All Decade Teams
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,333 ✭✭✭✭✭
Not every decade, just the ones that interest me the most - 1950s through 1980s. And if I did it the same way everybody else does these things it would just be full of the same names you always see and it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. To qualify for the best for a decade at a position, I restricted the candidates to the players who played more than 50% of his team's games at that position. So, for example, Pete Rose doesn't qualify at any position in any decade because he played multiple positions every decade. Robin Yount doesn't qualify because he started too late in the 1970's and switched away from shortstop too early in the 1980's. So before you complain about a player you think should be there, be sure he qualified.
1950s:
P Spahn
C Berra
1B Hodges
2B Fox
3B Mathews
SS Dark
LF Minoso
CF Mantle
RF Jensen
1960s:
P Marichal
C Torre
1B McCovey
2B Mazeroski
3B Santo
SS Wills
LF Yastrzemski
CF Mays
RF Aaron
1970s:
P Palmer
C Bench
1B Perez
2B Morgan
3B Nettles
SS Concepcion
LF Roy White
CF Otis
RF Reggie
1980s:
P Stieb
C Carter
1B Murray
2B Whitaker
3B Schmidt
SS Trammell
LF Henderson
CF Wilson
RF Dwight Evans
A few preemptive responses to questions I expect:
Defense counts, and it counts a lot at some positions
The games played at that position and calendar decade (from 19X0 through 19X9) restrictions knock a lot of great players out of contention
These teams do not include the three best outfielders, they include the best in LF, the best in CF and the best in RF.
Biggest surprise to me was Wills at SS in the 1960s; I thought Fregosi would be there. But Fregosi didn't play the whole decade and Wills did, and he wasn't enough better than Wills to make up the gap. Same thing happened to Cal RIpken in the 1980s; better than Trammell for his career, but not enough better in the 1980s to make up for the two missing years.
Biggest pleasures are seeing Roy White and Amos Otis get a little respect.
Comments
Totally agree with many choices - would consider substituting
1960’s pitcher - Bob Gibson over Juan Marichal
1960’s 3rd base - Brooks Robinson over Ron Santo
1970’s 3rd base - Mike Schmidt over Craig Nettles
1980’s Shortstop - Ozzie Smith over Alan Trammell
Might add Yaz to the 1970’s outfield over Roy White.
1950's I have to put Musial and Teddy Ballgame in the OF.
Does Williams not qualify under your "rules"?
Of course I want Killebrew on the 1960's team. Utility player? ;-)
Why bother with something like this when you have to leave out one of the top players of
the 70's, Willie Stargell? I'm sure you left him out because he played outfield for the early seventies
and first base for mid to late seventies.
Just plug him in at first base over Perez and be done with it.
Definitely Ozzie Smith over Trammell. Best SS EVER......and I'm not a Cardinal fan!
I guess Musial must have hit for too high of an average in the 50's to make the list. LOL
Odd how players get excluded because they weren't playing full time at a particular position.
But doesn't that make them more versatile and valuable to the team?
Your first four were all close calls, especially Gibson/Marichal; Marichal pitched more innings with a lower ERA+, but Gibson makes up ground with his hitting and fielding. In the end, probably too close to call with any certainty. As for the others, Robinson was a better fielder than Santo, but not by as much as people think, and Santo was a clearly better hitter. Schmidt was much better than Nettles, but not quite enough better to make up for the several years he misses at the start of the decade. And what I said about Robinson/Santo applies again to Smith/Trammell.
Yaz didn't play anywhere near half the Red Sox games in LF in the 1970's, so he wasn't eligible. Which also applies to almost everyone else mentioned; while you may think of them as playing a particular position, they didn't play it all that often in that particular decade.
So while I could, say, plug Willie Stargell in at 1B over Tony Perez, why not just plug in Babe Ruth, who also didn't play 1B enough in the 1970s to be considered a first baseman for that decade?
Ted Williams did qualify as a left fielder in the 1950s, but in addition to the two years he lost to military service, he also missed a ton of games in several other seasons and only played more than 140 games once in the entire decade. Bottom line, he only played 995 games in the 1950s with just over 4,000 plate appearances, while Minoso played 1,337 games with almost 5,900 plate appearances; and Minoso played LF well while Williams played it poorly. Williams was a much better hitter when he was playing, but not enough better to make up for the missed games and fielding.
If I added a true utility player to the team, it would be Killebrew for the 1960's, although Frank Robinson was the best player left off the team (beat out by Aaron in RF).
Musial?
Clemente???? Ripken?????
70's P Carlton over Palmer?
OK, I see.
Primarily a first baseman in the 1950s, but played fewer than half the games there.
Clemente lost to Aaron in the 1960s, the only decade he played enough to get in the conversation, and he wasn't even in the same ballpark as being as good as Aaron.
Someone else asked about Ozzie, but I agree that Ripken was the second best SS of the decade. In fact, it wouldn't take much to convince me he was the best. Ripken and Trammell were very close (for the decade, Ripken passed him easily after his 1991 season), but Ripken missed 1980 and was putrid in his short 1981 call-up. That's a large hole to dig out of, and his OPS+ for the decade is only 5 points higher than Trammell's. I think it's a toss-up, and I always pick the underdog in a toss-up.
It was very, very close between Palmer and Seaver, with Perry just a bit behind. Niekro and Jenkins round out the top 5, and then there's Carlton. Carlton was phenomenal in 1972 and great in 1977; for the rest of the decade he was good, but not very good. Carlton's best two-year stretch is 1980-1981, and those don't count for best pitcher of the 1970s. That's what I mean by the arbitrary restriction of calendar decades - switch the 10-year period from 1972-1981 and Carlton not only wins, he wins easily.
Which is what I found interesting about this exercise. When people think of Carlton as one of, if not the, best pitchers of the 1970s, what they're really thinking of is his entire body of work. And since his body of work centers on the 1970s, they assign all of the value to that decade. What I'm doing is focusing on one calendar decade at a time, and only to players who are properly identified as playing a particular position in that decade. People seem to be taking it as dissing this or that player, but the intent was to give a little recognition to players, like Amos Otis, who too often get overlooked.
Good choice on Amos Otis, who is often overlooked. Another star of the Royals who doesn't get much
credit is Hal McRae, who was a better hitter than Otis but mainly played DH so wasn't the all around player.
Otis did everything well, played great center field, stole bases, good, solid hitter.
1980s - RF - Dave Winfield
Not saying you’re wrong just that he was pretty solid 80-89.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I believe that Carlton's stats took a hit in the early 70's because he pitched for a pretty bad Phillies team; what he did in 72 with the absolute worst team in baseball was just remarkable. That team may not have won 40 games without him that year. But I digress, I do see your point about Palmer. I always thought Trammell never got his just due for the great player he was, but I still feel that Ripken edges him out for the decade.....very close. Ozzie Smith was great, but when he first came up in the early 80's, he was terrible at the plate and that, for me, took him out of the equation.
When you think about this, so many great players can't find a place here and yet I can't think of a better pitcher for the 80's decade than Dave Stieb. Good pitcher, but in my mind, just doesn't belong with the other names on the list.
This one wasn't particularly close, and Andre Dawson was actually in second place. Winfield missed 1989 due to an injury, but even if he had played that season Evans would still have been better. Evans hit a little bit better over a lot more plate appearances, and while I know I'm not going to convince you of this because Winfield was winning a bunch of Gold Gloves, Evans was a much better fielder than Winfield (who was not good at all). Winfield was a better player than Evans, but his best two-year stretch is '78-'79 and he was good well into the '90s; in the 1980's, Evans was clearly better.
Unlike with Winfield, Evans was just plain a better baseball player than Andre Dawson, so I'm glad he got a spot on the all-decade team. That Dawson is in the HOF and Evans is not is ridiculous. I'm open to the argument that neither one deserves it, but I'd prefer that Evans be in with Dawson out.
It was off the top of my head....I don’t put a ton of stock in Gold Gloves and I thought Evans to be a better defender than Winfield, already but not by so great s margin...
Forgot he missed ‘89.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest