has long been touted as "The best", the name on the tip of everyone's tongue when asked, "who's the gratest ballplayer of all time", Well...at least 75% of the time anyway. Ask most long-time, hardcore baseball fans who the best of the best at every position was and more than likely, you'll get the answer:
1b: Gehrig
2b: Hornsby
3b: Traynor or Schmidt
ss: Wagner
of: Ruth
of: Mays or Clemente
of: Willaims or Cobb
P: W.Johnson
C: Bench

Now, this is a helluva' list of talent, but the majority of players on it are 1920's Vintage with a few 50s to 70s thrown in.
Let's look at the relative levels of athleticism. The strides and advances that have been made in the techniques of hitting, pitching, fielding, and EXERCISE regimens, the past 20 years, to improve the level of play and ELIMINATE weak links on players and teams.
Sosa, Griffey, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc., and other modern day superstars that are not only the product of raw talent and determination but the finest coaching of physical and nutritional regimens, as well as medical attention that money can buy. In my estimation, the same way you couldn't take the greatest weighlifters, runners, swimmers, etc. of the 1920s and expect them to even compete at COLLEGE level today, with ANY modicum of success against today's athlete, you couldn't take even the best ballplayers of that time period and put them on today's ballfields against today's "scientifically engineered" ballplayers.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I don't have a problem with the list either. Wagner was frequently given the nod over Cobb as greatest player of all time. If you listen to the "Glory of Their Times" tapes, the players who played with both of them seem split on the issue, but possibly because they disliked Cobb so much as a person - I don't think any of them picked Ruth, mainly because Cobb and Wagner were so much better runners and fielders. The 1961 Spinks (Sporting News) "Daguerreo Types of Great Stars of Baseball", came up with this team:

1B - Sisler, narrowly over Gehrig
2B - Hornsby
SS - Wagner
3B - Jimmy Collins, barely over Traynor
C - Cochrane
OF - Ruth,Cobb,Speaker
P - Mathewson and Young (with Johnson strongly considered)

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

...just give me some time Scott and soon you'll see the light and agree with me on everything!! You need a Guru, a Promethius, and I am he.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

Because he was not only a heckuva hitter, but a pretty darned good pitcher as well. In fact, he may have been a HOF pitcher if he had continued with it. From 1914 to 1919 he was 89-46 and that includes only 20 starts in 1918 and 17 in 1919. (He was 5-0 in 5 games in the four seasons after that.) He may very well have been a career 200+ win pitcher and 400+ HR player had he continued to split duty as he did his last two seasons with the Sox.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I have been giving this a little thought myself. I realize that many people on the board want to think that the players of the 19th and early 20th centuries were better than the ballplayers of the last 30 years. But it seems to me that it probably isn't true.

I have a baseball card from the 1961 Topps set that tells how Walter Johnson pitched 3 shutouts in 4 days.

Three shutouts in four days! Now tell me how bad were the ball players back then if he could do that? Can you think of anyone who could do that in the last 40 years against the teams that are around now? He would never have a chance. No pitcher could make it through all three games. Even if his arm could take it, the stuff on his pitches would be hammered by the modern player after a game and a half, no matter how good he is.

Another argument that is brought up that modern baseball is weak is the fact that the pitching is diluted. But, back in the "good old days", being a relief pitcher meant that you were a scrub. And most teams only had two, maybe three solid starters. So how many good pitchers could have been around? The fact is that for these pitchers to pitch so many games throughout many years, they had to have played against very weak overall batting. Of course there were standouts, Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, etc. But when one compares these stars to the remaining players, how good did they have to be? How good does a player have to be to be viewed as a star when he played against a team was shut out by a pitcher that pitched his third game in four days.

It is a wonderful thought to think that these players were the absolute greatest. But just like other sports, they probably couldn't hold a candle to the modern player. I know the arguments. The ball is juiced. Fields are smaller. The jokes made that Ty Cobb could have batted .321 at age 70. But if anyone does believe that it is way too easy for the modern hitter these days, then you have to agree on one thing. Greg Maddux would be the greatest pitcher of all time, bar none. If hitting is so easy these days, much easier than back in the early 1900's, then with Maddux's numbers of the 1990's, he is easily the greatest pitcher of all time. You can't have it both ways. If the hitting is too easy today, then today's great pitchers are much better than their earlier counterparts.

If you compare the 1930's to the past 10 to 15 years, you will note a very close correlation to the brand of baseball. The offense went up almost exponentially and the pitching was not strong at all, except for a few stellar players of that time. If you do compare these eras and you think that the modern player is overrated, then let's take away the merits of many of the stars of that era, Foxx, Gehrig, Cochrane, etc., because the style of ball was nearly identical to today's ball.

