Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%. http://williamgregory.net/images/laughing.gif
|
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Brian |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I like the guy. A lot. As a player and for the super positive interaction I had with him a few years ago. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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!)
|
Quote:
|
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 . |
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ted Williams only played in one and he was subpar. |
Quote:
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 . |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Gallo could do that in a half a season. |
Quote:
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). |
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.
|
Stats
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? |
.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now that said, Clemente did not walk much, so a reassessment really is not favorable to him. Whereas it helps Mantle a great deal. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
So I think that is the reason he would be mentioned with those two. |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
Quote:
sorry to get off-topic, just making an observation :) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 PM. |