Choose your all-time HOF team

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'll take the easy way out and defer to Mr. Cobb. There was no stronger student, observer or practicioner of the game and he lived into the final era which I would consider using to make my own picks. He was also typically honest and outspoken when opining on anything, so each one of his choices would, to me, be of great importance. More so than even someone such as Connie Mack.

[cgjackson222]

Starting Pitcher: Lefty Grove
Catcher: Josh Gibson
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Nap Lajoie
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner
LF: Oscar Charleston
CF: Willie Mays
RF: Babe Ruth
DH: Ted Williams
Relief Pitcher: Mariano Rivera

For me, the hardest choices are Starting Pitcher and 2nd Baseman.

There are so many great starting pitchers. I chose Lefty Grove because he led the League in ERA a record 9x, led the League in strikeouts his first 7 years and just knew how to win games. His .680 Winning percentage is the highest of any Hall of Famer and it translated into the Playoffs where he pitched very well, winning 2 World Series. Grove faced Ruth 11 times in exhibition games as a Minor Leaguer and struck him out 9 times. Maybe that's why Grove was sold for more than Ruth.

I think Hornsby was a better hitter than Lajoie, but I think Hornsby would not be a great player to have on your team because he was not well liked.

I think Bench was the best catcher in MLB history, but Gibson was probably better.

[G1911]

Manager: It won’t matter, they’re winning
SP: Lefty Grove
C: Yogi Berra
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Eddie Collins
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner
LF: Ted Williams
CF: Willie Mays
RF: Babe Ruth

I think the best at each position, with C being the toughest pick and the least clear. I am slightly bothered by the lack of any 19th century player that seems statistically unlikely to not be present on a list of 9 from all of MLB history.

[rats60]

RF Roberto Clemente
CF Willie Mays
LF Babe Ruth
SS Honus Wagner
3B George Brett
2B Rogers Hornsby
1B Lou Gehrig
C Johnny Bench
P Sandy Koufax
RP Mariano Rivera
DH Ted Williams
M Joe McCarthy

[Musashi]

Manager: Walter Alston
Starting Pitcher: Are we getting the player at his peak, or are we considering his whole career? If it's peak, I take Sandy Koufax. Considering the whole career, Walter Johnson
Relief Pitcher: Goose Gossage. Man once posted a single season WAR over 8 as a reliever.
Catcher: Johnny Bench
First Base: Lou Gehrig
Second: Eddie Collins
Third: Mike Schmidt
Short: Honus Wagner
Left: Rickey Henderson - Otherwise this team doesn't have a leadoff hitter. Now they've got the best one
Center: Ty Cobb - My mind says Mays, but my heart wants to bat Cobb second and watch him execute the hit and run with Rickey on first.
Right: Babe Ruth - he's not Aaron defensively, but he did lead the league in OF assists at least once so he's not a liability out there, plus, he's an extra arm in the bullpen. Can also hit.
DH: Ted Williams

[gonefishin]

Manager: Casey Stengel
Starting Pitcher: Bob Gibson
Catcher: Yogi Berra
First: Lou Gehrig
Second: Jackie Robinson
Third: Eddie Mathews
Left Field: Babe Ruth
Center Field: Mickey Mantle
Right Field: Roberto Clemente
Relief Pitcher: Goose Gossage
Closer: Mariano Rivera
DH: Ted Williams

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Manager: Casey Stengel
Starting Pitcher: Bob Gibson
Catcher: Yogi Berra
First: Lou Gehrig
Second: Jackie Robinson
Third: Eddie Mathews
Left Field: Babe Ruth
Center Field: Mickey Mantle
Right Field: Roberto Clemente
Relief Pitcher: Goose Gossage
Closer: Mariano Rivera
DH: Ted Williams

No shortstop?

[ksfarmboy]

Manager John McGraw: He was a bad ass and probably an ass too.
First base Lou Gehrig: Nobody else even came to mind. Great player and person.
2nd base Rogers Hornsby: Dude could hit and he could also fill in if McGraw gets kicked out.
Shortstop Honus Wagner: Would really like to see him hit and run, none of the other shortstops really interest me.
3rd base would be Brooks Robinson: My favorite player so of course he’s on my team. Looks like we have the hitting taken care of so let’s throw in some fielding. Plus he was great in the clutch.
RF Roberto Clemente: He could do it all run, hit and throw
CF Ty Cobb: He just edges Mays out for me.
LF Willie Mays: I’m sliding him over but I got a guy that can play any outfield position here.
DH Babe Ruth: Can also use him in the outfield and pitch occasionally.
SP Walter Johnson: Worlds Greatest Pitcher
RP Hoyt Wilhelm: Just love having a knuckleballer on the staff.
Catcher Johnny Bench: Besides being a great catcher he could hit with power.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Manager: It won’t matter, they’re winning
SP: Lefty Grove
C: Yogi Berra
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Eddie Collins
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner
LF: Ted Williams
CF: Willie Mays
RF: Babe Ruth

I think the best at each position, with C being the toughest pick and the least clear. I am slightly bothered by the lack of any 19th century player that seems statistically unlikely to not be present on a list of 9 from all of MLB history.

If we did this for FB or BKB there wouldn't be anyone from the first few decades either.

[oldjudge]

Manager: John McGraw
First Base: Gehrig
2nd Base: Collins
SS: Wagner
3B: Schmidt
LF: Aaron
CF: DiMaggio
RF: Ruth
DH: Williams
SP: Young
RP: Rivera

[Yoda]

Manager - Connie Mack
Pitcher - Cy Young
Closer M. Rivera
1b - George Sisler
2b - Rogers Hornsby
SS - Honus Wagner
3b - Mike Schmidt
C - Yogi Berra
LF - Babe Ruth
CF - Tris Speaker
RF - Robero Clemente
DH - Lou Gehrig

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Manager: John McGraw
First Base: Gehrig
2nd Base: Collins
SS: Wagner
3B: Schmidt
LF: Aaron
CF: DiMaggio
RF: Ruth
DH: Williams
SP: Young
RP: Rivera

You, sir, have nailed it!

[darwinbulldog]

Manager: Connie Mack
Pitcher: Walter Johnson
Catcher: Johnny Bench
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Rogers Hornsby
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner
RF: Babe Ruth
LF: Ted Williams
CF: Willie Mays
DH: Josh Gibson
Relief Pitcher: Mariano Rivera

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Manager: John McGraw
First Base: Gehrig
2nd Base: Collins
SS: Wagner
3B: Schmidt
LF: Aaron
CF: DiMaggio
RF: Ruth
DH: Williams
SP: Young
RP: Rivera

Who would be your catcher?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If we did this for FB or BKB there wouldn't be anyone from the first few decades either.

Which seems unlikely to be fair for an all-time team. At the very peak of talent with a small roster we will have a significant random chance factor, but it seems we always ignore certain periods.

I can’t speak to basketball, but for football I’d put some of the very old guys on the all-time team. Hutson for one.

[Seven]

EDIT: Squad modified, because I violated the rule set forth by the challenge, originally, and selected Barry Bonds as a member of my Hall of Fame Team, oh well.


Manager: John McGraw
Pitcher: Satchel Paige
Catcher: Josh Gibson
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Eddie Collins
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Pop Lloyd
RF: Babe Ruth
CF: Oscar Charleston
LF: Ted Williams

If including DH and RP

DH: Mickey Mantle
RP/CP: Mariano Rivera

My rules are simple: The player must've spent significant time at the position, and made the majority of their career contributions at said position. This also assumes the player is at the height of their power, when they are playing for the team.

I originally opted not to include a DH or a Relief Pitcher. This is mainly due to the fact that, baseball has spent more time without the Designated Hitter "position" than with it, and due to the fact that Satchel Paige would finish the game if needed! However I included Mantle and Rivera if I indeed needed to fill those positions. Based off of baseball talent, Mantle might be better off, playing left field, than Williams but I didn't want to completely violate the self imposed rule that I decided to use.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Seven

Manager: John McGraw
Pitcher: Satchel Paige
Catcher: Josh Gibson
1B: Lou Gehrig
2B: Eddie Collins
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Pop Lloyd
RF: Babe Ruth
CF: Oscar Charleston
LF: Barry Bonds

My rules are simple: The player must've spent significant time at the position, and made the majority of their career contributions at said position. This also assumes the player is at the height of their power, when they are playing for the team. Two players from the "Modern Era" fit into my squad, the ever controversial Barry Bonds, who is practically unmatched due to certain "enhancements," and, Mike Schmidt, who I believe is unparalleled as a third basemen.

A reliever and DH, for two reasons. First one being, Satch would definitely go the distance and I felt that a DH, isn't really a position, as it is more just a space in the lineup. If needed however, I would most likely choose Ted Williams for my DH, and Mariano Rivera for my Closer. While the Williams selection breaks my "significant time at the position" rule, it's not his fault he didn't play when the position was around!

I love the inclusion of Oscar Charleston, Pop Lloyd. Great additions from the Negro League. But you'll need to re-select your LF. Bonds isn't a possible choice. He's not in the HOF.

As a footnote, in my opinion none of the players involved with performance enhancing drugs should ever even be on a ballot for the HoF. In fact, I'm disappointed that many of them haven't had a ban from baseball.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Which seems unlikely to be fair for an all-time team. At the very peak of talent with a small roster we will have a significant random chance factor, but it seems we always ignore certain periods.

I can’t speak to basketball, but for football I’d put some of the very old guys on the all-time team. Hutson for one.

Nobody not even God is starting at wide receiver over Jerry Rice.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody not even God is starting at wide receiver over Jerry Rice.

A football team typically has 1 starting wide receiver?

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody not even God is starting at wide receiver over Jerry Rice.

Is Jerry Rice, not a football God?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am slightly bothered by the lack of any 19th century player that seems statistically unlikely to not be present on a list of 9 from all of MLB history.

They played 8 seasons (1893-1900) in the 19th Century with the pitcher's mound at 60ft. We're in the middle of the 123rd season since then with a massive increase in the number of people actually playing in the majors. It would be shocking if somebody from the 19th Century actually deserved to make the list.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

They played 8 seasons (1893-1900) in the 19th Century with the pitcher's mound at 60ft. We're in the middle of the 123rd season since then with a massive increase in the number of people actually playing in the majors. It would be shocking if somebody from the 19th Century actually deserved to make the list.

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

If anything, I see a nostalgia bias on most peoples teams. Very stacked in favor of prewar and dead ball era players.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If anything, I see a nostalgia bias on most peoples teams. Very stacked in favor of prewar and dead ball era players.

Yes that is one of the preferred periods in such teams. Nowhere did I argue or imply the bias is to the most modern period. The method proposed by the poster quoted is an argument of recency, which is not what most teams given constitute though. They love the classic post-war and the deadball period.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.

An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.

As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.

I picked 1893 since the game fundamentally changed that year. Ok to disagree with that if you like.

If you don't like the concept of more players = better players, fine. Then go with population. More people to draw from = better players.

It's simply silly to think that players haven't improved significantly over the last 125 years. Relative domination is am interesting way to judge things. Doing that overly rewards outliers who played in era of less skill.

Baseball fans are the only fans who think a player from 130 years ago could possibly be one of the 10 or 12 best ever. Football, basketball, and hockey fans all know better.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I picked 1893 since the game fundamentally changed that year. Ok to disagree with that if you like.

If you don't like the concept of more players = better players, fine. Then go with population. More people to draw from = better players.

It's simply silly to think that players haven't improved significantly over the last 125 years. Relative domination is am interesting way to judge things. Doing that overly rewards outliers who played in era of less skill.

Baseball fans are the only fans who think a player from 130 years ago could possibly be one of the 10 or 12 best ever. Football, basketball, and hockey fans all know better.

It may be that players today are better due to modern drug regimens, the amount of personal development they get, because they may build upon the knowledge that came before, and/or because people today are inherently better than our predecessors.

But if the task is an All-Time Team, and we insist that we only include modernity, then it is very, very obviously not an "All-Time" Team, it is the team since X cutoff that you like. An All-Time Team requires a pound-for-pound type approach.

[ClementeFanOh]

Interesting topic, especially for those who are having fun. Here's my shot:

C- Johnny Bench
P- Bob Gibson
1B- Lou Gehrig
2B- Rod Carew
SS- Honus Wagner
3B- Jim Thome (he started as a 3B and his offensive stat line is outstanding)
OF- Hank Aaron
OF- Ted Williams
OF- Roberto Clemente
DH- Babe Ruth
Relief- Sandy Koufax (just to get him in there after 8 innings of the Hoot)

Manager- doesn't really matter, since he can't screw up this lineup
Hard to leave out- Rickey Henderson, Mantle (runner up DH)

Trent King

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

They played 8 seasons (1893-1900) in the 19th Century with the pitcher's mound at 60ft. We're in the middle of the 123rd season since then with a massive increase in the number of people actually playing in the majors. It would be shocking if somebody from the 19th Century actually deserved to make the list.

Honus Wagner played in the 19th century. He is on most teams. Cy Young and Nap Lajoie are on lists and they played in the 19th century too.