I also don't understand how one can argue so vehemently that Cobb was the greatest player of all time without ever seeing him play. That is like saying that a particular PSA 10 card is the finest looking card of all without looking at it, but stating this fact merely because of the number of the grade on the holder. I believe that Clemente was the greatest player of all time. I saw him play many times and even though others (Mays, Mantle) may have had better numbers during the same era, I am not going to let the facts sway my opinion.

I believe that Cobb, Wagner, Ruth etc. were great players. But frankly, the competition that they were up against was not that keen. The players, overall, weren't that keen. We have all heard stories of players who played ball merely because they didn't want to work on a farm or in a steel mill. Imagine a high school grad coming out of high school and deciding then that he wants to play ball because there are no satisfying jobs. He wouldn't have a chance in the world if he just decided then to start to play baseball. But back then, it happened all of the time. Once again I pose the question, how good could these marginal players be?

The fact of the matter probably is that if the truly best players of all time were put on the greatest team, by talent and not by numbers, it would be very difficult to place anyone on the team that didn't play after 1950.

Thanks for this thread. I always enjoy thinking about this and writing a message about it allows me to ponder it even a little more stringently.

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

because I didn't want to detract attention from Wagner! I give Wagner the nod on my website, but in reality I have a tough time arguing against any of those three.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

...against his peers, in his own time. In the early 20's, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think man had even traveled at 200mph as of yet in the fastest of planes. Today's planes take off at 200 mph, and top fuel dragsters routinely run a quarter mile going 0 to 330 mph. over a quarter mile in under 5 seconds. Could you imagine Bronco Nagurski (a GIANT in his day) trying to crash his way through lines of scrimmage riddled with 6'6" 325 pounders that squat 750lbs, bench 500+ and run 40s in under 5 seconds!!! This is the age of specialization. The first 400 pound bench press wasn't achieved until well into the 1930s and it was purely GYM feats without rules. Today, there's been almost 50 men who have benched 700+ in competition, with two men achieving 800 lbs. If you could take Kiu Tuita, at 5'10", 365 lbs. and 13% bodyfat and send him back to compete against strength athletes of the 20s, he would so not resemble any living man that anyone at that time had ever seen, that they would think a Silver-backed Gorilla escaped from the zoo and mated with a human! Even 30 years ago, for a man under 200 pounds to bench 500, was an impossible dream! Today, George "Superman" Halbert, at 193 pounds has benched 710 pounds in sanctioned competition!!! 60 home runs, no problem..how about 70..how about 80!!! (right around the corner I'll wager). And I can well imagine that Bonds would have hit 100! ..hitting against the average pitchers of the 1910's to 1930's (the Bonds of today). But see, that's the drawback, the hole card, the unseen..you CAN'T displace these athletes through time because they would become a PRODUCT OF THEIR TIME'S ATHLETICISM.
You can't watch a film of Jack Johnson, then watch a film of Tyson (in his prime), and say, "Johnson would have won, or vice versa". They DIDN't fight each other. Ruth never faced Clemens. Cobb never faced Gossage in the late 70's in late innings. Hubbel never tried to strike out Clemente, DiMaggio, Sosa, Griffey and A-rod in succession. More than likely, Jack Johnson would have folded like an accordion after receiving his first Mike Tyson uppercut, like everyone else. There was NObody back in his day that could lift 200 pounders off their feet with an uppercut like Iron-Mike..how could he have trained or prepared for that? Comparisons of ballplayers spanning decades are impossible to make with any assurity. We can compare Williams to Dimaggio, and Mantle to Mays because they were peers and played under the same time of athletic technical advancements, but to compare these four to Hugh Duffy and Pete Browning is near impossible. There just isn't enough common ground besides the stats themselves which DON'T take into consideration the changing level of play and athleticism.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

I was just looking ay the Jeff Sagarin ratings for current Major League ballplayers. Barry Bond's rating is 16.62. The next player is Larry Walker with a 9.34 rating. That means that his rating is 1.77 times better than the 2nd best batter in baseball! I know a lot of people just don't like Bonds. But these are Ruthian comparisons in an era where the standard deviation between batters is much smaller than way back when.

Here are some other comparisons. (Hey, baseball is back. Let's enjoy it. And what more can one ask for than baseball and mathematics rolled up in one.)

