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

I had always considered Al Kaline to be a somewhat better player than Roberto Clemente, and objectively, the stats would seem to indicate that was true: Kaline--134 OPS+; .856 OPS; 15-time All-Star; 10 gold gloves; % runs created above league average of 154%. Clemente: 130 OPS+; .834 OPS; 12-time All-Star; 12 gold gloves; % runs created above league average of 142%.

Yet Karl Ravech's (clearly incorrect) statement on air recently that "Clemente built the Pirates' franchise" (ever hear of Honus Wagner, Karl, unanimously rated as the greatest shortstop of all time, linked with Cobb as the two best players of the first 20 years of the 1900-1920 era, and rated by Bill James as the second best player of all time) got me thinking. I perused my latest Heritage Auction catalog and found a great abundance of Topps Clemente cards in NrMT-Mt or better prominently featured. Obviously, the conclusion to be drawn therefrom is that he sells, and very, very well.

Has Clemente arrived within the inner circle of the elite, joining Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Gehrig, etc., or is he on his way? Certainly his untimely heroic death and legendary humanitarianism boosts his stock considerably. Has he come that far, though? All thoughts appreciated.

Regards to all,

Larry

I've always thought of Kaline and Clemente as roughly comparable with perhaps an edge to Clemente. But interestingly, on baseball reference, Kaline is not in the top ten for Clemente's similarity scores.

Not as far as the examples mentioned in the hobby. But certainly worked his way to Aaron hobby status.

I think taking away all the prewar examples you tossed out and focusing on postwar he is very likely top-5 and is relevant enough to be well known to the next generation of collectors.

Also, not to absolutely blow his cards out of the water in pricing. We have seen what has happened to Jackie's cards following the release of "42" which brought the story back in the limelight.

The same studio bought the rights to do a Clemente movie and hired director Ezra Edelman in February to direct it. It's a total go and should be coming out late next year or 2020. I would anticipate it would very much renew the interest to the casual person in the same way 42 did.

Roberto is not done.

I have no idea who Karl Ravech is, but I find that many present day sportswriters don't think baseball existed before Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris. Clemente might be the oldest Pirate player he knows of, that and Mazeroski is too hard to spell or pronounce. Research is hard for some people.

Post war he is the second easiest sale after Mantle IMHO. He sells faster than Mays and Aaron for me.

On Karl Ravech and somewhat related:

While I totally agree with my statement on Clemente, I just remembered why this struck a chord.

Ravech is the idiot that on Jackie Robinson Day 2009 ended his piece on Jackie Robinson by saying, quote, "tragically lost his life in a plane crash delivering humanitarian supplies to Nicaragua". It was epic in it's stupidity.

So while Ravech is a twit, Clemente is top-5 postwar and maybe top-3.

Very much look forward to seeing that one. I would also recommend the movie, "Chasing 3,000" (as I believe it was titled, about two teenagers originally from Pittsburgh who had to move to California with their mom and who just had to make their way back to Pittsburgh completely on their own in time to see Roberto get his 3,000th hit.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Larry

Gary, Karl Ravech is in the ESPN broadcast booth, usually with Tim Kerkjian and Eduardo Perez. And Justin, I agree that he is absolutely a "twit." He likes to spout out regarding matters of baseball history, but is very ill-prepared to do so.

Highest regards,

Larry

OK admittedly as a Hispanic Pirate fan I am terribly biased. Nonetheless, when I think Pittsburgh Pirates Honus doesn't jump out at me as the face of the franchise. That would be Roberto Clemente. He transcends the game in a manner similiar to Jackie Robinson. His essence cannot be reduced to numbers. His pride, passion, compassion and elegance are impossible to define with statistics. The manner in which he died elevates him as well. It is frequently said that Jackie Robinson is baseball's social conscience and Roberto Clemente is its patron saint. No offense to Kaline, in my opinion Roberto rates in that inner circle you mentioned. I dont collect cards or memorabilia based on statistics. I collect Clemente and the 1971 Pirates because they evoke strong feelings in me. They stir my emotion and passion for baseball. I certainly hope Baseball eventually retires #21.

