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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Now that's more like it for Ted and Lou.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now that's more like it for Ted and Lou.

Any list of top ten hitters in history without Williams and Gehrig isn't worth its salt, imo.

[the 'stache]

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Frank B., he of dinger-whiff fame, may have to consider making Joey his avatar.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Do you imagine then guys like Ron Kittle, Dave Kingman, Mickey Tettleton etc are cursing that they were born a generation or two too soon?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Do you imagine then guys like Ron Kittle, Dave Kingman, Mickey Tettleton etc are cursing that they were born a generation or two too soon?

Or, Rob Deer. The Brewers always had one of those guys when I was growing up. Gorman Thomas was the first. Nobody in baseball had more homers than Stormin' Gorman's 175 between 1978 and 1982. But he had a 27.5% K rate (and 28.6% for his career). I'll never understand how he could play center field. He wasn't exactly swift of foot. He looked like a weekend softball player. BBR lists him at 6'2" 210 lbs. I think that second number was being a little generous. Deer stepped in when Gorman left town. 215 home runs between '86 and '93 for Milwaukee, and a few years in Detroit. He also K'd 1,298 times in 3,645 ABs-a whopping 35.6%.

Tettleton, I can forgive. He was only a .241 career hitter, but the dude was a beast when it came to walking. Between 1990 and 1996, he walked 737 times in 982 games. He had a .243 AVG during that span, and a .383 OBP!

A career .369 OBP is better than a lot of guys that have been career .300 hitters. Tettleton is the poster child for why walks are so important. If you hit 30 home runs a year, and walk 100 times, and play the majority of your games behind the plate doing it, you get a pass whiffing 140 times a season.

[howard38]

.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Do you imagine then guys like Ron Kittle, Dave Kingman, Mickey Tettleton etc are cursing that they were born a generation or two too soon?

Don't forget Rob Deer.

Best wishes,

Larry

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Joey Gallo has a career strike out rate of 45%.

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

Gallo already has struck out more than DiMaggio did in his career. In just 291 games.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gallo already has struck out more than DiMaggio did in his career. In just 291 games.

Is this a credible attempt at Gallo humor?

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Is this a credible attempt at Gallo humor?

More like a California whine

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gallo already has struck out more than DiMaggio did in his career. In just 291 games.

I truly enjoy watching Joey Gallo strike out.

Hi again, Pete,

Larry

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Don't let Joe Sewell know about this, or else he would turn over in his Hall of Fame grave.

Brian

Wow, 114 Ks in 1,903 games played. And, that's in the live ball era.

Gallo could do that in a half a season.

[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.

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.

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

For the most part I would agree, but in baseball particularly we have somewhat refined our perspective on what makes players great, for example we realize now the importance of drawing walks in a way that perhaps was less appreciated in bygone times. So to that extent, it's possible to legitimately reassess players in light of new norms.

Now that said, Clemente did not walk much, so a reassessment really is not favorable to him. Whereas it helps Mantle a great deal.

[mckinneyj]

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?

What do you think the reaction would have been had the Pirates Joe Brown approached the GMs of Yankees, Giants, or Braves suggesting an equal swap for Mantle, Mays, or Aaron? What if he offered to throw in Maz? How about Maz and Skinner or Groat? I doubt any of that gets a deal done (the opinion of one who's youth was spent idolizing these guys... fwiw).

[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.