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

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

As of today, I do have a bit of newfound respect for Mr. Mantle. With the new oWAR calculations, he has moved up the list.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Willie Mays
7. Barry Bonds
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Dan Brouthers
10. Joe Jackson
11. Honus Wagner
12. Tris Speaker


WAR has added value to OBP and most especially walks in the intervening 8 years since the old list I had shown. That was lazy on my part....my apologies to all.

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

Funny, I think sort of the opposite, that baseball changes less than other sports. I think if we were transported, say, back to the 20s to watch a game, the similarities would far outweigh any differences. I very much doubt that would be the case with football or basketball.

[aloondilana]

Supposedly there is a Clemente movie coming out next year or year after.
We all know what happened to Jackie Robinson cards after that movie.
Time to get in on Roberto.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This is why I couldn't care less about these new stats like WAR. They are just weighted combined averages that can be changed or manipulated to favor one outcome or another. Obviously the great players will still be at or near the top, but they are far from perfect.

As for having a newfound respect for someone because he's higher on the list based on a new calculation, I find that pretty ridiculous. I don't need anyone to create a new stat or manipulate an old one to convince me who the all time greats were. There are so many factors that change over time that it's difficult to truly compare players from different eras. No formula will ever get it exactly right.

I have always been of the opinion that Mantle value is based more off of hype and emotion than statistical reality. I still think that this is true, but when a statistic that I put great credence in shows him to be better than I thought, it makes me take notice. I never said he wasn't one.of the all time greats. That is not what I am arguing and is a strawman at best. I merely said that Mantle is not one of the ten best players who ever lived. I stand by that, although I now think he may be closer to number ten than I had first thought.

Still not top ten though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My top 10 non-pitchers non-Bonds non-A Rod would probably be

Ruth
Mays
Cobb
Williams
Gehrig
Aaron
Wagner
Musial
Speaker
DiMaggio

Mantle would be right behind these, and Hornsby.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My top 10 non-pitchers non-Bonds non-A Rod would probably be

Ruth
Mays
Cobb
Williams
Gehrig
Aaron
Wagner
Musial
Speaker
DiMaggio

Mantle would be right behind these, and Hornsby.

I would put Mantle ahead of Joe D but behind Hornsby and the rest.i also have to put Bonds ahead of him. Not A-Rod.

So to me, not including Negro League players like Gibson or Charleston...which is unfortunate....I would put Mantle as the 11th greatest position player of all time. Also behind at least six or seven pitchers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On Baseball Reference A Rod is 5th in HOF Monitor and 2nd in HOF Standards.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I have always been of the opinion that Mantle value is based more off of hype and emotion than statistical reality. I still think that this is true, but when a statistic that I put great credence in shows him to be better than I thought, it makes me take notice. I never said he wasn't one.of the all time greats. That is not what I am arguing and is a strawman at best. I merely said that Mantle is not one of the ten best players who ever lived. I stand by that, although I now think he may be closer to number ten than I had first thought.

Still not top ten though.

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

And that is exactly the way that it should be.

For me, Steve Garvey is a great example of this. Growing up in the 1970's, Garvey was a player I always wanted to emulate even though I was never a fan of the Dodgers. As a "National League" fan, Garvey was the type of player that I loved having on "my team" in the all star game. His cards were not as prized by me as were my beloved Pirates, but his cards were very much admired and respected. Since the stat revolution, his stature in the game has dropped dramatically. I argue all the time about how overrated he was. But in my mind and in my memories, Garvey was always one of the greats of the game. My heart remembers this even if my mind now may know better. I will always remember him the way I want to remember him.

Now obviously Mantle is in a whole different world, and we are basically arguing over whether he is a top 10 player of all time or top 20. He was obviously one of the greatest of the greats. AND he has that emotional pull on so many who saw him play.

[JollyElm]

And being a switch hitter was a huge advantage. If the Mick knew the left fielder had a great WAR number, he could simply decide to bat lefty and try to pull the ball to right.

[CW]

Originally Posted by hcv123

As a 13 year old kid at his first card show (at the coliseum motor in for those who might remember), not knowing a thing about cards older than 1972 other than that they existed, I was completely taken in by the Clemente rookie card - of all the cards in the room - A couple of hours of begging my mom - who almost had us both certified insane, and $48 later, I had the card that started it all for me - and yes, I still have it - refuse to get it graded and although I have many rarer and worth more, still the card with the most meaning in my entire collection. I still love looking at the card - Not sure exactly why, but one of the most attractive cards imo - Topps ever made.

Great story! Thanks for sharing. You have good taste.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

And that is exactly the way that it should be.

For me, Steve Garvey is a great example of this. Growing up in the 1970's, Garvey was a player I always wanted to emulate even though I was never a fan of the Dodgers. As a "National League" fan, Garvey was the type of player that I loved having on "my team" in the all star game. His cards were not as prized by me as were my beloved Pirates, but his cards were very much admired and respected. Since the stat revolution, his stature in the game has dropped dramatically. I argue all the time about how overrated he was. But in my mind and in my memories, Garvey was always one of the greats of the game. My heart remembers this even if my mind now may know better. I will always remember him the way I want to remember him.

Now obviously Mantle is in a whole different world, and we are basically arguing over whether he is a top 10 player of all time or top 20. He was obviously one of the greatest of the greats. AND he has that emotional pull on so many who saw him play.

He hit .294 while putting up 19 homers every 162. Career OPS of .775. At 1B. Pretty good player but not great.

And I like the guy. A lot. As a player and for the super positive interaction I had with him a few years ago.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

No, but it may lessen his stats without all those other great players batting around him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Berra and DiMaggio and Gehrig had more titles than Mantle. Russell had way more than Jordan.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'd take Manning by a slight margin over Marino in the pure passer category. Subjectively/anecdotally of course, I think he was better at finding the open receiver.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

Agree with this. Aaron Rodgers is very underrated. I think the issue is Patriots fans are louder than anyone else. When Rodgers is done, maybe people will look back and realize how great he was.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

As a Packer fan I agree, Rodgers is the best and most talented quarterback I've ever seen play. But if you were to poll most fans, experts, analysts, etc the argument for greatest of all time would be between Brady and Montana. People remember championships and the big plays that were made to win them. That's what turns a great player into a legend, or an all time great. Rodgers needs another ring or two to put his name in that discussion.