Nobody, but nobody ever or now had / has the arm that RC had. Just a lazer shot for runners foolish enough to try stretching a double into a triple. Had he played another 4 years, I think he would now be the all time hits leader.

Nice! Good to hear about the movie, thanks.

And a card:

https://i.imgur.com/TCTaKYt.jpg

He had 3000 hits, was 37, and was coming off a 118 hit season. I don't think he was a threat to the all-time hit record.

Are you talking as a ball player or as a baseball card? The ball player question should not have changed in the last 45+ years. As far as cards, I think he is continuing to slowly rise. Those are two separate questions.

Agreed. Still a long ways to go to catch Pete. At 150 hits/year, he would have needed more than 8 more seasons.

All due respect to Al Kaline but I don't know if I can point to one thing anyone would remember Kaline for. Clemente's death will keep his name on people's minds forever.

These things can be debated for generations, and no doubt many bars and pubs across the country have held the same debates that we do on this forum. It's fun and it's what we do as sports fans.

Now, I'm as big of a Clemente fan as any, and while I had not seen either Kaline or Clemente play in person (too young), it should be known that Kaline also was known for a rocket arm. Just read the cartoon on the back of his 54 Topps rookie card. :)

Also, if you have a minute, check out this passage from Bill Dow's blog article. Here's the excerpt on Kaline's arm:

From my past experience over the last 10 years when a collector goes to sell his post war collection there are 3 guys he least wants to part with. This is how I gauge long term value.

1. Mantle
2. Jackie
3. Clemente

It’s a shame but people don’t have as hard of time letting go
Of Mays, Aaron, and Koufax.

Just my personal experience.

300 hits per year for 4 years?

I only saw a little of Clemente. The best outfield arm I ever saw was Dave Parker. Wow.

I agree 100% though Jackie is now also in the discussion. Especially since 42 came out and mlb retired his number. Mays Aaron and koufax seem to be the next level guys as far as demand goes.

Parker
 

I was just a few months old when Clemente died so I have to second peters statement that the best arm I personally saw was Dave Parker.

Not having read the whole thread yet I'm sure someone else has probably already pointed out that it is doubtful that he would have averaged 300 hits a year for his age 39, 40, 41 and 42 year old seasons. Just saying.

I knew it had to have been said.

+1

...and his power numbers were somewhat suppressed by playing half his games...for many years in the cavernous Forbes field. I say somewhat suppressed because Clemente wasn't a pull-power hitter, but a slash, line-drive type.

I was so thankful to watch his diamond art-work in the '71 Series!

Not every truly great player has gaudy stats, though 3,000 hits is pretty damn gaudy!

The circumstances of his death left us wanting more...

Great player for sure and certainly in the same category as some of the greats of the game but was not really superior as a ballplayer than Al Kaline, George Brett, Wade Boggs, Yaz, etc., etc. which are all IMO on the second tier of "All-Time Great" status. That being said Jackie Robinson is also not on tier one as a ballplayer.

Jackie and Roberto Clemente both transcend the sport they played in their own ways. For Jackie Robinson the reason is obvious, Clemente was perhaps the first truly great Latin American superstar at the Major League level and his star has continually risen over the past few decades. Back in the day when I first began collecting Clemente's cards were priced more along the lines of Kaline, Duke Snider, Eddie Mathews, Ernie Banks, and that group of players... below the level of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial and obviously Mickey Mantle. There has certainly been a shift in the "power rankings" of players over the years.

On the flip-side of players like Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente & the Yankee Stars (Mantle, Jeter, DiMaggio, Maris, etc) are some great players that have great statistics and barely sell for more than the most common of Hall Of Famers. All these players mentioned in this paragraph tend to sell as collectibles for more than their statistical peers. It is all about demand.

In 22 seasons Kaline had 170 assists and had a TZR of 155. In 18 seasons Clemente had 266 assists and had a TZR of 204. No doubt that Kaline was one of the greatest defensive RF, but Clemente was in a class by himself.

I saw the majority of Clemente's career but in the pre-cable days you only saw a player on TV a few times a season. I remember that everyone considered him an all-star caliber player but he was never mentioned among the top ten of his era.

I am a huge fan of his and as a 30 year member of SABR I'm tickled people think so highly of him now. As for the face of the franchise. There is Wagner and everyone else.

Of course in this time of ESPN and Fox labeling some hit or defensive play each night as one of the best of all-time I once again am glad that people think of him.

Even the NFL Network seldom recognizes anything pre-Super Bowl??????

Totally Biased, but....
 

I am a life long Clemente collector. I was never a huge sports fan nor did I get to see him play (that I can recall - I was 6 when he died). I became interested because even when I started collecting, his cards were worth more than common players, some of the "headlines of his life" were amazing, his cards were in a multitude of cool regional and test issues.

Clemente cards have definitely risen in popularity (and price). I believe much more rapidly than some of his statistical contemporaries. As has been touched on - In addition to him being a great player (Gold gloves, multiple time all star All Star, Batting leader, MVP, 2 world series, 3000 hits), the story of him working his ass off for the love of the game and making it to a professional level - is the fulfillment of what many a child has dreamed of, His breaking through early on of a barrier first broken a few years earlier by Jackie, and his need to deal with all the associated bs and his ability to handle and rise above it and the crazy circumstances surrounding his death while committing a huge act of compassion and selflessness I suspect will continue to push Clemente up the collected charts for a while to come.

I've heard talk of a movie for years - glad to hear it may be truly under way!

Clemente beyond being a great player - was a great role model - something SORELY lacking with many (not all)great athletes since. Just a really unique combination of great athlete and great human being.

I beg to differ on Jackie. He had a 10 year career that only started when he was 28. In 10 years he put up a 61 WAR. Even with the late start he put up the 15th greatest 5 Year WAR in history 42.2. For traditionalists he won ROY and MVP a Batting Title had a career OBP over .400 and put up an .883 OPS career at Second Base. His MLB career basically started at the end of his prime. I think he should be recognized as tier one. For my money he's the second greatest 2b of all time. That's pretty first tier to me.

Hmmm, so you're the guy at the bar who always pulls his phone out to have stats to back up his argument. ;) :)

Seriously, though, that's some interesting information. I just spent about 15 minutes learning about total zone runs. Good stuff and point well taken.

How does Parker rate?

I saw Clemente play in person when I was 9. Wow I am getting old. I do remember being awed by his arm and generally everything else about him. I was also sitting with my father in the Kingdome right field bleachers during the 1979 All Star Game. I recall asking my Dad what he thought of Parker's two throws. He said, "Amazing, but Clemente's arm was better." My opinion is colored by a 9 year olds infatuation and a 55 year-old's memory. My father on the other hand witnessed Clemente's talents many times between 1955 and 1972 at both Forbes and Three Rivers. I have always considered my father to be a bright guy despite his love of Mickey Mantle so I will accept his assessment. Another barometer of Clemente's greatness is the fact that this discussion is occurring in the pre-war section of this site and no one has complained...yet.

Unfortunately, I never saw him play, but looking at his lifetime splits, his slugging percentage was actually higher at home than on the road - .488 vs .463. He did hit more home runs on the road though - 138 vs 102.

Looking at his stats from the hindsight of the sabremetric era, he really walked very little which is probably why Bill James ranked him so low in his 2002 book (70th or something all time).

Yeah hard to imagine him getting north of 3500. I never got a chance to watch him play (I'm only 32) but I think his humanitarian efforts have hoisted into the conversation of greatest players ever. It's hard for me to imagine that, based on stats, he is much above a mediocre HOF player (even though that would still make him one of the top 100 players of all time). I think even a lot of relatively recent inductees are better then him, e.g. Griffey.

And IMO Mays, Aaron, or Koufax are above the other three. Sadly, it may take their deaths to bring their prices up to the others.

It's all arbitrary but I would probably rank him somewhere between 30 and 40 -- for me, the high batting average, the fielding, and what I sense were some powerful intangibles put him well above the average HOFer, though still not in the class of Mays Aaron and Mantle and even a bit below Frank Robinson.

