Were they the best......
 

of their time.

From 1980 through today - - - - where these players, compared to those they played with, the best of their time.

?

+1 :confused:

Not sure why this is in the pre-war section but, as the rules state, members can do some off topics. In that respect lets let this stay on the front page but everyone should be careful of what forum you are posting in, with respect to the subject matter. I have no clue about the question. (not to sound mean, but I really don't care :))

sry about where i put it. Question is about do you think these players were or were not the best of their time.

Sometimes people say bonds (lets say) should be in the HOF cause hes not the HR leader, or mays was better etc. Pleayer should and are supposed to be compared to the players of their time, not those who came before them or after them, IMO.

Why did you put Sheff on that list? He's not even close to deserving it

Barry was certainly better at growing his head size than most all of his peers.

All the players listed...suck.

I think everyone understands the question. But none of these guys have pre-WWII cards of them. Had you put this in the correct forum, for Post 1980 cards, then it would be in the correct spot. But no big deal and good luck with the vote....

http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34




.

Im assuming youre joking here. How can anyone not love Ripken or Jeter?

I only follow these current players....Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols and Derek Jeter....but they have no special meaning to me....just like to see their stats go up. I use to like watching Ken Griffey Jr play as well and Nolan Ryan when I was a kid. Miguel Cabrera is also a fun player to watch.

In the end I simply watch baseball for baseball not any specific players.

Post # 11

Ruth and Aaron FTW baby!!! :D

I would agree that Barry was one of the biggest A-holes of his era.

thanks Leon im interested to see peoples thoughts on these specific players, and see how they understand and interpert the question.

lmao yes but thats not the question

I never miss an opportunity to rip Barry a new one. :p

Yes, in a way I'm joking...but seriously Ripken and Jeter couldn't collectively have carried Cobb's Jock strap.

Agreed, but we are comparing them to the players , they played with, not of any before 1980

How can anyone seriously say Bonds was not one of the best of his time?

I didn't say that, he was.

come on.... seriously? Ripken and Jeter are what baseball should be about and have carried the torch from icons past.....

Because of performance enhancing drugs?

Glad you asked.

He was a druggie.
Hope this helps.

Next ...

Obviously I can't ignore his steroid use. I only look at his pre 1999 numbers as legitimate. The story goes after 1998 when he saw all the attention that McGwire and Sosa got, he told other players that he was going to try it. I don't know exactly the words used but that's the basic message he said from what I heard and from 1999 on he was juiced up.....as much or more than anyone else!

Even so, when only comparing him to others of his time, his pre 1999 numbers are still fantastic in their own right, just not top 5 player immortal all time numbers!

Yeah before drugs he was just a three time MVP winner, perennial all star and Gold Glove winner, and probably the best all around player in the game. Next?

Completely different era. While Cobb is top 5 ever, I don't think he would've been as successful in today's game.

Jeter and Ripken were/are some of the best.

okok, I think we have a decent sample size for the main point.

Take a look at some of these life time numbers, (some are of players we didnt vote on some are some that we did) I find the vote very interesting.

– 509 HR, .292 BA, 253 SB, .393 OBP

– 431 HR, .276 BA, .340 OBP

– 255 HR, 313 BA, 348 SB, .382 OBP

– 234 HR, .306 BA, 504 SB, .369 OBP

– 363 HR, .296 BA, .409 OBP

I think when you pick out great players and only compare them to their era, then the answer is pretty obvious that they were among the best. Since you didn't say top ten or any number, then the answer is subjective. I don't think Jeter was one of the top ten of his era, but I would still call him one of the best of the era. Without more qualifiers, the results are flawed.

Sheffield would be low end for this group, but I still think he was a great player at times. Amazing bat speed, coaching 3B with him up should have got someone hazard pay. Larry Bowa used to stand about 20 feet further back with him up

Which makes it all the more puzzling why he felt like he needed to cheat

IMO Bonds and Clemens are sure fire HOF easy call, they have nothing to do with my question really, more of a hook and a guide for the real question.

Now IMO the best stats of these 5 that I posted are Sheffields, (no need to post bonds numbers they are sick) IMO its not even close. And hes got the lowest BY FAR votes, even though most people voted for bonds and Clemens who are “more” steroid type guys.

Jeter and Molitor have almost exactly the same stats – scary, right Yankee fans.

Just funny how people perceive Sheffield, the guy was awesome. And funny how people sometimes put other players higher up that what they are.



1 - Gary Sheffield – 509 HR, .292 BA, 253 SB, .393 OBP

2 – Ripkin – 431 HR, .276 BA, .340 OBP

3 – Jeter – 255 HR, 313 BA, 348 SB, .382 OBP

4 – molitor – 234 HR, .306 BA, 504 SB, .369 OBP

5 – Berkman – 363 HR, .296 BA, .409 OBP

I'm starting to think that maybe none of them is as good as Miguel Cabrera. Does anyone else but me think he may win back-to-back Triple Crowns?

He was jealous of McGwire and Sosa, felt that they were getting all the attention while he was clearly the superior player.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Well that's certainly a good reason.

Can't compare Ripken and Jeter to an outfielder. And Sheffield's stats were longevity stats, he was not consistently among the best players in the game, no MVPs etc. And he bounced around from one team to the next.

Are you current with baseball or too stuck in pre-war?

So you are already regarded as the best all round player in baseball with multiple MVPs, and you get so jealous of two one-dimensional players that you make a decision that will forever put a stench on your career. That's bright.

OK lets say:

robin yount: 251 HR, 285 BA, 271 SB, 342 OBP - He won an MVP as a SS and then another in the OF.

I wasnt trying to compare him to an OF, but rather a certin type of hitter, other SS nomar, miguel tejada (MVP), or Arod(MVP), Hanily, Toulo I could name many others.

The main point was how people look at Sheffield and place him as not one of the best of his time and how people place Jeter as one of the best of his time. but hes got a life time 292 average with over 500 hr and over 250 sb and almost 400 OBP.

Compiled? he hit 290-300 every year . He hit at least 20 HR every year but 1 that he got at least 400 AB, which was his 2ed to last year when he hit 19.

As far as the MVP's yes Sheff never won an MVP, Ripkin won 2 MVPs, yount won 2 (1 as a ss), tejada won 1, arod 1 as a ss (2 more at 3b)
and just like sheff Jeter won 0 as well.

Hi Barry,

Cabrera pulling off that nearly unthinkable feat is certainly within the realm of possibilty and I think he may actually accomplish it.

His current Triple Crown stats:

.391 BA (1st - by a mile)
14 HR (2nd - and only one off the leader)
55 RBI (1st - with a comfortable lead)

Hope all is well.

Best Regards,

Eric

Miguel Cabrera is a beast, always has been. I hoped the mets would of gotten him, but no traded to DET, wtf. lol Omar loved this guy. Ayway, at only 30 years old hes got a shot at making a run at some of the best hitters of all time if he keeps it up.

Hi Eric- his numbers are actually better this year than last. Amazing!

I think barring injury he's even odds to do it.

I think theres a shot. The 2 main factors being how big of a lead can he get with this current hot streak and who will challenge him in HRs later in the season. Cabrera does sacrifice power for contact, especially with 2 strikes resulting in lots of solid hitting and few les HRs which is great. He is an amazing hitter, the best I have seen in Detroit in my 29 years of memory. He adjusts to pitchers, knows how to make contact, drives the ball the other day, hits off-speed and hits for clutch. He hits over .500 BA w/ runners in scoring position this year and has been for awhile now.

Cabrera typically has sub-standard at-bats earlier in the year and owns the month of September in the past few years. He has a nice RBI lead and its grown with Jackson outta the line-up. I am glad he is a Tiger and definitely think he can repeat as triple crown...and repeat MVP!

I would say stuck in prewar.....if we're talking Vietnam.

This may sound very strange to most here but I like baseball cards a lot more than I like baseball. Lost interest in the game when I discovered "hippie" life. Never lost interest in the cards though.

