That all makes sense.

Assists
Clemente 255
Kaline 146

Total Zone Runs
Clemente 205
Mays 173
Kaline 153

Clemente was the best defensive outfielder of his era by a wide margin. He led in NL in outfield assists as a rookie and developed a reputation as the best arm in baseball. Players knew not to challenge his arm, yet he still threw out more runners than anyone else.

Clemente
Aaron




Robinson
Yaz
Kaline




Brock

Roberto vs Al
 

Rats60- great stuff. Again, both players wonderful, either could play on my
team any day. I'll take Roberto though:)

G1911- I understand your mantra:

1) You are always correct
2) You refuse to acknowledge, let alone consider, data which contradicts you
3) Any questions? See rule 1.

Finally, I'm not "unhinged" in the least. I'm just amazed and amused by
mouth breathers who make absurd comments, and genuinely believe they
shouldn't be gainsaid. Stay in the bubble, it's a good place for you...

Now then, there's English Premier League today, college ball, and this "little"
REA ending tomorrow. I also pick up some great cards at the Post Office
today. The good clearly outweighs the bad/idiotic! Trent King

You and I have had this discussion before of course, but....

WAR
Aaron 143
Clemente 94.8

HR
Aaron 755
Clemente 240

SLG

Aaron .555
Clemente .475

OPS
Aaron .928
Clemente .834

To me there is no sound argument to take Clemente over Aaron, and I do understand the Forbes Field, Atlanta stadium, and premature career ending points, they might IMO make the gap a little closer but not that much.

Again, only you have made an appeal to authority. Nobody else has. You have not provided “ data” or ,add a reasonable case, you have thrown a tantrum. You just attacked another poster who never even got into it with you but just picked Kaline. You remain too stupid to even know what key terms and the quote button is, while trying to speak of logic, with which you are clearly not familiar. Learn to read, then calm yourself down, and reply to ideas with a reasonable counter argument and it will go ever better than this nutball crazy shit like last nights infuriated rant.

This shouldn’t even need to be said. One may like Clemente more, but to assert he is better is so far off from reality that it’s just absurd. The fanboys in this thread…

Roberto or Al?
 

G1911- a couple points:

1) I happen to believe Hank Aaron is the most devastating offensive force
in the past 70ish years of baseball. My 3 favorite players are Roberto,
Hank, and Rod Carew.

2) Your memory is selective (is it alright to say that since you are infallible?
Did I cross some line that challenges your deity-like status? Gosh, I hope
not). I have provided data and other commenters have provided data,
making repetition of it unnecessary. The data points ARE there, for both
players. Some choose Roberto and others choose Al. YOU went off the
reservation with the "overrated" talk. It was off topic, unnecessary, and
provocative- and wrong. I called you on it, which makes you angry
because you've already established that you are never wrong. You are
the nicest guy in the world so long as you make the rules and refuse to
be challenged, right?

3) Much earlier in this thread, you made some numbnuts remark about
not acknowledging outside "player ratings" systems. I'm sure it's
coincidental that those systems related Roberto (and Al) very highly...

4) For someone who claims to dislike verbal "attacks" and "rants", you
are VERY fond of "attacking" and "ranting". Is this part of the "do as I
say, not as I do" mentality that is part of your godhood? Asking for a
friend (Actually, I'm not- don't answer).

5) You are a tiresome blowhard who perfectly fits the image of a person
who I'd love to buy for what he is truly worth, then sell for what you
THINK you are worth.

Your act is a played out clown show, too much good in this day for the likes
of you.

Carry on, Trent King

Absurd, nutball crazy, unhinged, fanboys, etc. You take these arguments to an extreme.

You realize there is a transcript of what has actually been said, in order, right?

1) - Irrelevant

2) - You haven't called me on anything I've actually said, you've refused to read and screeched. The one specific thing you've tried to call is factually wrong; "great" and "overrated" are not "circular", only you are too stupid to not know this.

3) - This is a complete lie, I did not make any comment to that meaning. Are you genuinely illiterate? Again, there is a public transcript.

4) - Again, I did not say that. I said you attacked another poster who has not even engaged with you, which you very clearly did when you called CampyFan a crack addict, insane, and a fake account for also picking Kaline. There is a transcript. Post 92. Learn to read. You have insulted me about 5 times as much, which is fine, but you have no moral ground here.

5) - Cool.

