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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by JustinD

There are innumerably more examples than Clemente in baseball, let alone all other sports that disprove that. Popularity and collectabilty can start with stats but likability, character and story cement demand in many cases.

As stated already, this stats argument on Clemente is null and void. He is an icon because of his life and person. That is why he is valued and should be.

Completely different sport, but as an example, is the demand for Brian Piccolo's rookie to easily sell for hundreds in an 8 because he had 4 TDs in his career or for him as a man? Are Moe Berg's cards worth anything because he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn or that his story is perhaps one of the best secrets ever disclosed?

Intangibles.

Hell, Joe Namath is pretty much the ne plus ultra of modern FB cards and he was a pretty mediocre Quarterback.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Even though I agree, in an effort to avoid neutralizing comments I suggest we all refrain from throwing acid on Al Kaline's legacy.

Brian

Battery acid?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

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

Where the *&^%*&^% is Ted Williams?

[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.

[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.

[the 'stache]

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

[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...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Frank B., he of dinger-whiff fame, may have to consider making Joey his avatar.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Do you imagine then guys like Ron Kittle, Dave Kingman, Mickey Tettleton etc are cursing that they were born a generation or two too soon?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

Gallo already has struck out more than DiMaggio did in his career. In just 291 games.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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.

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

And that is exactly the way that it should be.

For me, Steve Garvey is a great example of this. Growing up in the 1970's, Garvey was a player I always wanted to emulate even though I was never a fan of the Dodgers. As a "National League" fan, Garvey was the type of player that I loved having on "my team" in the all star game. His cards were not as prized by me as were my beloved Pirates, but his cards were very much admired and respected. Since the stat revolution, his stature in the game has dropped dramatically. I argue all the time about how overrated he was. But in my mind and in my memories, Garvey was always one of the greats of the game. My heart remembers this even if my mind now may know better. I will always remember him the way I want to remember him.

Now obviously Mantle is in a whole different world, and we are basically arguing over whether he is a top 10 player of all time or top 20. He was obviously one of the greatest of the greats. AND he has that emotional pull on so many who saw him play.

[JollyElm]

And being a switch hitter was a huge advantage. If the Mick knew the left fielder had a great WAR number, he could simply decide to bat lefty and try to pull the ball to right.

[CW]

Originally Posted by hcv123

As a 13 year old kid at his first card show (at the coliseum motor in for those who might remember), not knowing a thing about cards older than 1972 other than that they existed, I was completely taken in by the Clemente rookie card - of all the cards in the room - A couple of hours of begging my mom - who almost had us both certified insane, and $48 later, I had the card that started it all for me - and yes, I still have it - refuse to get it graded and although I have many rarer and worth more, still the card with the most meaning in my entire collection. I still love looking at the card - Not sure exactly why, but one of the most attractive cards imo - Topps ever made.

Great story! Thanks for sharing. You have good taste.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gallo already has struck out more than DiMaggio did in his career. In just 291 games.

Is this a credible attempt at Gallo humor?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Is this a credible attempt at Gallo humor?

More like a California whine

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

And that is exactly the way that it should be.

For me, Steve Garvey is a great example of this. Growing up in the 1970's, Garvey was a player I always wanted to emulate even though I was never a fan of the Dodgers. As a "National League" fan, Garvey was the type of player that I loved having on "my team" in the all star game. His cards were not as prized by me as were my beloved Pirates, but his cards were very much admired and respected. Since the stat revolution, his stature in the game has dropped dramatically. I argue all the time about how overrated he was. But in my mind and in my memories, Garvey was always one of the greats of the game. My heart remembers this even if my mind now may know better. I will always remember him the way I want to remember him.

Now obviously Mantle is in a whole different world, and we are basically arguing over whether he is a top 10 player of all time or top 20. He was obviously one of the greatest of the greats. AND he has that emotional pull on so many who saw him play.

He hit .294 while putting up 19 homers every 162. Career OPS of .775. At 1B. Pretty good player but not great.

And I like the guy. A lot. As a player and for the super positive interaction I had with him a few years ago.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Paul S

More like a California whine

Paul Masson's commercials were better -- no wine before its time, pitched by Orson Welles.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Berra and DiMaggio and Gehrig had more titles than Mantle. Russell had way more than Jordan.

[tedzan]

Some of you guys get carried away with this relatively new "WAR" factor in the ranking of BB players. I think can be misleading.

Old time statistics are absolute numbers....while this WAR stat can be "played" with. And, I understand that it's calculation has recently been modified.

Furthermore, it does not really provide us the complete picture of a given BB player since it does not take into account that player's World Series stats.

