| 0 |
Subject: SI.com Names An All-Time Team
Posted by: Boxman
- [136161615] Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:22
All-Time Team
One thing that confounded me was that the writer said he named his outfielders using left, center, and right fielders (not just three OFs), but then he doesn't use the same sort of criteria for the bullpen except for closer.
C Josh Gibson
1B Lou Gehrig
2B Rogers Hornsby
SS A-Rod
3B Mike Schmidt
LF Ted Williams
CF Ty Cobb
RF Babe Ruth
SP
Walter Johnson
Cy Young
Roger Clemens
Lefty Grove
Christy Mathewson
Closer
Mariano Rivera
Manager - John McGraw
Pitching Coach - Johnny Sain
Hitting Coach - Charley Lau
Bench
C - Pudge Rodriguez
IF - Musial, Wagner
OF - Aaron, Mays, Mantle
Bullpen
Pedro Martinez
Maddux
Randy Johnson
Koufax
Pete Alexander |
| 1 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:27
|
No Bonds, no Nolan Ryan, no Lefty Grove, No Tom Seaver, No Mike Piazza.
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:29
|
My bad, Grove is there.
|
| 3 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:45
|
re: Clemens (and to some extent Nolan Ryan)... I am surprised by this. Clemens has some great career numbers, but he had some really average to below average in what should have been his prime, no? I think he had more average seasons than the 5 or so amazing seasons scattered across those 20 years.
|
| 4 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:54
|
Right off the bat, I'd probably go Warren Spahn over a couple choices.
|
| 5 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:58
|
and for Ryan... he lost double digit games 17 times and won 20 games only twice.
It seemed to me like when he was on he was unhittable (all the no-hitters and K's) but he couldn't do that all the time (all the L's). That said, his ERA was a lot more steady in the mid to low 3's for his entire career. That consitency and longevity are very impressive.
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:00
|
Don't know how many post deadball era HOF-caliber pitchers you'll find who didn't have some mediocre seasons mixed in there. Whitey Ford, Tom Seaver... most of the rest are already on the list.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 5975149
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:03
|
No Johnny Bench? I know it is hard to make up these teams given the great players and many eras, but no Bench seems a huge hole to me.
|
| 8 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:14
|
Great One, I steadfastly disagree on the Clemens comment. He was regarded as the best pitcher in his league seven times. And guess what? None of those includes 1990, his best season. Or 2005, which was his best season since leaving Toronto (better than either of his 2 Cy seasons in that spam). Or 2006 which was extremely great but abbreviated. Clemens definitely belongs in the top 5.
Nolan Ryan has no place on this list. Get over it.
Pudge over Bench is ridiculous. I'd put Bench as the starter, and Gibson as the backup.
The outfield is hard to argue - even for Bonds.
ARod at short is tough. He had several great seasons after switching.
|
| 9 | Boxman
ID: 136161615
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:15
|
I am the most disappointed in that the list doesn't have a true bullpen.
No Johnny Bench surprises me and while I don't have the time at this particular moment, I think the bench could have been better.
|
| 10 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:15
|
I'd take Satchel Paige and Bob Gibson over Pedro and Maddux. Sure would have loved to see Paige in his prime. Every team need the quote machine that he was.
I'd argue Brett over Schmidt, especially if Lau is the Hitting coach. But that is just my personal bias.
If anything, I'd take the other Pudge at catcher over the Pudge listed.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:16
|
Bench over Fisk? I suppose. I'd still take Yogi over both - and over IRod, too. I think Piazza is the more glaring omission but its hard to deny IRod's work behind the plate.
|
| 12 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:17
|
I agree with Boxman's comments about the bullpen and also with 1 infielder on the bench. Was it too hard to put Joe Morgan on this team?
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 5975149
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:24
|
Better on the field than in the booth, I say.
|
| 14 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:27
|
I agree with Paige and Gibson regarding Pedro (too short of a prime ala Koufax)... but look at Maddux's career numbers. Thats the kind of 15 year run that is just incredible. And while Clemens had several dominant seasons, he really had some stinkers in there too, he was never as consistent as say Maddux.
|
| 15 | Razor
ID: 136523110
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 14:55
|
Great One, I steadfastly disagree on the Clemens comment. He was regarded as the best pitcher in his league seven times. And guess what? None of those includes 1990, his best season. Or 2005, which was his best season since leaving Toronto (better than either of his 2 Cy seasons in that spam). Or 2006 which was extremely great but abbreviated. Clemens definitely belongs in the top 5.
1997 was Clemens' best season, no contest.
|
| 16 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 15:07
|
and for Ryan... he lost double digit games 17 times and won 20 games only twice.
and of those 17 seasons, he was above .500 in 12 of them. additionally, his ERA in those 17 seasons was a mere 3.18, and his WHIP was a not-too-shabby 1.27.
He also struck out 200+ batters in 14 of those seasons, and surpassed 300 six different times in those seasons of double digit loses, the last of which occurred when he was 42 years old.
Losses is probably one of the least important statistics when measuring the quality of a pitcher.
as far as 3B goes, Brett to me easily outpaces Schmidt. Schmidt hit more homers, but Brett tops him in Avg, Runs, Hits (by nearly 1000), SBs, and even RBIs.
|
| 17 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 15:39
|
I could see how losses are arbitray.. but doesn't that make K's just as arbitrary? I mean you can strike out the side and also allow 3 HR's in the same inning... so.. was that a well pitched inning?
Your point about being above .500 is interesting too, since you point out 12 of them were above.. but that means he conversely had at least 5 seasons BELOW .500 - well thats not a good thing and thats a pretty high number for a career, no? Unless it was his rookie year or at the very end (when looking at these guys i usually chop off the rookie year and the last couple).
|
| 18 | Razor
ID: 136523110
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 15:40
|
Schmidt was one of the game's all-time greats offensively AND defensively at 3B. No other 3B can say that. Schmidt drew a ton of walks to make up for his lack of batting average and he was a premier power hitter. Easy choice at 3B.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 5975149
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 15:49
|
Never saw Schmidt play (did see Brett a number of times), but I have to agree with Razor.
It is funny looking over the list, that the only one I ever saw play live is Hank Aaron.
|
| 20 | Razor
ID: 136523110
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 15:51
|
Nolan Ryan would have been the greatest pitcher of all-time if he had average control, and it's not even one of those things where he'd just be one of a handful of guys at the top. He'd have been the undisputed greatest pitcher of all-time with his longevity and his ability to dominate hitters. It's too bad that his control was horrible, which made him just a Hall of Famer instead of the best of the best.
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 16:00
|
I could see how losses are arbitray.. but doesn't that make K's just as arbitrary?
different animals. one is strictly a pitcher vs. batter confrontation, while the other puts the pitcher completely dependent on his teammates. a pitcher could strike out 27 (or more) guys, and still take the loss.
a pitcher can (and has) throw a nine-inning no-hitter, and lose.
|
| 22 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 16:24
|
as far as 3B goes, Brett to me easily outpaces Schmidt. Schmidt hit more homers, but Brett tops him in Avg, Runs, Hits (by nearly 1000), SBs, and even RBIs.
Tree, I like you. And I think you know a lot about baseball. I'd even go so far as to defend your knowledge and thoughts about baseball to anyone who will listen.
However, this is a very shortsighted comment. Brett leads Schmidt by 1000 hits because he trails by over 400 walks. Add it all up, and Schmidt leads in on-base percentage, .380 to .369.
I know, I know. A walk isn't as good as a single. But Schmidt didn't hit singles. He hit doubles and homers. He had a better slugging percentage than Brett, .527 to .487.
Brett leads in steals because he ran more (and was caught more). Brett leads in runs (by 80) because he played four extra seasons.
Schmidt was better defensively, but I'll go you one further. Brett wasn't even a third baseman for long parts of his career. Career games at third base: Schmidt 2212, Brett 1692. Schmidt had about one season as a clunker at first base. Brett played 1000 games between first, DH, and outfield.
George Brett is a great player, and an obvious Hall of Famer. But even with your cock-a-mamie stats, this one isn't even close.
|
| 23 | Gman15
Dude
ID: 01531677
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:55
|
Until now, I've never seen Grover Cleveland Alexander referred to as Pete Alexander.
I agree with everyone that thinks Bench belongs on ahead of Pudge. Bench was the best I ever saw and revolutionized the postion.
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 5975149
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:58
|
I would have thought that if they were going to make up an "All-Time Team" that it would be a full squad. 40 guys, in other words, rounding out all the positions. An All-Time All Star squad.
|
| 25 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:43
|
OK. I'm home from the salt mines. Let's take a look at the bench.
Bench
C - Pudge Rodriguez
IF - Musial, Wagner
OF - Aaron, Mays, Mantle
It seems the consensus is that Bench should either start ahead of Gibson or at least be the backup catcher.
Should we operate under the assumption that Pete Rose should not be considered for this team?
I can't argue with Stan Musial on that list. Why couldn't he have hit 25 more HRs and then get 500 for his career? How much higher up the totum pole would he be then?
I'm trying to get Honus Wagner off the list but his stats are better than I thought. My knee jerk reaction was Eddie Murray. Honus has him beat in batting average related stats (except slugging), but Murray owns him on power. Murray was a switch hitter and overshot both the 500 HR and 3,000 hit plateaus. Thoughts?
It's near impossible to argue against Willie Mays and Aaron so I won't. Mantle is hard to make a case against too.
|
| 26 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:43
|
I would have thought that if they were going to make up an "All-Time Team" that it would be a full squad. 40 guys, in other words, rounding out all the positions. An All-Time All Star squad.
Start a thread?
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5975149
Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:48
|
LOL! That would be some thread!
I'll probably poke around at an ATAS list. There are some incredible players like Mickey Welch (and Pete Rose) who should be mentioned.
pd
|
| 28 | Seward Norse
ID: 4852178
Wed, Aug 15, 2007, 12:21
|
If ARod stays at 3rd for the rest of his career would others still consider him worthy of being the SS on this team?
|
| 29 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Wed, Aug 15, 2007, 12:26
|
Honus Wagner is much better than Eddie Murray. Murray had some great stats, but for a power hitter, he was never among the best power hitters. But among these first basemen (Musial, Gehrig, Foxx, others), Murray is way behind.
|
| 30 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 22:07
|
Here's one that I'd like to debate:
Mariano Rivera has had an amazing career:
Career 2.35 ERA 1.043 Whip 432 Saves
But take a look at this 5 year run by the closer I would name to this team:
5 year 1.90 ERA .855 Whip 220 Saves
Ponder this stat: In those 5 seasons he issued 38 walks and struck out 378. Almost 10 strikeouts to every walk over a 5 season span.
Another stat to Ponder..the pitcher in question has 197 career wins to go with his 390 saves.
That pitcher: Dennis Eckersly
|
| 31 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 22:39
|
Brett vs. Schmidt... I'm from Kansas City, I saw Brett's whole career. In my opinion he's the greatest clutch hitter of all time(just ask the 1985 Blue Jays!), but I admit I'm biased. Even I have to admit, Schmidt is probably the guy to get the nod.
Let's break down the stats a bit more though:
Blue Hen, you do know that George Brett is #5 all time in doubles where as Mike Schmidt is #135.
Brett also hit 137 triples(#70) to Schmidt's 59.
Brett hit .305 for his career, including .390 in 1980 and also won 3 batting titles. Schmidt had a career average of .267 and only hit .300 once in his career(.316 in 1981).
Of course we all know that chicks dig the long ball and Schmidt hit 548 to Brett's 317. Schmidt was a power hitter, Brett was a pure hitter that had excellent power.
In Brett's defense, Kaufmann stadium has always been a ballpark that home runs just don't happen. Doubles... Absolutely.. Homers... Nope. The fact that 36 homeruns(Bye Bye Balboni) is the Royals single season record should speak to that.
Interstingly, both could pilfer a bag.. Brett had 201 and Schmidt 174.
Schmidt had 10 gold gloves, Brett had 1. That's a huge difference, and the only reason I give Schmidt the edge.
Schmidt won 3 MVPs, Brett won 1 in 1980 but got screwed out of a 2nd in 1985(Sorry MattinglyIntheHall.. Brett had a better overall season, and trust me the 1985 Royals wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs let alone won the World Series without Brett carrying them. Isn't that a definition of an MvP?)
Brett moved to first base in 1987 and later to DH, because frankly the guy was fragile. If he had averaged 150 games a season for his career .. we probably wouldn't be having this conversation (he only played 150 games 6 times in his 21 year career).
|
| 32 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 09:14
|
Didn't Eckersley have a no-hitter too? Talk about accomplishing a lot. John Smoltz is the only modern day guy I can think of to compare to those unique numbers (albiet as a closer only a couple years) but he certainly excelled at both spots.
|
| 33 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 09:27
|
Yep, he had a no-hitter and also won 20 games in 1978 making him and Smoltz the only 2 pitchers to record both a 20 win season and a 50 save season.
|
| 34 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 09:51
|
Other interesting stats on the Brett - Schmidt comparison
They ended their careers with exactly the same amount of RBI (1595).
In 10349 AB Brett walked 1096 times and struck out only 908 times. Meaning he struck out once every 11.39 at bats.
In 8352 AB Schmidt walked 1507 times and struck out 1883 times(7th most all time). Meaning he struck out once every 4.4 at bats
|
| 35 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 10:58
|
Damn... they must be supplying Ryan Howard with Schmidt batting footage at the Phillies training facility!
|
| 36 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 12:53
|
Blue Hen, you do know that George Brett is #5 all time in doubles where as Mike Schmidt is #135.
Brett also hit 137 triples(#70) to Schmidt's 59.
So? I had hamburgers for lunch today. What dose that have to do with the relative talents of these two players? If it mattered at all, wouldn't Brett have a higher career slugging percentage?
Brett hit .305 for his career, including .390 in 1980 and also won 3 batting titles. Schmidt had a career average of .267 and only hit .300 once in his career(.316 in 1981).
So? I had hamburgers for lunch today. If Brett was so much better at this part of his game, why did Schmidt have a higher career on-base percentage?
|
| 37 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 15:11
|
Blue Hen,
I was simply responding to what you said, which implied that Brett was a singles hitter and Schmidt hit more doubles.
"I know, I know. A walk isn't as good as a single. But Schmidt didn't hit singles. He hit doubles and homers. He had a better slugging percentage than Brett, .527 to .487."
Brett had far more singles than Schmidt but he also had far more doubles and triples.
As for defense, Schmidt is acknowledged as the better defensive player due to the vast difference in gold gloves between Schmidt and Brett. Career Numbers at 3b back this up. Schmidt had a career .955 Fielding percentage and a 3.00 range factor.
Brett had a career .951 Fielding percentage and a 2.98 range factor. Clearly better, but hardly earth shattering.
Neither player was Brooks Robinson (.971 FP and 3.10 range factor) or (Buddy Bell .964 FP and 3.08 range factor.) Those 2 guys along with Gary Gaetti won the AL gold gloves during Brett's reign at 3rd base.
While Schmidt and Brett were contemporaries, I submit that Schmidt wouldn't have won anywhere near 10 straight gold gloves if he, Brett and Buddy Bell had all played in the same league during that time frame.
Another thing that is glossed over when comparing the 2 players is All Star and Post Season numbers. Brett was a stud in the post season, Schmidt not so much.
Brett hit .278/.381/.667 in All Star game
Brett hit .337/.397/.627 in the post season
Schmidt hit .292/.355/.583 in All Star games
Schmidt hit .236/.304/.386 in the post season
|
| 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 35738179
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 15:23
|
My own crack at an All-time best squad (25 guys):
C (2): Johnny Bench, Josh Gibson (Honorable Mention: Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza, Yogi Berra)
1B (2): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx (HM: Mark McGwire, Dick Allen, Hank Greenberg)
2B (2): Joe Morgan, Rogers Hornsby (HM: Craig Biggio, Rod Carew)
3B (2): Mike Schmidt, George Brett (HM: Brooks Robinson, Eddie Matthews)
SS (2): Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez (HM: Derek Jeter, Cal Ripkin)
OF (7): Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Pete Rose (HM: Rickey Henderson, Stan Musial, Ken Griffey, Jr.)
SP (5): Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Cy Young, Mickey Welch (HM:, Bob Feller, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Nolan Ryan)
RP (3): Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersley, Trevor Hoffman
[Some active players who seem to have a chance to crack the list (at least, the HM), in no particular order: Ichiro Suzuki, Manny Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Johan Santana, Francisco Rodriguez]
There are literally scores of guys who could be on there. But each of the players on the squad make the strongest case, IMO, to be there. Now, you guys can figure out the starters.
:)
|
| 39 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 15:26
|
First, I'll gloss over the postseason and All-Star stats. Those stats encompass small, tiny, miniscule, insignificant sample sizes. And in the case of All-Star data, it doesn't even count. Even if I let you incorporate that data in with the regular season stats, it won't make a lick of difference. Schmidt is way ahead.
Now, let's talk about fielding. Simply put, George Brett was not a very good fielder. He was moved away from third base when he had a lot of career left. For most of his career, Brett was placed at positions he could handle, like DH. Schmidt, on the other hand, was winning Gold Gloves until he retired. Sure, these are arbitrary (see Palmerio, Rafael), and maybe Schmidt wasn't the best third baseman of his era. But I have yet to see a single factor that might indicate Schmidt was anything other than a great third baseman.
Other than you saying Brett is "clearly better" than Schmidt.
|
| 41 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 16:42
|
I'm actually pretty sure I acknowledged that Schmidt is the guy I would give the nod to in my first post. The point I'm trying to make however is that he isn't the clear cut choice, and depending on the type of team I'm assembling I may not be much interested in those strikeouts ever 4 at bats from Schmidt.
Obviously post season and all-star stats don't close the entire career gap, but they were accrued against the best pitchers and teams in baseball. They should probably count for more than the stats accrued against the Texas Rangers or Chicago Cubs of the world.
I don't think I ever said that Brett was clearly better than Schmidt as a fielder either. Schmidt's career numbers say he was, but not by much.
During Schmidt's 9 straight gold glove run, Brett had 3 seasons that were better than Schmidt's in both fielding percentage and range factor during that run. I'm willing to bet Buddy Bell had more.
The fact is, Brett played the majority of his games at 3rd base(13 full seasons). He went into the Hall of Fame as a 3rd baseman. If Brett wasn't a good fielder I'm guessing the Royals would have found another place to play him before 1987(1st base has always been a gaping hole for the Royals for instance).
Brett had the luxury of moving to first base and later DH as he aged.
Obviously playing in the NL, the Phillies didn't have the luxury of playing Schmidt at DH. For all I know, they didn't have a guy that could play 3rd base for them in his final years either.
Brett moved to first base in 1987 not out of necessity but because Kevin Seitzer came up in September of 1986 and showed he was ready to play. The Royals had an obvious hole at first and it made more sense to move Brett there than Seitzer, so the move was made. Should this be held against Brett?
Let me add, by your reasoning, AROD shouldn't be holding down that SS position on the team but I didn't see you raise much of an issue with that.
How about Stan Musial.. He's on the list for the infield even though he played 1800 games in the Outfield
Rogers Hornsby played 603 games at other positions besides 2nd base.
Hank Aaron played 412 games at 1st and DH... better take that bum off the list too.
|
| 42 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 17:12
|
There's not much more to say, since we all agree that Schmidt is better than Brett.
First of all, Musial isn't an infielder. He's an outfielder. That's why I said "1 infielder" in post 12.
Aaron doesn't matter here. Moving from right field to first base is generally irrelevant. Moving from third base to DH means someone has lost faith in your fielding ability.
Brett played 1000 games at other positions. You can make a case for Hornsby and his 600 games. But that's not even the point. All I'm saying is you can't give Brett as much credit at third. But he is indeed a third baseman. And actually, I would say that ARod is not a shortstop.
Besides that, did you know that fielding percentage is a terrible, terrible statistic? Just yesterday, I saw Pedro Feliciano hop off the mound to field a bunt and just hold the ball. They gave the runner a hit. Feliciano didn't get an error, but he sure showed me how bad a fielder he is.
|
| 43 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 17:20
|
I agree, Bench should be on this list somewhere.
Frankly I like Ryne Sandberg better than Joe Morgan at 2nd.
If I'm actually building a batting order it would sure be nice to have Ricky Henderson at the top of it, but in the juiced ball/player era, I don't think his skills are much appreciated anymore.
I saw Eddie Murray mentioned earlier in this thread. I think he suffers from the same problem as Rafael Palmeiro (without the steroid stigma). He was always among the best players at his position, but he was never THE best player at his position(or even on his own team). Because of that, and the fact that he had a reputation of being surly, he has mostly flown under the radar.
Isn't it interesting that the players that have the most hits(Rose), most homers(Bonds), most doubles(Speaker),most triples(Sam Crawford), most runs(Ricky Henderson) and most stolen bases(Henderson), most walks(Bonds), most games played (Rose...Yaz in 2nd place didn't make it either),didn't make SI's list.
|
| 44 | Craig H
ID: 67351515
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 17:38
|
So Brett's 461 games at first count against him, but Musial's 1016 don't?.
Brett didn't move from 3rd to DH, he moved from 3rd to 1st. He played 4 seasons at first before moving to DH at age 38. I'm guessing Philly may have moved Schmidt to DH at that age too if they had the ability to.
Of course fielding percentage is a horrible statistic, which is why I was including range factor in my arguments. Ranking players defensively is not really quantifiable. Since it isn't, maybe we should just throw all that defensive nonsense out the window:)
|
| 45 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 04:22
|
Correct. Brett moving from 3rd to 1st is a significant move down the spectrum. Musial moved from a hitting position to another hitting position.
Schmidt did move to first for about a year, before the Phils realized that he could still play third.
|
| 46 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 09:55
|
I'd have to agree that Brett was the better all around hitter.
Schmidt looks like a prototypical slugger (Adam Dunn today?) but who also had a great glove. Seems like it was HR or bust, and he struck out WAY too much.
And those Gold Gloves are so subjective, after you win a few you start to get them on reputation alone, as Craig pointed out in several of Schmidt's Gold Glove seasons, Brett actually had better defensive stats - but unfortunately he had more competition keeping the hardware away from him.
|
| 47 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 14:26
|
So if Schmidt was just home run or bust, then why did he have a higher on-base percentage than Brett? And home run or bust can be good if you hit enough of them...
|
| 48 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Sun, Aug 19, 2007, 13:10
|
Exactly my point. He's like Adam Dunn (on offense). HR, walk or K.... thats not a great hitter. Thats a slugger. A great hitter makes more things happen than that.
And those postseason numbers were a pretty decent sample, with a similar number of games... hitting .237 and 16 HR's in 36 games is not that great. Brett had 23 HR's and a .337 AVG in 43 games. Thats pretty damn good.
Craig, you do know that Hen is a Phillies fan, right?
|
| 49 | StephonMarbury2
ID: 10544267
Sun, Aug 19, 2007, 22:44
|
What a joke. It's essentially a 'dis bonds' team. He should be leading this team. Defense, speed, power. Brutal.
|
| 50 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 10:09
|
Defense?
Speed (in the last 10 years)?
Don't get me wrong - I'm about the staunchest Bonds supporter there is, but let's not get carried away.
|
| 51 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 10:19
|
Sounds like he's the kind of person that thinks Stephon Marbury is a good player, so certainly not the best judge of talent I'd say.
|
| 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 22740208
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 10:23
|
Oh, hen, is this the "last ten years" list?
If not, then Bonds' 514 SB does have to factor in.
[Of course, ten years ago Bonds had 37 SBs. Not bad. 134 SBs in the last ten years isn't awful, either, even if he's near the end]
|
| 53 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 11:51
|
In the last 10 years (1998-2007), Bonds has 97 steals. That's less than 10 per year. Sure, it's impressive for a power hitter to have that many steals, but let's keep perspective. Even 514 steals over 22 years is 23 steals a year. That's great, but it's not the basis of a Hall of Fame or Best Player discussion. Vince Coleman averaged almost 60 steals a year, so where does he fit in this discussion.
Bonds was a good basestealer when he was young. He gets credit for that. He was a good leftfielder, but deserves little credit for that because leftfield an easier position to play.
Bonds is among the greatest players of all time; there's no doubt about that (unless you listen to Razor, and I won't entirely disagree with him). There are two reasons for this: he hits for power and he draws walks.
Everything else is just icing.
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 22740208
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 11:55
|
Sure, now, but this is a historical thread, not a current players thread. You can't just parse out Bonds' later (older) years and try to place him historically with the player he is today. By that standard, Mike Schmidt sucks.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|