Adjust your dosage, and get back to reality. I'm sorry you cannot debate on any reasonable grounds and just screech for your pick. Taking me out of it, you have been nothing but an abusive jackass to people who have not even engaged with you if they pick Kaline. Calm yourself.

And yet another thread has been lost to bickering

Clemente and Joe Morgan would be an interesting comparison, although different positions. OPS+ almost identical. Morgan ahead in OBP, Clemente in SLG, although Morgan had more HR. Morgan ahead in WAR. Clemente ahead in H and BA both by comfortable margin. Morgan multiples ahead in SB and BB.

Roberto vs Al
 

G1911- here's your quote from post #44, in direct reference to OTHER
commenters' revelations about Roberto/Al's ratings in various systems:

" I do not subscribe to appeals to authority, something is not true or false
because an authority says so".

That is YOU, directly contradicting what you said was a "lie" in your most
recent post, point 3. In essence, while other commenters were showing that
rating systems revealed both players were ranked incredibly high, your reply
was to dismiss ANY rating system, especially one that revealed your
"overrated" remark to be the jackass comment it was. It looks like you
might need to read the transcript, Einstein...

Conclusion: both players are wonderful, first time HOF inductees. Some
prefer Al, others Roberto- which is just fine. The notion that any "best of
the best" players of all time(!) can be "overrated" is an absurdity that exists
only in the minds of people who never played or who, more likely, have too
much time on their hands. It is quasi- intellectual fluffery, nothing more.
Fluffery appears to be your sweet spot, but other folks will oppose it and
refuse to play by your schizoid rules. Trent King

This really isn't hard. Even within the category of best of the best players, most people would assign a hierarchy or rating system. E.g. all the top 100 lists out there. Therefore, a player can be overrated despite clearly belonging within the category, if one believes the relative rating is too high. That's all we're talking about here.

Are you not familiar with an appeal to authority? Your claim was I said something "about not acknowledging outside "player ratings" systems. That quote is not me not acknowledging other people have rated players? At all? I spoke about James very favorably, specifically. What I said is that a person's rating does not make it true; that the preceding appeal to authority, that Clemente is better because some have rated him so, is not rational. Which it isn't. A thing is true or false on the facts, not on who ranked them where. Appeals to authority are a fallacy. That doesn't make other peoples rankings are right or wrong. It certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. I explicitly said it was BillJames 2003 Abstract, a thousand page book of player rankings, that got me into the advanced statistics side of baseball. It's in the transcript. In order.

As others have explained to you, that is not circular or contradictory. "Great" and "overrated" are not a contradiction, at all. That is a fact. You really need to learn some basic logic and key terms if you want to do this.

Please learn to use the quote button. Debate on reasonable grounds. As I said in my first post, it's a very close toss up. You need to calm down and stop attacking everyone, including people who have not engaged with your schtick that you have abused and labelled cocaine users, fake and insane, if they don't pick your pick.

That's a tough one. My bias would be against Morgan here slightly, that .271 batting average always bugs me. He was an amazing player with a legitimate claim to possibly being the greatest 2B of all time. Morgan's OBP is weighted against Clemente trading a lot of walks for singles in BA, they're OPS+ is effectively a rounding error adjusting for league. I'd probably have to pick Morgan on defensive grounds. Clemente was a stud fielder, but RF is a lot less important than 2B defensively. Morgan's advantage in that area probably slightly overcomes their almost parallel offensive performance.

600 more SB is significant too IMO. And we're not comparing a slugger to a singles hitter, Morgan had more HR. Clemente averaged less than 5 steals a year.

Definitely shrinks that slugging gap a lot. Their total offense is so close to be another toss up. If Morgan was a RF it might be different, but that production is more valuable from a 2B slot than from RF. .317 hitters are more my cup of tea, but if I knew their future career values and had to draft one, I think Morgan is the right answer by a little bit.

Edit: Morgan had more homers, but Clemente slugged .475 and Morgan .427. Clemente has a significant power advantage, I think.

Brock WAY behind the others. Yaz well ahead of Brock but still behind the ATG's

Clemente fan oh,

Thanks for the insults and failing to point our my inconsistencies in logic.
Never once did I say he wasn't HOF or had a short career. Yet he was 38 when he died which is pretty young in my book! Also, if you don't know about the overdoses of Bonham, Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin etc. then Idk what else to say.

I am a Clemente fan. I just believe, my own opinion, that his heritage and tragic death has elevated him somewhat in baseball lore and in our hobby beyond what he might have received had he not sadly died. I think a valid comparison of his rookie and Kaline rookie are good examples. Throw in Banks and Koufax from those two years as well.

I hope your weekend gets better.

Yes, but a single and a stolen base gets you to the same place as a double.

Which is why I think it effectively eliminates that gap in slugging. Best and as a GM, I'd take Joe Morgan. Personal favorite, I'd take Clemente. Clemente has the advantage of not being a commentator giving dumb takes for decades :D

Oh god what an awful commentator lol. Painful.

I've always thought, and it's nothing more than perception, that Roberto's RC values and overall popularity had as much or more to do with his being the first truly great Latin player as his tragic death.

55 was a gorgeous set, Koufax and Clemente might have the best looking of the big star Topps issue rookies. Guess which card is the one I need to finish my set 55 set?

Kaline's rookie was a lot cheaper. I think Clemente has outsold Kaline primarily on the strength of his death, more than race reasons. The racial line is, I think, more relevant today and will alone keep Clemente higher than Kaline, but not so much when the price gap started.

While I think Kaline is a hair better, Clemente deserves a popularity bonus for his death. Not because he died young, but because he died doing the right thing when he didn't have to do anything.

Roberto vs. Al
 

Peter- I'll skip G1911 from this point forward, he's a "mother ship" candidate
if ever there was one...

I agree with you completely, this really isn't hard. A poster invited a debate
of Clemente vs Kaline, a thought- provoking notion. People weighed in on
both sides. My side is obvious; however, I would never presume to impugn
the accomplishments/skills of a first time ballot HOFer(!). People brought up
interesting stat comparisons that, in my opinion, still favor Roberto. No big
deal...

The problem with the rhetoric being spewed by (almost exclusively) one
source, is that commentary about being overrated isn't even the topic! It's
not, I've triple checked and most commenters' entries support my belief.
Even if the notion of discussing players who are overrated was somehow
introduced, however, I can't square the idea that the flat best players in
baseball history can somehow be "overrated". They have already been
"rated" by numerous indices. I don't know the total number of MLB players
in it's history, so exact percentages are tough to achieve; however, it is
safe to put Clemente and Kaline in the 99.5th percentile of players to ever
play. Let's say you were a teacher who had the privilege of instructing 2
students through their high school years. One averaged 99.5% in the
teacher's classes, while the other averaged a 99.6%. Is it really accurate
to call the 99.5% student "overrated"? Of course not, he was phenomenal.
It is accurate to claim the 99.6% student was "better", by a whisker. Within
the scope of MLB, then, I'd reserve the "overrated" tag for players who
were huge bonus babies but never panned out, or vets who were paid a ton
and didn't live up to the hype. If someone thinks Aaron was a better
outfielder than Mays, or vice versa, that doesn't make the other guy
"overrated". In the mid 2000s, Eric Milton came to the Reds from Minnesota
with a huge contract for the time. His 3 year results were 16-27 with an ERA
of nearly 6. Now THAT guy was overrated!

Things would be so much easier if people could stick to the topic, or at
least have the good grace to start another thread when they just can't
follow the current one- especially when it's a compelling thread. So, you'll
never get to me to agree that Clemente, Kaline, or whoever are somehow
"overrated"- it would be arrogant for me to argue it, and pointless even if I
had an overly developed sense of my ability as a baseball aficionado. Wiser
minds than our own have already placed them in a well deserved premium
class. Trent King

Trent I think we just have different views of the context in which it makes sense to use the term "overrated." We've each given our definitions now; I think it can still be used even within an elite group, and you do not.

That said, do you think it's OK to refer to players everyone would agree are all time greats such as Spahn and Musial as "underrated," and if so, what's the difference?

Roberto vs Al
 

Campyfan- "You hope my weekend gets better"? Well, "good luck to you" since
you decided to go the passive aggressive route.

Since you know zero about me, my favorite musician happens to be Jimi
Hendrix and I was likely aware of the circumstances of his death before
you were (judging by the content of your posts). Your comparison was
odd- and that's the nicest word I can muster at this point. And, again, it
was OFF TOPIC, since the discussion was supposed to be Roberto vs. Al.

I hope your weekend gets better! Trent King

Poster 1: Verbally abuses Poster 2 and calls him a crack addict and insane, who has said nothing to him.

Poster 2: Wishes Poster 1's weekend gets better.

Poster 1: Complains that it is passive aggressive and off-topic.

Classic.

Roberto vs. Al
 

Peter- re: Spahn and Musial, definitely another topic for another thread. The
short version is that I'd bet real money that their teammates and fans surely
didn't underrate them. Musial, for example, was in 24 All Star games and
Spahn 14, a gigantic number for a pitcher. You may be drifting into a
comparative card value discussion, which is intriguing as well. I'm going to
watch some sports and actually try to enjoy a beautiful weekend. I'm sure
we will cross paths later, Trent King

No doubt they were very great but my point is that we frequently have threads here where they (and others like Collins) are always identified as being underrated in public perception and the hobby. Without critically examining it, my thinking is that if one is OK with the concept of calling acknowledged all time greats underrated, one should also be OK calling them overrated; but in any event TTYL.

It's funny, Morgan hated advanced metrics, even though they loved him. Had the courage of his convictions anyway!

It’s been great thanks brother!

So true. Joe Morgan the player had an incredible on base percentage, leading the league in 4 out 5 years between 1972 and 176 (he finished 2nd in 1973). But as announcer, he discredited the concept of OBP being an important factor in winning games. He just didn't like advanced metrics, like you said.

He was one of most balanced players--he did everything well--he stole more bases in his era than anyone not named Lou Brock, and stole at a higher % thank Brock, he hit for average, good power for a 2nd basemen, walked a ton, struck out relatively infrequently, all while fielding decently at 2nd base.

Clemente has been my favorite player since I was a child. And despite the fact that I loathed Joe Morgan as a broadcaster, I'd give him the slight nod over Clemente as a player. However, if Clemente had continued his solid play for a few more years into the mid to late 70's he could have leapfrogged Morgan.

In seeking to collect every Topps card of both players, including variations ( as part of collecting all Topps sets) I have had to pay more for Clemente in total than Kaline. Which I agree proves little as to this debate.

My most expensive Kaline is probably his 61 Dice card ( Clemente did not have one) or his rookie card. Kaline’s 73 “band aid” variation has gotten pretty pricey.

My most expensive Clemente is probably his rookie card, but his 68 3D is up there and is one of my favorite cards. I still need one of his 67 Punch Out variations and his 68 Disc ( have the 67). Also still need his 67 Stand Up to finish that set

Grew up in St. Louis and did see both play. Kaline in the 68 Series :(

Two great ball players, under or over :)

Haven't really loked at the stats yet...but Morgan also played on a great team for a decade (Reds/Phillies) surrounded by HOF...Clemente had Stargell...and an AS here and there (Groat, etc.).

It is not as altering as say playing for the Yankees from 1920-1960 when they had loaded line ups and best pitchers for the most part.....so their batters faced lesser rotations and pitchers didn't face Ruth, Gehrig, Joe D, Mantle, etc.

These guys are so close, both the cornerstone of their teams for many years. Both at 3000 hits(well, 1307 to 1300, but come on). Clemente with the higher career BA (.297 to .317), but Kaline with a lot more HR and RBI (399/1583 to 240/1305). So I think batting is about a wash. Both were excellent fielders with double digit Golden Glove seasons.

Kaline
18 All Star
10 Golden Gloves
1 Batting Championship
0 MVP, although it's easy to argue he had a better 1955 campaign than winner Yogi Berra when you https://www.baseball-reference.com/a..._AL_MVP_voting. Pound sign Yankees bias. Ha!

Clemente
15 All Star
12 Golden Gloves
4 Batting Championships
1 MVP


Let's get into the weeds a bit...

Kaline
1277 Bases on Balls
137 Stolen Bases
65 Caught Stealing

Clemente
623 Bases on Balls
83 Stolen Bases
46 Caught Stealing

Deep Dive statistical comparison:
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...um=0&request=1


In their careers, Kaline played for 22 seasons, 2834 games. Clemente played 18 seasons, 2433 games. And it's worth noting that Kaline's final two seasons fell off dramatically, batting .255 and .262 those years with no Golden Gloves. Meanwhile, Clemente batted .341 and .312 his final two years with Golden Gloves in both. With his tragic demise at 37, we can only guess at what it would have been had he played for 3 or 4 more years. It is worth pointing out that in Kaline's 3rd to last season, he was 37 and batted .313.


So what does all of this information tell me? That it's impossible to say which one is better. They were both excellent, among the greatest players of all time. Both in the hitting and fielding conversations. Even looking purely at statistics, it's practically impossible to choose, they're so close.

