Greatest of all time

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Pedro was skinny and stayed skinny, so he never looked like a PED user (e.g., Sosa, Bonds). He was great from early on, so was not a case where a suddenly average player became great (e.g., Ortiz). His career also petered out in his early 30s, so he didn't have a natural decline and then suddenly became great again (e.g., Clemens, Bonds). If you continue to be great in your late 30s, that raises flags, but Pedro had retired by then. Obviously, you never know, but I think that's why most people don't suspect him.

That is just one of the big misconceptions with PEDs. Being skinny and staying skinny just means he did not use a steroid used to build mass. His career petered out early because of the PED abuse.

Bonds only used at the end of his career and look how after a couple years the injuries built up quick. With Clemens I am really on the fence. He had a very long career so he had to be very smart with his PED use. Look at all the strange injuries the other PED uses had that he somehow never got. I am sure he did use something but did crazily overuse like McGwire, Sosa, Giambi and Bonds who juiced to the gills. Would go into more detail but got to get back to work.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is just one of the big misconceptions with PEDs. Being skinny and staying skinny just means he did not use a steroid used to build mass. His career petered out early because of the PED abuse.

Bonds only used at the end of his career and look how after a couple years the injuries built up quick. With Clemens I am really on the fence. He had a very long career so he had to be very smart with his PED use. Look at all the strange injuries the other PED uses had that he somehow never got. I am sure he did use something but did crazily overuse like McGwire, Sosa, Giambi and Bonds who juiced to the gills. Would go into more detail but got to get back to work.

I would be very interested in why you think Pedro used. I have never heard that, and his career track can easily be explained by how hard he threw despite a skinny body. He eventually just threw himself out.

I don't know if it's a steroid thing, BTW, but Clemens had groin problems (and no I don't mean chasing after whoever he chased after) for much of his career. He was just a tough bastard and pitched through them. He was written off for dead twice by Boston fans, in 1996 (oops, two consecutive Cy Youngs the next two years) and then again when he got shelled early in the 1999 playoffs and it was the triumph of Pedro blah blah. Two more Cy Young awards later, Roger was still going.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would be very interested in why you think Pedro used. I have never heard that, and his career track can easily be explained by how hard he threw despite a skinny body. He eventually just threw himself out.

I don't know if it's a steroid thing, BTW, but Clemens had groin problems (and no I don't mean chasing after whoever he chased after) for much of his career. He was just a tough bastard and pitched through them. He was written off for dead twice by Boston fans, in 1996 (oops, two consecutive Cy Youngs the next two years) and then again when he got shelled early in the 1999 playoffs and it was the triumph of Pedro blah blah. Two more Cy Young awards later, Roger was still going.

Your entire post pretty much outlines why in my opinion Pedro was a PED abuser while I believe Clemens only used in small quantities to stay healthy.

As a Sox fan I watched Pedro pitch a lot of games. All the announcers talked about was how amazing it was that such a skinny guy could throw so hard and pitch so many innings and how nobody else with that body type had ever been able to do that. I don't think he was ever a major user but used way more than to just stay healthy.

Clemens on the other hand had way to long and consistent career to have used them in excess.

I base this opinion on the above and the fact I used them myself on and of for close to 15 years so I know first hand how they affect ones body and performance. By the age of 35 my body was shot. I can also assure you the worst side affect of steroids is the depression that comes when you are done with a cycle. The last time I done them I had severe depression for close to two years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ron Guidry was a pretty lean guy as I recall and threw very very hard.

[Joshchisox08]

I bid on it but I didn't win it. Wish I did. I was a couple bucks off.

[the 'stache]

Son of a ....

Completely forgot about Napolean Lajoie. I would also like to add Tris Speaker to my ever expanding list. Speaker had a .345 career average, and (if the numbers are accurate) struck out only 394 times in 11,992 plate appearances. That's pretty exceptional, even for the pre-Ruth era.

I'm curious to know where the participants in this discussion would place Tony Gwynn. Outstanding defender and base stealer before his knees began to give out. Never a real power hitter, or big RBI guy. But you can't argue with his eight batting titles. Since 1965, Gwynn's .338 average is 10 points higher than the next best hitter (minimum 5,000 at bats), Wade Boggs. And after meeting with Ted Williams for the first time (1992 All Star Game), Gwynn was an incredible .356 hitter for the last nine seasons of his career.

[chaddurbin]

i'm partial to lefties like myself: ruth, bonds, teddy ballgame, cobb, mays.

as for clemens using only sparingly to stay healthy, c'mon power pitchers today like verlander is flaming out in their early 30s...even great control guys like halladay were done by their mid 30s. you don't go 220 era+ in your early 40s like clemens without the aid of something. his career should've been done after boston w/o the help of chemistry.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'm curious to know where the participants in this discussion would place Tony Gwynn. Outstanding defender and base stealer before his knees began to give out. Never a real power hitter, or big RBI guy. But you can't argue with his eight batting titles. Since 1965, Gwynn's .338 average is 10 points higher than the next best hitter (minimum 5,000 at bats), Wade Boggs. And after meeting with Ted Williams for the first time (1992 All Star Game), Gwynn was an incredible .356 hitter for the last nine seasons of his career.