Any factor that does not include World Series performance (in my opinion) is absolutely meaningless in any discussions regarding the ranking of Base-
ball players. Yes, Mantle has an advantage because he played in 65 - W. S. games. But, that is so because his superior play during the regular season
greatly contributed to his team getting into the World Series.

Therefore, if we take into consideration World Series numbers, then Ruth, Mantle, and Gehrig are the top three guys.

Mantle leads this trio with 18 HR's....59 Hits....42 Runs....40 RBI's


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[ValKehl]

So Ted, do I correctly understand that a really good player who never made it to the World Series because he played his entire career for mostly lousy teams, someone like George Sisler for example, wouldn't get any or much consideration from you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Some of you guys get carried away with this relatively new "WAR" factor in the ranking of BB players. I think can be misleading.

Old time statistics are absolute numbers....while this WAR stat can be "played" with. And, I understand that it's calculation has recently been modified.

Furthermore, it does not really provide us the complete picture of a given BB player since it does not take into account that player's World Series stats.

Any factor that does not include World Series performance (in my opinion) is absolutely meaningless in any discussions regarding the ranking of Base-
ball players. Yes, Mantle has an advantage because he played in 65 - W. S. games. But, that is so because his superior play during the regular season
greatly contributed to his team getting into the World Series.

Therefore, if we take into consideration World Series numbers, then Ruth, Mantle, and Gehrig are the top three guys.

Mantle leads this trio with 18 HR's....59 Hits....42 Runs....40 RBI's


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Yogi had 71 WS hits. I doubt anyone will ever match that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

So Ted, do I correctly understand that a really good player who never made it to the World Series because he played his entire career for mostly lousy teams, someone like George Sisler for example, wouldn't get any or much consideration from you?

Ernie Banks. None.
Ted Williams only played in one and he was subpar.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

So Ted, do I correctly understand that a really good player who never made it to the World Series because he played his entire career for mostly lousy teams, someone like George Sisler for example, wouldn't get any or much consideration from you?

I did NOT say that, Val. You know me better than that. What I am saying is that if a ballplayer played in the World Series, then that data should be factored
into the equation that yields this "WAR" stat.

Baseball is a team game (as we all know), and I have been fortunate to have had some interesting conversations with Don Larsen, Ted Williams, Phil Rizzuto,
Frank Howard, Clete Boyer, and a few more BB players. All which told me that Mantle's performance on the field (despite his injuries) during the 1950's thru
the 1960's inspired his teammates to play the game at their best.

This is an intangible measure of a BB player, which is overlooked by these academics who come up with neo-systems to rank BB ballplayers. And, the results
some times are not a true measure of a given ballplayer.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Do you imagine then guys like Ron Kittle, Dave Kingman, Mickey Tettleton etc are cursing that they were born a generation or two too soon?

Or, Rob Deer. The Brewers always had one of those guys when I was growing up. Gorman Thomas was the first. Nobody in baseball had more homers than Stormin' Gorman's 175 between 1978 and 1982. But he had a 27.5% K rate (and 28.6% for his career). I'll never understand how he could play center field. He wasn't exactly swift of foot. He looked like a weekend softball player. BBR lists him at 6'2" 210 lbs. I think that second number was being a little generous. Deer stepped in when Gorman left town. 215 home runs between '86 and '93 for Milwaukee, and a few years in Detroit. He also K'd 1,298 times in 3,645 ABs-a whopping 35.6%.

Tettleton, I can forgive. He was only a .241 career hitter, but the dude was a beast when it came to walking. Between 1990 and 1996, he walked 737 times in 982 games. He had a .243 AVG during that span, and a .383 OBP!

A career .369 OBP is better than a lot of guys that have been career .300 hitters. Tettleton is the poster child for why walks are so important. If you hit 30 home runs a year, and walk 100 times, and play the majority of your games behind the plate doing it, you get a pass whiffing 140 times a season.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

Wow, 114 Ks in 1,903 games played. And, that's in the live ball era.

Gallo could do that in a half a season.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'd take Manning by a slight margin over Marino in the pure passer category. Subjectively/anecdotally of course, I think he was better at finding the open receiver.

[Mark70Z]

I really don’t understand the stats guys who rank players with all these advanced metrics, and believe they can define the play of players decades ago, both hitting and fielding, and be positive who was the better player UNTIL the metric is “updated” and a new list is now generated.

Back to the original topic. Clemente was a great player and I enjoyed watching him as a player, possibly a bit of a hypochondriac, but had all the tools. The only problem I have is that Clemente keeps getting better, and better, and even better as a ball player over the years. While great players, like Kaline (who was mentioned in this thread), becomes a player in history that was half way decent in the minds of baseball fans. The main reason, in my opinion, is because Clemente has a STORY. It’s a very good story, BUT Clemente hasn’t gotten any better since he played the game.

Don’t you think the people who actually watched these guys play the game day in and day out would know who the best players were?

[howard38]

.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

No, but it may lessen his stats without all those other great players batting around him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Don’t you think the people who actually watched these guys play the game day in and day out would know who the best players were?

For the most part I would agree, but in baseball particularly we have somewhat refined our perspective on what makes players great, for example we realize now the importance of drawing walks in a way that perhaps was less appreciated in bygone times. So to that extent, it's possible to legitimately reassess players in light of new norms.

Now that said, Clemente did not walk much, so a reassessment really is not favorable to him. Whereas it helps Mantle a great deal.

[mckinneyj]

Don’t you think the people who actually watched these guys play the game day in and day out would know who the best players were?

What do you think the reaction would have been had the Pirates Joe Brown approached the GMs of Yankees, Giants, or Braves suggesting an equal swap for Mantle, Mays, or Aaron? What if he offered to throw in Maz? How about Maz and Skinner or Groat? I doubt any of that gets a deal done (the opinion of one who's youth was spent idolizing these guys... fwiw).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

What do you think the reaction would have been had the Pirates Joe Brown approached the GMs of Yankees, Giants, or Braves suggesting an equal swap for Mantle, Mays, or Aaron? What if he offered to throw in Maz? How about Maz and Skinner or Groat? I doubt any of that gets a deal done (the opinion of one who's youth was spent idolizing these guys... fwiw).

Probably the same thing that happened when the Red Sox and Yankees agreed to trade Ted williams and Joe DiMaggio. Willie Mays has said that Clemente was the best player (other than himself) that he saw play. Orlando Cepeda, who was a teammate of Aaron and Mays, said Clemente was better. In the mid- sixties there was definitely a big 3 of Aaron, Clemente and Mays and it was debated who was the best.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

Agree with this. Aaron Rodgers is very underrated. I think the issue is Patriots fans are louder than anyone else. When Rodgers is done, maybe people will look back and realize how great he was.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I really don’t understand the stats guys who rank players with all these advanced metrics, and believe they can define the play of players decades ago, both hitting and fielding, and be positive who was the better player UNTIL the metric is “updated” and a new list is now generated.

That is certainly your prerogative. Sometimes the more time that elapses, the more we understand certain things better. Your line of thinking would preclude you from having a fundamental understanding given all known relevant data of a subject, be it sports or politics or science or any sort of historical context. The more we learn about a subject, the better understanding about that subject. Thus the possibility for change through new valid inputs.

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Back to the original topic. Clemente was a great player and I enjoyed watching him as a player, possibly a bit of a hypochondriac, but had all the tools. The only problem I have is that Clemente keeps getting better, and better, and even better as a ball player over the years. While great players, like Kaline (who was mentioned in this thread), becomes a player in history that was half way decent in the minds of baseball fans. The main reason, in my opinion, is because Clemente has a STORY. It’s a very good story, BUT Clemente hasn’t gotten any better since he played the game.

I would largely agree. Kaline did not have the sustained high peak that Clemente had, but Kaline was a very good player for a long time. Clemente wasn't nearly as good as Kaline untile he reached age 25. And from that point until the end of his life, Clemente was largely better than Kaline. Clemente is a legend due to his actions as a person, which gives him the iconic status he deserves. Kaline has only his very very good stats to fall back on. Thus Clemente seems to get more and more "relevant" as the years go on, and as social consciousness becomes more and more important to more and more people. That is not a knock against Kaline. Just a fact in favor of Clemente. Statistically they were very close. If I had to choose one or the other for my team for the entire length of that player's career, I would likely take Kaline.

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Don’t you think the people who actually watched these guys play the game day in and day out would know who the best players were?

No. Not in the least. People who watched these players brought their biases of "how the game should be played" and what was important statistically "back in the day" as a means to understand a player's perceived value. These are biases that tilt someone one way or another based on things we understand today to be largely irrelevant.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by rats60

Probably the same thing that happened when the Red Sox and Yankees agreed to trade Ted williams and Joe DiMaggio. Willie Mays has said that Clemente was the best player (other than himself) that he saw play. Orlando Cepeda, who was a teammate of Aaron and Mays, said Clemente was better. In the mid- sixties there was definitely a big 3 of Aaron, Clemente and Mays and it was debated who was the best.