Actually I think your post...whether you like it or not....pretty clearly makes the case for one over the other!

Ha! I love it. Who? Clemente? I think I'd lean him with career average and batting titles gun to my head, but I consider the Kaline HR power to be an equalizer. I don't know, pouring over those numbers for 20 minutes or so this morning, perhaps I was just too close to it to see the obvious.

I think you made a pretty clear case for Clemente. As you noted, Kaline wasn't shorted any portion of his career. He was cooked when he retired. But Clemente was still an All Star player and putting up numbers that garnered him MVP votes every year.

The discussion has been predicated on how similar their numbers are. But I think it's fairly certain Clemente would have eclipsed Kaline if given the additional years, although that assumes he wasn't considering retirement anyway.

Except Kaline and Clemente's Age 37 seasons (Clemente's last) were remarkably similar so why would one assume Clemente was going to age better than Kaline?

I guess because there's no reason not to?

Kaline was a largely forgotten man the last 7 seasons of his career. He received MVP votes in only one of them and finished 24th. He made 2 all star teams.

Clemente missed 1 all star game in the final 13 seasons of his career. He finished 5th in MVP voting in 1971 and 13th in 1972. He received MVP votes in 12 of his final 13 seasons.

Kaline and Clemente did have very similar slash lines at age 37:
Kaline: .313/.374/.475
Clemente: .312/.356/.479

What I think separates them is that Clemente was still a fantastic fielder. Clemente won his 12th straight Gold Glove in '72 (tying Mays for most ever by an OF). Clemente had a positive dwar of 1.0
Kaline had a negative dwar of -.4

Furthermore, Kaline was transitioning to 1st base. Therefore, his offensive WAR was lower because 1B typically has better offensive stats than Right Fielders.

I would disagree here. "Great" players can certainly be overrated. Take the current trend on vintage baseball pages on Facebook, many of whom would have you believe Nolan Ryan to be the greatest pitcher of all time, or at least in the top 5, or something else equally laughable.

Yes, Nolan Ryan was great. He holds records that will not even be approached, much less equaled in terms of K's and no-hitters. But these folks overlook the individual nature of those accomplishments while throwing conventional measures of pitching greatness like ERA, WHIP, Winning %, etc. out the window. Because the sexy stats to pitching can't be denied, people want to take Ryan - who is maybe a top 25-50 pitcher overall at best, and elevate him all the way to the top. It's simply not true, and an example case of a great player being misunderstood and overrated.

Roberto vs Al
 

JHCollins- Dear God, the thread is Roberto vs Al… and if your source for definitions of “greatness” is a Facebook group, I’ve found the problem in that case at least. Trent King, still voting Roberto

Dear God, someone disagreed with you.

Or to put it better..take away Kaline's last 2 years then....

Other than Avg...what does Clemente hold over him?

HR
RBI
SB

all heavly favor Kaline

I think it's already well established that Clemente did age better than Kaline. I don't look at his final seasons and see a star in decline, whereas it seems like Kaline had been diminishing since 1968.

Again...

This is like arguing and disclaiming Bonds..Clemens...etc.

Ifs...buts...maybes....

Taking their careers...as a whole...The stats IMO heavily favor Kaline

You can point to Clemente's avg...and more..triples?

I personally would take the:

200 more Runs
650 more Walks
275 more RBIs
160 more HRs
50 more SBs

Even for all of you wanting to add on 2-3 more hypothetical years ...Clemente still at best leads in Hits/Avg

I still take the RBI/HR/Walks and a guy that hit for avg...vs a guy that pretty much just hit for avg.

Kaline had 144 and 149 OPS+'s at ages 36 and 37, Clemente 143 and 138. Kaline was not declining at this time. This is simply untrue. He was league average at age 38 and 39, before retiring.

Kaline was a star starting in 1955, at age 20 (he got MVP votes at age 19, but he did not deserve them). Clemente's breakout was 1960, at age 25. Before 1960 his bat was below league average, 6% over in 1956 when he hit .311 with no power and walked 13 times in 147 games, but below every other year. Like Kaline, Clemente blame a regular at a young age (19 for Kaline, 20 for Clemente) but he did not perform for some time. Clemente was a star player for 13 years, Kaline 18. It is not likely Clemente was going to age so well to turn this into an advantage for him.

If we are going to give Clemente credit for fantasy years that did not happen on the backend, we should give credit to Kaline for real, actual years on the front end.