Parker had a great arm but his routes to balls in the air were often baffling. He was not a good fielder but his arm was terrific which helped make up for some of his other deficiencies.

The two best arms I can recall were Dwight Evans and Ellis Valentine.

Clemente / Kaline
 

Speaking of stats: Clemente was with two World Series winners (1960 / 1971) Kaline one (1968)

Clemente's lifetime batting average was .317 Kaline finished with .297.

Also Kaline won just one batting title to Clemente's four.

There is no doubt Clemente meant more to the Pirates then Kaline meant to the Tigers.

As the late Mr. Dangerfield said, "tough crowd, tough crowd." For all you wizards of the keyboard - like the above - who piped in, like jackals waiting to pounce on the latest innocuous mistake, I offer a mea culpa. I neglected to note his age, thinking he was younger than 37 when he passed. So, 300 hits for four years at that age would be inconceivable even for the great RC. However, couldn't help noting there - so far - are no rebukes to my comment re: his cannon-like arm. Hello? Anybody? Tough to dispute that one, eh? :rolleyes:

Griffey, Vlad and Bo were none too shabby.

Roberto's Arm
 

A picture (video) is worth a thousand words. There's a video of a throw he made earlier in his career that was even better, but I could not find it. I was a nine year old base ball fanatic in 1971, and was blown away by what he did in that World Series

https://youtu.be/-WnfqgOsR6A

I also agree with the previous poster who mentioned Dwight Evan's arm. The best I ever seen in person

Had he played another 4 years, I think he would now be the all time hits leader.

He would have to average 315 hits a year......:confused:

From age 28 to 37, Roberto Clemente put up 69 WAR, 8 more than Jackie.

My point was that he ONLY had those 10 years to accumulate stats. When a career starts at 28 you have clearly missed a number of prime years. Plus there's the fact that Jackie was a second baseman not an outfielder. Also none of what I said was a knock on Roberto, but I don't think anyone would argue that he was one of the top 2 outfielders of all-time while one could certainly make that argument for Jackie at 2b.

It is an interesting argument. It all really depends on how you define inner circle. Clemente would have a very good augment for the all time national league all star team, starting along side Mays and Aaron, especially if you move Musial to first and depending on your opinion and stand on Barry Bonds. Does that make him inner circle? OTOH, he probably would not be in the top 10 outfielder of all time if viewed objectively, though in the neighborhood. So far as Kaline goes, he was more spectacular though perhaps not quite as consistent. He started slowly and Kaline started fast which might account for the difference. He has a much larger persona than many players who are arguably statically better than he.

I thought the OPs original thoughts were geared toward the collecting universe not stats.

Stats arguments and comparisons are rarely concrete or objective. It's mostly bar talk.

My comments were geared toward collector demand and collectability. Based on those parameters I don't think the others mentioned surpass Clemente. Parker is relegated to the dollar box and while here in Detroit, I can lay out a table of Kalines and sell them all, eBay sales do not match that demand. Clemente out paces Kaline sales by a country mile.

This that was said earlier is my experience:

Originally Posted by Johnny630 View Post
From my past experience over the last 10 years when a collector goes to sell his post war collection there are 3 guys he least wants to part with. This is how I gauge long term value.

1. Mantle
2. Jackie
3. Clemente

It’s a shame but people don’t have as hard of time letting go
Of Mays, Aaron, and Koufax.

I was just pointing out that Clemente was better than Jackie over those same years. WAR severely penalizes Clemente as a RF and in my opinion gives an undeserved bonus to 2B. There is no doubt that Jackie was a great player. He should have won 2 or 3 MVP awards, but it is a real stretch to put him in the top 2 or 3 at 2B. Claiming he missed "prime" years is something we don't know. Clemente's prime was age 29 to 36. I would have Clemente top 3 RF with Ruth and Aaron and Ruth played almost as many games in LF as RF.

+11
Yup I thought we were talking about collecting too.

Still a lot of cool stats that are blowing my mind.

A poor man’s Andruw Jones. That’s all, a poor man’s Andruw Jones.

I'm pretty sure we know Jackie missed prime years.

Name all the 2b better than Jackie.

I'd list him either 3rd or 4th. I would put Morgan and Collins 1-2 in some order, then Hornsby and Jackie in some order 3-4. That's pretty lofty company for a guy that got started so late.

Rogers Hornsby & Joe Morgan definitely

and maybe...

Eddie Collins, Charlie Gehringer, Roberto Alomar & Ryne Sandberg

I'm Rajah, Jackie, Morgan, Collins, but either way it's hardly a "real stretch" to put him in the top 2 or 3.

again obviously it's a matter than can be debated, but saying it's a stretch to put him in the top two or 3 means, to me, that you think he's WAY outside that rarified air. If we're debating where he falls in the top 5 it's hardly a stretch to say he's 2 or 3.

Even if we use Jackie's top 5 seasons of WAR, 42.2, these 4 players had more WAR in their 5 best seasons.

1. Rogers Hornsby 53.6 (49.2 best 5 consecutive seasons, 98.1 WAR over 10 consecutive seasons)
2. Joe Morgan 47.8 (5 consecutive seasons)
3. Eddie Collins 47.7 (career WAR 124)
4. Nap Lajoie 44.8 (career WAR 107.4)

If you use OPS+
1. Rogers Hornsby 175
2. Nap Lajoie 150
3. Eddie Collins 141
4. Joe Morgan 132
4. Jackie Robinson 132

Hornsby was easily the best hitter, but he was not a great defensive player, nor did he run the bases like the others. Also, from all accounts, Hornsby was not a tremendous leader or team player. Morgan, Collins, and Robinson all had that "it" factor. They were winners.

If you see the guy as a top 5 all time 2B then why would you suggest he wouldn't have had a significantly better career if he started it before 28?

The reality is that he likely missed two to three years of playing time as he was in the military for several years during WW2 until he was unjustly court martialed and discharged at the end of 1944.

Clemente’s movie will undoubtedly be titled “21”.

As a sequel so to speak of “42”, will it be half as good or half as long?

I would take Frank Robinson and possibly Ott over Clemente due to much more power.

A great big thanks for everyone taking the time to post their opinions. I am old enough to have seen and did see plenty of Mantle still in his prime in the very early '60's, along with Mays, Aaron, Koufax, Clemente and living in the Detroit area, a great deal of Kaline, who was a legend here, status wise at that time. With regard to one post above, Kaline is pretty well-remembered for his part in the '68 World Series. Tigers' manager Mayo Smith, knowing he needed a bit more to take on the very tough '68 Cardinals, moved Mickey Stanley from center field to shortstop (thereby relegating the excellent fielding, but no-hit Ray Oyler--.171 BA--to the bench) in order to get the aging Kaline's bat in the lineup (Northrup and Horton were in right and left, and both had excellent years) for his first and only World Series after he had been injured for the better part of the season. And Al did us proud, quite proud, hitting .379, and leading the Tigers in a World Series where the Bengals came back to win from a 3 games to one deficit.

I personally had both Kaline and Clemente in the middle tier of HOF'ers performance-wise, as objectively as I could ascertain them to be. But I have to admit that the preceding posts confirm my much more recent observations that Clemente has indeed become a legendary icon in the sport, and that metamorphisis isn't done yet!

The movie should be tremendous, and I also hope they title it, "21."

Thanks guys,

Larry

He is 17th in WAR, he is 13th in JAWS, 5th in WAR7 and 5th (or tied for 4th) in OPS+. It is a stretch to project him as higher than 5th if he had a full career when his prime was lower than the other 4. I have him above every player with a lower peak and every player who was a worse hitter, regardless of any other factors. I don't see how you can put him in the top 2 or 3 with great players like Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins and Morgan at the position. All 5 are in the rarified air of all time greats in my opinion. As a person, Jackie stands above all of them.

At the risk of sounding blasphemous I tend to discount pre-war players when having such debates. They didn't play night games, less travel, faced less specialized pitching, they were smaller, largely less athletic, and did not have to compete against others who were barred simply because of the color of their skin.

