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

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

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

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

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

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

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

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

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

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