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

[CW]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

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.

[bbcard1]

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.

[JustinD]

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.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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

[ls7plus]

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

[71buc]

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.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by 71buc

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.

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by 71buc

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.

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.

[the 'stache]

Peter, I'm looking at Bill James' 2002 book now; he has Clemente ranked 74th on his list of the 100 greatest players of all-time. To be fair, eight of the guys on the list ahead of Clemente either never played in the Major Leagues, or played when their career was in its twilight. I take an issue with that. I have no doubt these guys were tremendous players, but unless it's Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige, guys who absolutely dominated the Negro Leagues, I don't think these other guys belong on the list ahead of Clemente, who proved himself day day in, day out for eighteen seasons. I think Roberto's ranking, and Robin Yount's, are both a bit low (Yount he had at 55). There's some personal bias, as they're my favorite two players of all-time, but I can make a compelling case for their being a few slots higher. Now, of course, both players have been knocked down some by the players that have come into their own since 2002.

The comments that Clemente wouldn't have gotten to 3,500 hits are rubbish. Clemente had a few nagging injuries that kept him from playing a full 1972 season, but towards the end of the year, he was close to full strength. From the start of September to the end of the year, Clemente played in 27 of the Pirates' 32 games, hitting .333, slashing .379/.511/.890. He was preparing to come back for spring training in 1973 when his plane crashed.

Clemente's game was built to play past 40. While the big power hitters often lose a step late in their careers, Roberto was getting better. His last four seasons-1969 to 1972, age 34 to 37, he hit a combined .339 with a 153 OPS+ (.345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1971 and .312 in 1972). He played in 480 games combined. Look at his 162 game averages for this period-103 runs scored, 209 hits, 31 doubles, 13 triples, 19 home runs, 101 RBI, and a slash line of .387/.521/.908. And BBR has his WAR for 480 games at 25.0. He averaged 8.3 WAR per 162 games played.

Does that sound like a guy that is about ready to hang 'em up? The Pirates were 98-57 in 1972. Clemente was raking the last month of the season, and had every motivation to come back, and keep playing beyond 1973. Willie Stargell was NL MVP runner up in '73. Richie Zisk was a star on the rise-between 1973 and 1976, before being traded, Zisk hit .302 as a Pirate with a 138 OPS +. Al Oliver would hit .305 between 1972 and 1977 for the Pirates, with a 124 OPS +. Dave Parker was a rookie in '73, and by '75 he would lead the NL in slugging. What kind of lineup would the Pirates have had with Zisk, Oliver, Clemente, Stargell and Parker as the top five in the order?

[glynparson]

Some of these answers seem to forget baseball is no longer just primarily a US sport with a minor Latin influence and is much more global with a huge Latin influence along with population explosions making the fact that baseball is now the # 3 sport in America rather irrelevant. American Football is only number one in the USA nowhere else. Baseball is still much larger than football
Globally. Though I understand soccer trumps
Them all in popularity.

[Tabe]

So many thoughts:

1) As a player, Clemente isn't even close to inner circle HOF.

2) As a person, Clemente is definitely inner circle HOF.

3) As for Kaline vs Clemente - how does the fact that Kaline played in a really small RF impact his TZR and assists? Certainly fewer guys would be running on Kaline given how short Tiger Stadium's RF was, especially compared to Forbes.

4) Folks in this thread are giving Jackie Robinson waaaaaaaaay too much credit as a 2B. The guy played 748 of his 1382 games at 2B - 54%. Yeah, it was his most-frequent position but he played 256 games at 3B, 197 at 1B, and 162 in the OF. Guys who played 5 seasons at a position aren't in the conversation for "best ever" at that position. Period.

5) The Owens/De Grasse comparison thing is nonsense. Owens ran a 10.3, De Grasse ran an 11.0. Yep, he was slower. The very time ever wearing that particular kind of shoe, without blocks, etc. Does anybody REALLY think De Grasse wouldn't have been faster with a month of practice using the same equipment? C'mon.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

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

Great post, Larry. And Go Tigers!

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by hcv123

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

The best team doesn’t always win . It did go 7 and the O’s should have won, in my view, that last game at home. A few mistakes cost the home team. We did score more runs in the ‘71 WS, but that doesn’t really count in baseball. Man, the Pirates has some great pitching that series coupled with some unexpected hero’s and then there was Clemente.