I'd really have to take a closer look but for me, he'd be pretty far down the list (in comparison here ... I'm saying he wouldn't be in my top 20 or so if we're including pitchers). As you mention, he was a stolen base threat and a very good defender, but only for a relatively small part of his career. Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams, but he'd rank behind a lot of guys that simply did more for longer stretches of time. So many great players that didn't make my top five (i.e. Stan Musial) fit that category.

The things that amaze me are that he was so much better than everyone else in his generation and that he was hitting over .320 still at the age of 41. He was still an above average hitter that late into his career. Nothing but respect for that.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Son of a ....

Completely forgot about Napolean Lajoie. I would also like to add Tris Speaker to my ever expanding list. Speaker had a .345 career average, and (if the numbers are accurate) struck out only 394 times in 11,992 plate appearances. That's pretty exceptional, even for the pre-Ruth era.

I'm curious to know where the participants in this discussion would place Tony Gwynn. Outstanding defender and base stealer before his knees began to give out. Never a real power hitter, or big RBI guy. But you can't argue with his eight batting titles. Since 1965, Gwynn's .338 average is 10 points higher than the next best hitter (minimum 5,000 at bats), Wade Boggs. And after meeting with Ted Williams for the first time (1992 All Star Game), Gwynn was an incredible .356 hitter for the last nine seasons of his career.

Just read a great article comparing Gywnn, Boggs, and Cal Ripken. It took into account offence and defense with a bunch of stats I know nothing about. For their careers it had Boggs as #1, Ripken as #2 and Gwynn ranked 3rd. I would personally rank them the same.

[rdixon1208]

It's funny to me how many of you guys think that the top 5 players of all time retired 40+ years ago.

[glynparson]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Barry Bonds
3. Ty Cobb
4. Willie Mays
5. Honus Wagner

Sorry but considering bonds the greatest player ever is far from ignorant. If all it took to be great was popping a pill or getting a shot explain the differences between Ozzie canseco and Jose canseco or Jeremy Giambi and Jason Giambi. These weren't Magic hall of fame pills or shots they were getting.

[aro13]

Before I read your post, I was thinkin that throughout this entire thread...
The Lack of the Lack of Support that Lou Gehrig was getting.
Knowin that opposing pitchers "HAD TO PITCH TO'em"(Because Ruth was uP Next!), Only made Mr. Gehrig's job that much more difficult!
My whole life I've thought Mr. Gehrig to be a better All around player than Mr. Ruth, except in the pitching area.

It Baffles me that Lou Gehrig is Not iN Many of our members Top 5 lists.

Ruth batted 3rd and Gehrig 4th for most of their career.

If indeed both Ruth and Gehrig are in the top 5 you have to figure out why they did not win more pennants and World Series then they did. Unless, you also say that all of the HOFers they played with -Dickey, Lazzeri, Sewell, Combs, Ruffing, Gomez, Hoyt, Pennock are all over-rated. Two of the top 5 players ever combined with 8 other Hall of Famers should have won far more pennants then they did.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by aro13

Ruth batted 3rd and Gehrig 4th for most of their career.

If indeed both Ruth and Gehrig are in the top 5 you have to figure out why they did not win more pennants and World Series then they did. Unless, you also say that all of the HOFers they played with -Dickey, Lazzeri, Sewell, Combs, Ruffing, Gomez, Hoyt, Pennock are all over-rated. Two of the top 5 players ever combined with 8 other Hall of Famers should have won far more pennants then they did.

Several points here:

1. I agree that Gehrig should not be in the top 5, but

2. You shouldn't expect the best team to win against a mediocre opponent, let alone a pennant winner, quite so often in baseball as you seem to. See here: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/d...-world-series/

3. And anyway, they finished 1st or 2nd in the AL 10 times in the 12 years that Ruth and Gehrig were there together -- every year but 1925 (when Ruth and Gehrig missed a combined 88 games) and in 1930 when they finished 18 games above .500 with the second worst pitching staff in MLB (team ERA+ = 89).

4. I'll just quote you out of context here, as it's absolutely spot on. "Dickey, Lazzeri, Sewell, Combs, Ruffing, Gomez, Hoyt, Pennock are all over-rated." Indeed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aro13

Ruth batted 3rd and Gehrig 4th for most of their career.

If indeed both Ruth and Gehrig are in the top 5 you have to figure out why they did not win more pennants and World Series then they did. Unless, you also say that all of the HOFers they played with -Dickey, Lazzeri, Sewell, Combs, Ruffing, Gomez, Hoyt, Pennock are all over-rated. Two of the top 5 players ever combined with 8 other Hall of Famers should have won far more pennants then they did.

The As were a pretty formidable team in those years. I don't think it detracts from Ruth and Gehrig.