Clemente is not and has never really been considered the “big 3” with Mays and Aaron. If anything someone like Frank Robinson would be more the person that should be in that conversation, and even he doesn’t measure up to those two (but does have superior statistics than Clemente). I like Clemente but he was no Mays or Aaron.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Clemente is not and has never really been considered the “big 3” with Mays and Aaron. If anything someone like Frank Robinson would be more the person that should be in that conversation, and even he doesn’t measure up to those two (but does have superior statistics than Clemente). I like Clemente but he was no Mays or Aaron.

Clemente had higher WAR per game played. I think Clemente measures up quite favorably to Frank Robinson when his whole game is considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Clemente had higher WAR per game played. I think Clemente measures up quite favorably to Frank Robinson when his whole game is considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really disagree that Clemente and Frank Robinson are fairly similar in value to their team. I personally would have much rather had Robinson on my team but my point was Clemente was a completely different type of player than Mays and Aaron, Robinson was more similar to them just without the overall statistics to measure up.

I like Clemente a lot but he was not Mays or Aaron and very few people in their time thought he was in that conversation. He was a great person and worthy of his fame, but like some other people in other walks of like the fact that he was taken before his time makes him feel more legendary than he perhaps was.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I don’t really disagree that Clemente and Frank Robinson are fairly similar in value to their team. I personally would have much rather had Robinson on my team but my point was Clemente was a completely different type of player than Mays and Aaron, Robinson was more similar to them just without the overall statistics to measure up.

I like Clemente a lot but he was not Mays or Aaron and very few people in their time thought he was in that conversation. He was a great person and worthy of his fame, but like some other people in other walks of like the fact that he was taken before his time makes him feel more legendary than he perhaps was.

I think the reason he may have been mentioned in the same breath was his being the "third" outfielder of the 1960's in the National League. When you look at all star game starters (a good "old school" metric to see where people ranked "back in the day") during the 1960's, Mays started eight times, Aaron seven, and Clemente five. The only other NL outfielder with multiple appearances as a starter was Tommy Davis with two.

So I think that is the reason he would be mentioned with those two.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

As a Packer fan I agree, Rodgers is the best and most talented quarterback I've ever seen play. But if you were to poll most fans, experts, analysts, etc the argument for greatest of all time would be between Brady and Montana. People remember championships and the big plays that were made to win them. That's what turns a great player into a legend, or an all time great. Rodgers needs another ring or two to put his name in that discussion.

[the 'stache]

Going back to the discussion of top ten players of all-time, right now, I’d probably go with these, off the top of my head:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Honus Wagner
3. Ted Williams
4. Willie Mays
5. Ty Cobb
6. Walter Johnson
7. Barry Bonds
8. Lefty Grove
9. Mickey Mantle
10. Lou Gehrig

Lots of other guys are very close. Hard to leave Musial, Young, Aaron, Schmidt, Clemens and a small handful of others off that top ten.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I think the reason he may have been mentioned in the same breath was his being the "third" outfielder of the 1960's in the National League. When you look at all star game starters (a good "old school" metric to see where people ranked "back in the day") during the 1960's, Mays started eight times, Aaron seven, and Clemente five. The only other NL outfielder with multiple appearances as a starter was Tommy Davis with two.

So I think that is the reason he would be mentioned with those two.

In that context I can see the argument.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On Base Percentage

Frank Robinson – .389 images
Roberto Clemente – .359

Slugging Percentage

Frank Robinson – .537 images
Roberto Clemente – .475

OPS (On-Base + Slugging Percentage)

Frank Robinson – .926 images
Roberto Clemente – .834

Home Runs

Frank Robinson – 586 images
Roberto Clemente – 240

RBIs

Frank Robinson – 1,812 images
Roberto Clemente – 1,305

[btcarfagno]

Frank Robinson is vastly underappreciated. That said, his WAR per game and WAR per inning is lower than Clemente.

Personally I would take Robinson because I just value offense over defense that much.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

1. Babe Ruth
2. Honus Wagner
3. Ted Williams
4. Willie Mays
5. Ty Cobb
6. Walter Johnson
7. Barry Bonds
8. Lefty Grove
9. Mickey Mantle
10. Lou Gehrig

Many top-10 lists look similar to this, with all 10 having played in the last 100 years yet only 1 (sometimes 2) has played in the last 50 years. Were ball players really that much better in the early-mid 20th century? Or do we tend to inflate the legacies those players left behind? In 50 years from now, will Maddux and Clemens and Pedro and Randy Johnson and Arod sneak into these lists? Or have we been watching bad baseball the past 50 years?

sorry to get off-topic, just making an observation