BATTING AVG.            G       AB      R       H       AVG
1. Bonds, SF           117     331     96     123     .372
2. Walker, Col         115     415     85     146     .352

HOME RUNS
1. Sosa, Chi               43
2. Bonds, SF               40 (OK, he's 2nd but with 129 less at bats)

SLUGGING PERCENTAGE
1. Bonds, SF             .828
2. Sosa, Chi             .632

ON-BASE PERCENTAGE
1. Bonds, SF             .574
2. Giles, Pitt             .442

BASES ON BALLS
1. Bonds, SF              153
2. Dunn, Cin              112

TOTAL BASES           Bases    AB   Base/AB
Kent, SF                    311    516    0.602 
V. Guerrero, Mtl          306    502    0.609 
Sosa, Chi                  290    459    0.631 
Berkman, Hou           286    474    0.603 
Green, LA                  277    476    0.581 
Pujols, StL                 277    490    0.565 
Bonds, SF                  274    330    0.830 
(not 1st in total bases but 31% better than 2nd place in Bases/AB

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Koos--No one would argue that today's athletes are not bigger, stronger and faster than athletes of 75 years ago. If Babe Ruth could be magically transported to 2002 would he be the dominating player that we was in the 20s---almost surely not. However, players can be compared to players from their era and how they rank against these peers helps determine their place in history. Compare the average number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in a season to the average number hit by players in his day. I would bet no one has ever come close to him in this respect. Compare Babe Ruth's lifetime average to the lifetime average of players during his era. Make a series of these comparisons and then see where Ruth ranks in the history of baseball. I believe the numbers will show that he was clearly the greatest player ever. The arguement that players were not as good relative to the rest of society at their time as compared to today is also wrong, I believe, although it is not a clear cut arguement. Today several major sports compete for athletes. Do the best athletes in your local high school become baseball players. Not in mine---they become football players or basketball players or lacrosse players. In the 20s the best athletes gravitated towards baseball. The other sports were secondary. The offsetting arguement is that in the 20s only whites could play in the major leagues. The worldwide integration of professional baseball has certainly widened the talent pool.
Now getting back to the comparisons. I would contend that Mantle and Dimaggio played in the same era and that Joe D. was clearly the better player. I saw Mantle play for virtually all his career and he was great but not an all time great. Having said that I also saw Frank Robinson for all of his career and he wasn't as good as Mantle which certainly places him behind Dimaggio. I have tremendous respect for Barry Bonds. His last few years certainly are some of the best ever. However, when you look at his career--year by year--does he rank with Willie Mays. I don't think so. Part of the reason for Bonds dominance in the last few years (my opinion)is that he has no fear at the plate. With the elbow protection and the fact that pitchers are not allowed to back players off the plate anymore he can crowd the plate with impugnity. Transport Barry back to the 60s and see how long he would survive crowding the plate like that against Gibson or Drysdale.
I have to stop. These arguements are just too much fum and this is the beauty of baseball. There are no right answers but it is easy to convince yourself that you are right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

...or Radatz!! That's another big difference, the comfort zone at the plate. 70 years ago, the average ballplayer was worth less than $5,000 per year, not exactly a huge owner investment. Umpires weren't too quick to tell a pitcher, "Even though he hit a homer and a double off you today, Don't you dare do that...you can't throw at his head". Today, there's far more of a mutual respect between pitchers and batsmen, who at any one time can both be representative of a combined 100 million dollar or more lifetime investment to their respective owners!

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

Cy, I agree with you, Bonds' last two years have been absolutely unbelievable on a historical basis. Just a small nitpicking point on your stats----isn't total bases/ab the exact same thing as slugging pctg......therefore it doesn't really add anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Cy & Koos --

I'm not sure I agree with your contention that many of the game's ATGs don't compare favorably to today's stars.

First, I would argue that with FEWER teams and a MORE EXTENSIVE system of scouting and farm systems/minor league affiliates, the overall level of talent was GREATER during the "golden age" of baseball -- especially the 1950s. Players like Mays, Mantle, Clemente and Aaron would still have been marquee performers in today's game. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch to see Mantle, Mays or Aaron smashing 80 or more home runs in a time when pitching is so blatantly diluted. Don't believe me? Check out how many home runs Sosa has hit the past several years (& during his record breaking season) against Milwaukee Brewer pitching.

Other players such as Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Williams or Dimaggio also would have excelled during today's game. And positions where physical strength is less important, such as pitching, would STILL be dominated by players who had great "stuff" such as Koufax, Paige or Gibson. And don't tell me that someone like Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson wouldn't have been AT LEAST as dominating as Nolan Ryan.

Furthermore, some of the modern era's hitting "stars" -- Wade Boggs, George Brett or Tony Gwynn -- were hardly physical specimens. Who's to say that Cobb, Wagner, Sisler, Jackson, Hornsby or other outstanding batsmen didn't possess translatable skills and hitting abilities? I sure think they did. In fact, I tend to think that in an era of 24-hour-a-day ESPN/Sportscenter broadcasts and scintillating media propaganda, some players (e.g., Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Rodriguez) are hyped so much and bestowed with so much literary greatness that we've all become a bit brainwashed. Perhaps our silly sports egos get in the way too; for is there any sports fan who doesn't want to believe that HE/SHE is the one who's living in baseball's most glorious age?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

If anyone has read Bill James Historical Abstract, you will remember that he said, I agre with him, that the truly great players from early baseball would be great baseball players today.

The other thing to remember when comparing players to their contemperaries is that if you could put talent on a bell curve the far right end of the bell curve would both be int he same place on the graph but the curve for the early game would be fairly wide and low, while the curve for today's talent would be vary narrow and high. Cy Barger prolly couldn't get out of 'A' ball if he played today.

Personal rankings:
Greatest player ever: Ruth, great hitter and pitcher

Greatest hitter: Ted Williams, what would his numbers be like without the war years?

Greatest pitcher: Walter Johnson, how many wins would he have if he actually had a team playing for him?

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

Strangely enough I didn't see Satchel Paige on the list
at all. And Jackie Robinson at #62? C'mon.
All the buff physical talk and how this is some prerequisite to great ballplaying is nonsense.
Ichiro is as thin as a twig, he is an amazing
hitter. And its no prerequisite to winning either.
Most of the A's players in the early 70s were
undersized if anything. It would take three
Shoeless Joe's to fill Ruth's pants, but he was
still great.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

This one player, more than any other really irks me when talk of great players some up. Want to talk about a player being romantized by the press. Koufax was a mediocre pitcher until Chavez Ravine was built. Sorry, but 5 great years doesn't make a great player. Especially when he played in a park that magnified his talents.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Obermeyer

... in this debate is that if you took one of the all-time greats and just transported them through time to today, they certainly would struggle against today's athletes.

However, take that same player and have him born in 1970. He would have grown up with the same emphasis on nutrition, training, surgical techniques, etc. I bet they would definately be one of the greats today too. Think about Mantle... with better nutrition and better surgery, he's knees wouldn't have been nearly as much as a problem for him.

I think that most of the all-time greats in baseball would have been so today as well if they had lived their entire lives in this era.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

For the second half of his career Sandy Koufax was probably the greatest lefty ever. Period, end of statement! He wasn't just a product of his home ballpark---check his road record. Besides, when you strike guys out it doesn't matter what park you are pitching in. Again, compare him to his peers. With the exception of Gibson, no one was close. Was Koufax a late bloomer---absolutely. However, during the second half of his career he was the best pitcher I have ever seen.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

..of Ruth laying under a diathermy machine, which did little more than putting a heating pad on an injured area that should have been treated with electro-stim, active release therapy, other chiropractic manipulations, or anti-inflammatory steroids. With only X-rays available and later, the fluoroscope, potentially career ending or career hampering injuries necessitating more radical treatments and rest couldn't be diagnosed with today's precision internal imaging equipment. Many pre-30s players got in shape each spring for the upcoming season by SWEATING off the excess pounds gained during a Winter's over-indulgence rather than a progressively structured exercise and nutritional regimen under constant Professional supervision.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dr.Koos

...is a yardstick of greatness, Reggie Jackson said this of Nolan Ryan in a magazine interview, "How fast is Nolan Ryan? There's no way to describe it. He threw an inside head-high fastball that came real close about two years ago, that if he HAD hit me, there wouldn't have BEEN a Reggie Jackson anymore. I like fastballs, and I like ice-cream, but trying to hit a Nolan Ryan fastball is like trying to eat ice cream with a fork!"

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

but by the same token, Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball for about the same period of time that Koufax was a dominant pitcher, yet Rice is considered a boarderline HOFer. Why is he not held in the same reverence that Koufax is? Until recently, he was the last player to ahve 400 total bases in season among his other accomplishments.

I'm sorry, but being great for a few years doesn't make for an all-time great player. You need to do it for an extended period of time and 5 years just doesn't cut it, no matter how dominant you may have been for those 5 years.

If this were football, then I would say yes, 5 years of greatness can make for an all-time great, but we are talking baseball where 20 year carreers are not unusual. And if 5 years of greatness is the standard for a great career, then we are going to dilute the hell out the HOF and make the term all-time great meaningless.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

....