Today's baseball players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I think baseball today is better than it ever has been. Don't get me wrong, I love Clemente, and Hank Aaron. Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

The Orioles took Robinson in 1971 and didn't do them enough good head to head against Clemente in 1971!

Great post, Larry. And Go Tigers!

Thanks for the tip. I am buying Andruw anywhere and everywhere

I disagree rather strongly but will not get too into that but I have absolutely no faith in the players of today being able to put up with anything the pre-war players had to deal with as far as playing conditions, travel by bus, pay, spit-balls, scuffed baseballs, getting cut when they struck out as much as they do today, etc, etc (in other words I believe the best of the past would excel more in today’s game than today’s guys would having to go back in time and play the old style)

Bigger and stronger are largely overrated in my opinion, otherwise we wouldn’t see players like Jose Altuve, Jean Segura and Dee Gordon being as good as they are.

I always have a problem when people talk about the physical differences between players of now and then. Evolution doesn't take place in 100 years. So the players of yesteryear would have all the same training and nutrition advantages as today's players, why on earth would they be worse? Now baseball wasn't a global game back then so the player pool is massively expanded, but I think that affects the elite far less than it does the average. Of course there are almost 3x as many jobs on MLB rosters than there was prewar which does eat up a portion of the available increased talent pool.

Rhys I disagree with you but respect your knowledge and opinion. Like I said, my opinion wouldn't be popular. That's alright, and it's what makes these discussions interesting. By the way Dee Gordon, and Segura wouldn't be permitted on the field during that time.

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

I get the romance of the good old days but disagree that those players could compete at the same level today. However I do agree that the best players of any generation could play at any point in time. Nonetheless, their numbers wouldn't be the same facing today's players. Thier numbers were bolstered by comparatively less talented overall competition.

I am 5'5" on a good day and love Jose Altuve. However, size does matter. Jimmy Foxx was considered so large they called him the Beast and Double X. As the legend goes he was trapped not scouted. Mr. Foxx was 6ft 190 lbs. Today the average middle infielder is that size. How many pitchers sat at 90+ mph in Ruth and Cobb's day? Today the average fastball is 93 MPH. Today pitchers regularily light up the gun at 100 mph. Players do strike way too much today but the pitching does have some effect on those punchout totals.

As I said, I too am a dyed in the wool romantic. Why else would I collect this silly stuff? However, I am also a realist. A model T will never compete with a Ferrari, and a Sopwith Camel will never compete with an F-18. You can have Tris Speaker. I'll take Trout. You can have Honus Wagner I'll take Manny Machado. You can have Christy Mathewson I'll take Clayton Kershaw. These discussions are why I love baseball. No one argues for Bob Cousey over Stephen Curry or George Mikan over Labron. No one compares Johnny Unitas to Steve Brady. However in baseball we do exactly that.

If I am putting together a greatest team from the 1960s. I don’t have Roberto in my starting outfield. Mantle, Mays and Aaron.

Humans as a species have not evolved in 100 years. Our environment (Nutritition, training, etc) has.

Imho, one must remember that while the international talent pool of players has greatly increased, we are losing a large number of elite talent to the NBA, NFL, NHL and soccer. I also personally agree that the players of yesteryear, given the advantages of nutrition, training, etc. that current players enjoy, could certainly compete quite well today, even at an elite level. Pitching wise, the slider was the big development and detriment to hitting between the early 40's and today, when it came into widespread use after WWII. Interestingly, when it did, Ted Williams' walks went up into the stratosphere: 156 in 1946, and 162 in his second triple crown year in 1947 (giving him an OBP of .499!!!) because with his 20-10 eyesight and reflexes, he could detect the spin (a small circle is seen at the center of the spinning slider), gauge where that pitch would end up, and take it for a ball. Joe DiMaggio, on the other hand, according to Ted in his book, "My Turn at Bat," had trouble with the slider, and his post WWI stats seem to largely verify this conclusion.