Last baseball game I went to was Denny Mclain winning 31 in 1968.
Last Hockey game was at Olympia waaaay before even goalies wore masks and helmets were unheard of. 1964.
Last football game was the lions when they played at Briggs Stadium 1959.
Last Basketball game was the Pistons when they played at Cobo Hall (Can't remember the year).
Last super concert... Hendrix at Flint IMA (Front row center).

He can do the .avg and RBI, I'm hesitant on HRs though. Take away his 3 HR game against the Rangers and he ranks 11th.

We could make a pool on will he, won't he.

I too am into my cards more than the game. I'll bet Hendrix was amazing.

Far and away the greatest player I've ever seen play in person was Barry Bonds. A 7-time MVP, Bonds was in the zone at the plate for years. He was the most feared hitter of our time, and got pitched around more than anyone in history.

I say no, Mauer will top him in BA. Winning three in a row is tough, and a hot streak like that for two straight years in astronomical.

Will abmit I am a little biased to Mauer, and I view Mauer as a better hitter (different type of hitter, don't need to blast me about RBI's and HR's).

One of my dreams in my lifetime was to be around for someone to win the Triple Crown, and that happened.

Agree^

My thoughts exactly, as I view him as THE greatest ever. I really regret not seeing him play, had tried to convince my dad for years...

Can't name 5 players today. Don't care. I can't stand current MLB but will watch it every now and then if my wife is watching it. I love collecting Pre-War cards and love the hobby though. There are a few of us but probably less than 1/2 of 1 percent. And for me it wasn't hippie stuff that got me less interested it was the strike and the high costs of going to a game. Add that to the fact that a lot of the MLB players are D-bags and there you have it. I still love to play softball and love the game in general. Bring on the minor leagues, now those games I love going to ....

9 votes against Jeter?

All Boston fans :D

Makes me wonder how much the votes are skewed upon regional preferences.

With Pujols overlapping his career I don't know how Bonds can ever be considered the Best of our time:
First full 12 years of Bonds compared to the last 12 years of Pujols:

Pujols has a lot more PA's than Bonds, and AB's. Think it would be close to even if Bonds had as many AB's

The poll is " ONE of the the best " , not THE best.

HAHA, Based off Averages then you are right Bonds would have 1092 SO instead of 958 where as Pujols only had 780.

I can't imagine batting avg, OBP, or SLG would have changed much since they are already averages which put them on equal footing.

Then you look at the 162 game average (also included in the screen shot I provided) Pujols still dominates in Hits and Home Runs.

If I was quoting the original poll that would be correct. As seen in my quote above the claim was made that Bonds was "The greatest ever".

Point well taken. But Bonds still must be considered "one of" the best of his time.

I admit to being a bit biased. I witnessed Bonds have incredible games year after year. The two games I saw Pujols he posted O-Fers.

We'll have to see how Pujols holds up over the rest of his career.

im not a boston fan.

I think ruth is the best player ever, Joe d and the mick are top 7 players ever, arod is one of the best hitters I have ever seen and Donnie Baseball is top 3 1st base men fielders ever.

Jeter just isnt one of the best players of his time IMO

lets see how it ends up,

IMO ruth is the best ever, Bonds is the best I have ever seen.

I voted against all but Clemens.

Bonds was great, but I don't think "best of his time" I've never considered MVP to be any sort of reliable indicator, too many times it's given to a very good player on a very good team. Usually teams that would have been good without them. (Or in Arods case, probably better despite the flashy stats)
Of the three pre steroid MVPs for bonds one was a mediocre season among a sea of mediocre seasons. The other one in Pittsburg benefitted from the team being good. The only one of the three that was really great was the last pre steroid one in 93.

Sheffield? I just don't see it. back off a bit on the power late in his career, he's a 450HR guy with a decent average. Maybe not implicated in steroids, I haven't really kept track. But the attacking the bullpen help over a towel is in the roid rage category. There's plenty of guys with similar power and a bit less average, so no Not best of his time, and the good average combined with playing a bit in NY is I think the only thing that gets him into the HOF.
http://voices.yahoo.com/you-re-out-h...n-8328547.html

Heck, I'd take some of those guys over Sheffield every time.

I had a tough time with the other three.
Jeter is I think borderline. If you count his entire career, maybe . But there have been stretches where he wasn't even the best shortstop. Among the best for sure, and he has outlasted Nomar, Tejada, and made Arod move. That's got to count for something. I'm a Boston guy, so maybe I'm biased because of the NY hype "best yankee ever"? Really!? Top 10, but not best.

Clemens I voted for. Maybe shouldn't have. He was amazing to watch, and a very intense competitor. Especially from 86-96 The last four years in Boston he -I think unfairly-took a lot of the heat for a pretty bad team. Yeah, they won the division in 95 but with only 86 wins. He did just fine for Toronto after leaving. A few points off for "it's not about the money" then going with the money. I really liked what he was trying towards the end of his career, I think at some point in the future we'll see more aging players being brought in part-time for a contending team that needs either a good clubhouse presence or just a guy who can win a few down the stretch because he might have 10 game sor so in him but not a full season. (And I know hardly anyone else liked the idea)

As much as I like Ripken I just couldn't count him as Best. And that's always tougher for someone who stayed around so long. Look at the list of guys you'd have to compare him to. Ozzie Smith, Jeter, Arod, Nomar, Tejada, Jay Bell, and probably 10 others. That he led the league in assists at short so many times and doing it by being in the right spot rather than pure quickness is amazing. But it also would depend on having the right sorts of pitcher, If the outfield gets more chances, the infielders might not seem all that good statistically.

Picking a best of any player over a career stretch is challenging because of overlap, changing outlook by management, and loads of other stuff. I prefer to look at stretches of 5-10 years. I think all the players listed were probably the best at their position over some random 5 year stretch. And like it or not if I'm thinking of it as who would I rather have on a team if I owned it Then the value of positive PR enters the equation. Bonds and Shefield No, Clemens, Jeter Maybe. Ripken yes. ( Although I'd make exceptions, I really wanted to see Kingman for a full season in Fenway. We wouldn't even be discussing the steroid guys single season numbers.)

Steve B

Barry's first year and his last 3 years brought his career averages down a bit. We'll have to wait on AP to see how his numbers towards the end of his career affect his averages. I'm curious, does anyone believe Albert is juicing? Drafted in the 13th round ( from my former school Maple Woods Community College ), and debued about 18 months later in the majors. Seriously, nobody saw this career coming. Is he juicing?

Steve,
I think you were very generous not mentioning steroids while opining about Clemens when you did so about Bonds. Maybe he was amazing but I am glad he ended up one win behind Greg Maddux. That's karma for you.

Having seen both Bonds and Pujols (obviously more because I am in STL) and comparing the stats I would say Pujols is clearly better. To say we will have to see how it ends isn't a fair comparison since it is common knowledge that Bonds ended with Steroids. What we do know for sure is that Pujols compared to the pre drugged version of Bonds, Pujols was by far better.

Pujols has been off since being in LA, but only off for him. Compared to Bonds, last years stats for Pujols (his worst year, his 12th in the Majors) was better than the first 4 of Bonds and isn't far from his 6th and 10th years.

All that being said (and I agree with you), as a Cardinal fan I think the smartest thing they ever did was let him walk (hobble) away.

Don't know how it's a laughing matter. Yes, Pujols probably had one of the, if not the greatest first 10 years in Major League history, I'll admit that. But having 1,000 more AB's can change the overall average a decent amount, that's 1 1/2-2yrs worth...I just can't place him as high as other guys because of his defensive value.

I think there would have been some substantial innuendo about by this point. So for now I'll say No. (I do have to say, over 500 doubles at this point is incredible for this day and age).
No one thought when Jeter was first coming into the league that he would ever have this sort of a career either. Haven't heard a word about his juicing either.

In this skeptical day and age, maybe sometimes someone is just having a great career?

+1, that's what matters

I only showed their first 12 years (since Pujols has only played 12 thus far) so the fact that Bond's last three were low doesn't matter.

Also to say that no one saw the career coming is wrong, being in the Stadium the day he debut I know that people were expecting things from him because my dad even told me to watch this guy because he was going to be good as he walked up to the plate. He was drafted late because there was uncertainty about his age, not because he wasn't good.

To say that he may not go anywhere from now on doesn't negate the first 10 years of his career. He is the only player in major league history to bat at least .300 with 30 or more home runs and 100 or more runs batted in in his first 10 seasons.

And who knows how old is he too lol

You are making this a laughing matter. Pujols was 47th for career Fielding Pct. for his postion Bonds is 50th. You are trying to negate a career because the number of at bats isn't the exact same? A thousand ABs more and you believe that would have turned Bonds into a .325 hitter in his first 12 years instead of the .288? HAHA. Ok lets give him 2 more years that puts Bonds AB at 6976 compared to the 6919 of Pujols, is that a closer number for you and you are prepared to look at the stats?

Bonds now has a batting average of....wait for it... .288. What? it didn't change, you said with 1000 more at bats it would be better. Hey his OBP did jump a point from .408 to .409. I was generous on strikeouts though he ended up with 1112.

He's not 33, he's not 33, you can show me indisputable genetic evidence and I still won't believe it.

Here he is at "19":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.stlouismemorabilia.com/Al...gh%20Close.JPG

This one 18!

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1018...es_200x300.jpg

And the last one 19!

I believe Pujols was going to be a first or second round (or early around that number) pick by the Rays that year. The scout who got Pujols pretty much made the Cards draft him, RAVED about him in Juco and predicted he'd be a superstar, other scouts viewed him as a guy with moderate power, fat, and a bad fielding first baseman.

Ripken and Jeter are class acts and deserve all the praise they receive......don't have much good to say about the other 3 doucebags you have listed. Barry Bonds was one the first guys to also get heavily into steroids around the mid 90's. I think he's a complete joke with the majority of his stats being inflated by the juice. He deserves NEVER to be voted into the hall of fame.

Darn, I'd planned on mentioning it. I got sidetracked on the whole "part time player" thing.

I don't view Clemens use the way I do Bonds. while the two great years in Toronto might be steroids, the years I see as steroid years for him are the ones in NY, and he really wasn't the same sort of pitcher. More of an aging player using to hold on to a career. The part time thing he worked while with Houston shows he really wasn't ready mentally to retire, but also really couldn't perform over a full season anymore.
Eckersley converted to being a reliever, and has said that worked very well for him. Going from a washed up starter because he'd lose both velocity and motion after a few innings to a reliever who could just fire it for an inning or maybe two was a revelation. But it's also something a lot of starters egos can't handle until it's too late.

Bonds use I see as a far sadder situation. I think he'd have set the career record a couple years after he did without using. He really needed the admiration, and couldn't pass it up short term to get the big reward in the longer term. He probably would have played even a couple years past that as well, Maybe a farewell year with Pittsburg? But the steroids and his attitude made him essentially unsignable once the record had been set.

I do have a bit of a Boston bias. I might be among the few Boston fans to openly admit it.

Steve b

Not totally fair since Bonds best seasons was after his first 12 and Pujols seems to be done as a top-tier ball player. The bigger problem is comparing the old stars to todays stars, its not fair. Humans have grown and evolved over the last 100 years. Take the top 10 players of 2013 put them in a time machine to play the top 10 players of 1913 and the old timers get clobbered. Just like if you did the same with football or basketball players.

Not totally fair since Bonds best seasons was after his first 12

Strange isn't it?

Who cares about fielding percentage, first base is where they put the guys who aren't athletic enough to play elsewhere. And seriously, you just only talk about the big 3 offensive stats. 1B is so much easier to have a higher fielding percentage, because you have 3x and more chances, and you rarely have to move or scoop a ball most of the time. Currently, Pujols has 3x as many chances in half the career length.

Bonds, had it ALL. He ran wait for it...(do you want me to even bother showing you SB comparisons?), he could field with grace before he bulked up as well as throw. Pujols, slow, not a great arm, ever.

Exactly my first thought