And I believe the poster above is entirely correct regarding human evolution or the lack of same over the last hundred years. I often faced off against one of the best pitchers I had ever seen (he lived just a few houses away) in games of "strikeout" in the late '60's, and played with him on many summer league teams (they were good teams, with 8 guys going on to play in college), and he was F-A-S-T for any era, clocked just a year or so later in college at 94 mph. He was 5'9" and 170-175 pounds, and never worked out! Just think what he would have been with modern training methods--97 or 98 mph almost certainly.

I personally think that those who say Walter Johnson threw about 90 mph are absolutely nuts--human anatomy and coordination haven't changed since then, and if the neighbor/teammate I's talking about could hit 94 mph in the late '60's, Walter was dead solid certain to have thrown significantly faster than that. Walter had greater size and strength in general and his notoriously long arms would have given him greater leverage. Nolan Ryan was clocked at 102 mph in the '70's in the 9th inning, likely after having thrown 200 pitches. Jay Jaffe, in his recent book, "The Cooperstown Casebook," states at p 361 that Bob Feller was timed at 107.9 mph in 1946 (his 348 K year) in a test using two photoelectric cells. Even allowing for some reasonable margin for error given the methodology, I think we can rest well-assured that Rapid Robert was easily over 100 mph on his good days with his fastest pitches. IMHO--and it is just that--my personal opinon--most if not all of the greats of yesteryear would be among the elite of the elite today, given their adaptation to better training methods and so on.

Thanks again Gentlemen, for a most lively and interesting discussion. And yes, I think Jackie ranks well up with the all time greats at second, especially with (by recollection only) a .409 OBP. What a tremendous table-setter for Snider and Hodges! Hornsby is the highest ever for a right-handed hitter, just 24 points higher, .433. Jackie's performance would indeed have been even better had he been given his chance earlier, rather than 28. Both he and Roberto are to be truly treasured (and Kaline too, as he is in and around Detroit).

Highest regards,

Larry

Yes when Olympic Bronze Medalist Andre De Grasse ran in the same conditions and same equiptment as Jesse Owens his time was 11 seconds

https://www.flotrack.org/articles/50...e-owens-spikes

I think Cobb, Ruth, Wagner etc. would do fine in today's game.

I have always thought the best of the best and maybe even just the average major leaguer was far more talented in the dead ball era than they are today. So many more people played baseball in the dead ball era. Every single boy in every single town, and you had to be better than all of them. Now you only have to be better than the kids who decide to play baseball, which the news tells you is a smaller and smaller pool every year.

A total nit, as I appreciate what you are saying in general, but it could be easily argued that this may 'soften' the ROY award since I believe 28 is close to a player's peak year. At least more so than 21-23-ish.

That is a poor example. You are completely ignoring the advances in technology. Lighter shoes with better spikes, aerodynamic suits, better starting blocks and faster tracks.

Owens actually set that record in 1935 at the Big 10 championships during a 45 minute span in which he set or tied 4 world records. One of those records was a long jump of 26 8 1/4. That random jump would have placed him 6th against a field of modern athletes concentrating on one event, using modern equipment and modern training methods at the 2016 Olympics. Athletes aren't that different.

In Baseball, the greatest players run chronologically from Wagner and Cobb through the guys who debuted in the 50s. In the NFL, the greatest players start after that, from Unitas and Brown through today with Brady and Manning. In the NBA, the greatest players start after that, starting with Russell and Chamberlain through Jordan and to today with LeBron James (Durant, Curry, etc.).
I don't think it is a matter of today's Baseball players being better or worse athletes. I see it as Baseball going from the #1 sport to #3 and the best athletes choosing other sports. If Jackie Robinson graduated from UCLA this year, would he choose to play Baseball? In my opinion, no.

As for Owens, it's not only a matter of technology changing, it's quantum differences in training sophistication and focus. I don't think Owens had a Bobby Kersee or similar type planning 6 hours of his day all devoted to squeezing out that last bit of speed.

Yeah, and drop Alexander or Caesar into WWII (with their lack of knowledge and experience in the advancement of tools and tactics) and see how they would do. :rolleyes: