@Tibor said:
Trout while an excellent player, might not be in the same sentence as Mantel, It's
all about post season playing which Trout has not seen. Mantel was a perennial
star in October. In many ways post season means as much or more regular season.
This is the point exactly!!! Im not a baseball expert by any means but I have been a student of football and its stats. When the conversation turns to the greatest of all time, what is pointed out is the number of championships. Take Dan Marino for instance, Numbers wise he was the greatest for quite a stretch of time, but he never won the "big" one. I know we are talking about the HOF here BUT, the " Greatest" usually have rings
its not even about winning, people are investing like he is the greatest already........
@Tibor said:
Trout while an excellent player, might not be in the same sentence as Mantel, It's
all about post season playing which Trout has not seen. Mantel was a perennial
star in October. In many ways post season means as much or more regular season.
This is the point exactly!!! Im not a baseball expert by any means but I have been a student of football and its stats. When the conversation turns to the greatest of all time, what is pointed out is the number of championships. Take Dan Marino for instance, Numbers wise he was the greatest for quite a stretch of time, but he never won the "big" one. I know we are talking about the HOF here BUT, the " Greatest" usually have rings
Individuals don't win championships in TEAM sports. Teams do.
There are very few discussions about sports that are not open to a lot of dispute, but not that.
Perfect example of a complete fool is the guy who wrote the article "Who was the greatest pitcher of all time?" and said Sandy Koufax, because of the championships he won.
Ridiculous.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tibor said:
Trout while an excellent player, might not be in the same sentence as Mantel, It's
all about post season playing which Trout has not seen. Mantel was a perennial
star in October. In many ways post season means as much or more regular season.
This is the point exactly!!! Im not a baseball expert by any means but I have been a student of football and its stats. When the conversation turns to the greatest of all time, what is pointed out is the number of championships. Take Dan Marino for instance, Numbers wise he was the greatest for quite a stretch of time, but he never won the "big" one. I know we are talking about the HOF here BUT, the " Greatest" usually have rings
Individuals don't win championships in TEAM sports. Teams do.
There are very few discussions about sports that are not open to a lot of dispute, but not that.
Perfect example of a complete fool is the guy who wrote the article "Who was the greatest pitcher of all time?" and said Sandy Koufax, because of the championships he won.
Ridiculous.
I get it, and you are right. My point was that this seems to elevate popularity over numbers. I know I dont make a good argument at the overall picture, I was trying to add to the discussion not cancel out someones opinion. My best example that I can think of is Joe Montana. Look at all his rings, and he never even hit the 4k mark in any of his seasons. Yet, he and a few others get most of the popularity and acclaim for the rings their team won.
@brad31 said:
Bonds has 762 career home runs and two batting titles. He should probably be in the top 4 if I were more objective. The only thing that kept him from 800 HR was being kept out of the league as the face of the steroid scandal.
Cy Young has 511 wins a record that will never be broken or even touched. Of those 76 were shutouts. He threw 7356 innings all with a WHIP of 1.13.
Gehrig is 2nd in consecutive games and held that record for a long time. He had 29 HR and an OPS of .930 his last year before being struck down by a disease named after him. Just missed 500 HR despite that. His average season per 162 games was .340, 37 HR and 149 RBIs. Mantle’s was .298, 36 and 102.
A-Rod has 3,115 hits and 696 HR. Beats Mantle in every counting stat and only batted 3 points less.
Henderson all time leader in SB while still getting over 3000 hits. Add in walks and you have a player who was on base over 5200 times. Still had almost 300 career home runs.
All are above Mantle in career WAR which incidentally Mantle is 16th.
Very very glad to see Henderson mentioned. Much like Cobb, their greatness lied in other areas besides the long ball, although both did have some pop. Rickey was unmatched at the things he was good at (and I'm sure Rickey would agree).
Reading this thread made me question things about these people, Acuna is not a proven GOAT, and Mike Trout can play good defense, and yes, he has a CHANCE to pass the Mick, is it likely? No, but he can,
@Tibor said:
Trout while an excellent player, might not be in the same sentence as Mantel, It's
all about post season playing which Trout has not seen. Mantel was a perennial
star in October. In many ways post season means as much or more regular season.
This is the point exactly!!! Im not a baseball expert by any means but I have been a student of football and its stats. When the conversation turns to the greatest of all time, what is pointed out is the number of championships. Take Dan Marino for instance, Numbers wise he was the greatest for quite a stretch of time, but he never won the "big" one. I know we are talking about the HOF here BUT,
Individuals don't win championships in TEAM sports. Teams do.
There are very few discussions about sports that are not open to a lot of dispute, but not that.
Perfect example of a complete fool is the guy who wrote the article "Who was the greatest pitcher of all time?" and said Sandy Koufax, because of the championships he won.
Ridiculous.
I get it, and you are right. My point was that this seems to elevate popularity over numbers. I know I dont make a good argument at the overall picture, I was trying to add to the discussion not cancel out someones opinion. My best example that I can think of is Joe Montana. Look at all his rings, and he never even hit the 4k mark in any of his seasons. Yet, he and a few others get most of the popularity and acclaim for the rings their team won.
Fair enough. I see your point.
Arguing QB is really tough. While Montana didn't hit the 4k mark, you are being a little clever with the facts.
He did throw for over 3900 twice and over 3500 on four occasions.
His yards gained per pass attempt is exactly the same as Tom Brady's at 7.5.
Montana also led the league in pass completion percentage 5 times to Brady's 1.
Just bringing up Brady because he seems to be most everyone's choice at best of all time.
You say " the " Greatest" usually have rings". When it comes to running backs that certainly isn't the case.
I like Marino just as good as Montana or Brady or a couple of others. Marino didn't have a very good defense most of the time, so it's not his fault he doesn't have any rings.
1983- #1-defense gave up 27 points to the Seahawks. Marino played just ok.
1984- #7- lost to 49ers in SB giving up 38 points. Scored 16 and RBs rushed for a total of 25 yards. Failed to score in 2nd half.
1985- #12- lost in playoffs to NE giving up 31 points. Scored 14, RBs rushed for 68 yards.
1986-1989 their defense was bad #26, #16 (not horrible) #24 and #22,
1990- #4- gave up 44 points to the Bills in playoffs while scoring 34. Played well, but not great, 34 points should be enough.
1991- #24-didn't make playoffs.
1992- #11-lost to the Bills in playoffs 29-10. Here's a game Marino didn't seem to play very well.
1993- #24-didn't make playoffs.
1994=#17-Marino played a great game and still lost. RBs rushed for 26 yards.
1995- #10- lost to Bills again defense gives up 37 points. Bills rush for 341 yards. Dolphins don't score until 4th quarter.
1996- #17-didn't make playoffs.
1997- #16-didn't make playoffs.
1998-#1 -lost to Bronkos in playoffs defense gives up 38 points. Offense generates only a field goal. RBs run for 14 yards!
1999 -#19-didn't make playoffs.
Marino had a top 5 defense three times. His best shot at a SB may have come in his rookie year.
Defense failed him in 1984,1990,1995 and 1998.
Can't imagine a team winning the SB with a team that ranks 26th, 24th, 22nd, 24th and 24th. Have to be very lucky to do it with a Defense ranked 17th, 16th and 19th (in points allowed).
The Dolphins also had almost a non existent running game in the playoff losses.
Dan did throw about 2 interceptions in most of the playoff losses, but I can only really see him playing poorly one time, in 1992 against a great Bills team.
One guy can't do it by himself.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Arenado_is_best said:
Reading this thread made me question things about these people, Acuna is not a proven GOAT, and Mike Trout can play good defense, and yes, he has a CHANCE to pass the Mick, is it likely? No, but he can,
Good Point...it made me question that when these "newer" guys go up against the numbers of the "older guys", you wonder once the hype dies down after the "newer" guys retire and find that they are not even in the top ten when it comes to final numbers and championships that they're card values will level off. Say if Trout finished with 562 Dingers, Batting Avg. .302, 1660 RBI's, 3080 hits and no championships (which is certainly possible)..... certainly real good numbers but will Trout's card values stay like they are or will they increase because of these "real good" numbers? Seems to me that unless he continues to maintain this trajectory which is possible but not a given, that his card values will level off over time even at his current trajectory.
Ruth
Williams
Bonds.. not a great arm
Mantle - over Mays. Mays made more Outs. More DPs. Mantle had 8 seasons with way over 100 walks and a 99 BB season. Mays high BB is 82 and an 81.
I read Bill James and he says "The Win Shares system sees Mantle as the better player as long as Mantle was a good player—and, indeed, as the greatest player in baseball since the prime of Babe Ruth "
@chkajudo said:
Ruth
Williams
Bonds.. not a great arm
Mantle - over Mays. Mays made more Outs. More DPs. Mantle had 8 seasons with way over 100 walks and a 99 BB season. Mays high BB is 82 and an 81.
I read Bill James and he says "The Win Shares system sees Mantle as the better player as long as Mantle was a good player—and, indeed, as the greatest player in baseball since the prime of Babe Ruth "
Bill James also defended Harold Baines’ HOF induction, so.....
what are Pujols stats. His cards used to be as hot as Trout, yet is not even mentioned as anywhere near GOAT or top 4 or even top 10. Griffey was pretty good also.
@1959 said:
what are Pujols stats. His cards used to be as hot as Trout, yet is not even mentioned as anywhere near GOAT or top 4 or even top 10. Griffey was pretty good also.
prime pujols was a greater offensive player than trout.
Bonds was a WAY better offensive player than trout
@1959 said:
what are Pujols stats. His cards used to be as hot as Trout, yet is not even mentioned as anywhere near GOAT or top 4 or even top 10. Griffey was pretty good also.
Pujols lifetime numbers are dropping. Batting Average is down to .300 On Base %.379 and Slugging is .549.
His Slugging % has not been above .500 for the last 7 years.
Griffey was not as good of a hitter as Pujols was his first 10 years but a Gold Glove Center Fielder makes him better than Albert who has been primarily a First base man.
Both players (and Trout) better than Bonds in my opinion.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It only goes top 4. No room for 5, that is why I excluded it. Top 4 only, now what is your top 4...it get's tough.... And I can't put the Mick over the Splendid Splinter. But now rethinking it, the Mick was best in the playoffs...so it gets real tough....
Top 4? Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Mantle.
Wow...No Aaron? No Teddy Ballgame?....okay
chaz
Yes, no Aaron, no Williams. Mantle & Mays both had higher peaks than Aaron. If I drop anybody, I drop Mays and take Williams.
Trout has no pressure or spotlight playing for the Angels (do they have fans?). Mantle delivered under pressure and in the spotlight playing for the Yankees. Shouldn't even be in the same conversation for at least another 6-7 years.
But seriously, he gets treated like he was one of the best players to ever play. I'd put him in the top-25. In the hobby he gets treated like at least a top-5.
Arthur
I couldn’t agree more!
You don't count being a Red Sox fan lol
They’re both Sox fans, I believe.
It’s 18 World Series home runs, fellas. And chances are it hangs there forever.
Mickey is treated like a top 5 player because he IS a top 5 player.
In 1956, he won the MLB Triple Crown - not just the A.L. Version, joining Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Ted. When he retired, he was 3rd all time in home runs. Many of the guys that bumped him down the list were confirmed users - by admission or failed test. He was already a legend while still playing - that’s pretty rare. Everyone who watched him spoke of his greatness as a baseball player and deified him. The fact that he did this all as a raging alcoholic isn’t something he should be given credit for but does serve to reinforce the fact that his talent was both otherworldly and certainly somewhat untapped.
It’s also important to remember that he had enormous shoes to fill (DiMaggio) and enormous expectations to live up to (The most heralded national prospect since Bob Feller) and the fact that - for all intents and purposes - Mickey DID live up to those expectations and you have one of the five greatest baseball players of all time.
18 WS home runs isn't happening again. Teams just won't be that good for so long anymore AND its so much tougher to even get there these days. Anyway, regardless of the stats, Mantle is a top 5 player among the fans. It's not just Vinnie from the Bronx making every Mantle card there is a premium.
Comments
its not even about winning, people are investing like he is the greatest already........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Individuals don't win championships in TEAM sports. Teams do.
There are very few discussions about sports that are not open to a lot of dispute, but not that.
Perfect example of a complete fool is the guy who wrote the article "Who was the greatest pitcher of all time?" and said Sandy Koufax, because of the championships he won.
Ridiculous.
I get it, and you are right. My point was that this seems to elevate popularity over numbers. I know I dont make a good argument at the overall picture, I was trying to add to the discussion not cancel out someones opinion. My best example that I can think of is Joe Montana. Look at all his rings, and he never even hit the 4k mark in any of his seasons. Yet, he and a few others get most of the popularity and acclaim for the rings their team won.
Very very glad to see Henderson mentioned. Much like Cobb, their greatness lied in other areas besides the long ball, although both did have some pop. Rickey was unmatched at the things he was good at (and I'm sure Rickey would agree).
I just got off the phone with Rickey and he said, "Rickey's definitely in top 4."
CAREW is top 4 of course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Reading this thread made me question things about these people, Acuna is not a proven GOAT, and Mike Trout can play good defense, and yes, he has a CHANCE to pass the Mick, is it likely? No, but he can,
Fair enough. I see your point.
Arguing QB is really tough. While Montana didn't hit the 4k mark, you are being a little clever with the facts.
He did throw for over 3900 twice and over 3500 on four occasions.
His yards gained per pass attempt is exactly the same as Tom Brady's at 7.5.
Montana also led the league in pass completion percentage 5 times to Brady's 1.
Just bringing up Brady because he seems to be most everyone's choice at best of all time.
You say " the " Greatest" usually have rings". When it comes to running backs that certainly isn't the case.
I like Marino just as good as Montana or Brady or a couple of others. Marino didn't have a very good defense most of the time, so it's not his fault he doesn't have any rings.
Year- Defensive ranking (points allowed)- playoff results
1983- #1-defense gave up 27 points to the Seahawks. Marino played just ok.
1984- #7- lost to 49ers in SB giving up 38 points. Scored 16 and RBs rushed for a total of 25 yards. Failed to score in 2nd half.
1985- #12- lost in playoffs to NE giving up 31 points. Scored 14, RBs rushed for 68 yards.
1986-1989 their defense was bad #26, #16 (not horrible) #24 and #22,
1990- #4- gave up 44 points to the Bills in playoffs while scoring 34. Played well, but not great, 34 points should be enough.
1991- #24-didn't make playoffs.
1992- #11-lost to the Bills in playoffs 29-10. Here's a game Marino didn't seem to play very well.
1993- #24-didn't make playoffs.
1994=#17-Marino played a great game and still lost. RBs rushed for 26 yards.
1995- #10- lost to Bills again defense gives up 37 points. Bills rush for 341 yards. Dolphins don't score until 4th quarter.
1996- #17-didn't make playoffs.
1997- #16-didn't make playoffs.
1998-#1 -lost to Bronkos in playoffs defense gives up 38 points. Offense generates only a field goal. RBs run for 14 yards!
1999 -#19-didn't make playoffs.
Marino had a top 5 defense three times. His best shot at a SB may have come in his rookie year.
Defense failed him in 1984,1990,1995 and 1998.
Can't imagine a team winning the SB with a team that ranks 26th, 24th, 22nd, 24th and 24th. Have to be very lucky to do it with a Defense ranked 17th, 16th and 19th (in points allowed).
The Dolphins also had almost a non existent running game in the playoff losses.
Dan did throw about 2 interceptions in most of the playoff losses, but I can only really see him playing poorly one time, in 1992 against a great Bills team.
One guy can't do it by himself.
Good Point...it made me question that when these "newer" guys go up against the numbers of the "older guys", you wonder once the hype dies down after the "newer" guys retire and find that they are not even in the top ten when it comes to final numbers and championships that they're card values will level off. Say if Trout finished with 562 Dingers, Batting Avg. .302, 1660 RBI's, 3080 hits and no championships (which is certainly possible)..... certainly real good numbers but will Trout's card values stay like they are or will they increase because of these "real good" numbers? Seems to me that unless he continues to maintain this trajectory which is possible but not a given, that his card values will level off over time even at his current trajectory.
chaz
Barry Bonds - Greatest player in history...Nobody had the combined power/speed/defense as he did.
Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Willie Mays
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Bonds played the least valuable of the 3 OF positions.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Ruth
Williams
Bonds.. not a great arm
Mantle - over Mays. Mays made more Outs. More DPs. Mantle had 8 seasons with way over 100 walks and a 99 BB season. Mays high BB is 82 and an 81.
I read Bill James and he says "The Win Shares system sees Mantle as the better player as long as Mantle was a good player—and, indeed, as the greatest player in baseball since the prime of Babe Ruth "
Bill James also defended Harold Baines’ HOF induction, so.....
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
what are Pujols stats. His cards used to be as hot as Trout, yet is not even mentioned as anywhere near GOAT or top 4 or even top 10. Griffey was pretty good also.
prime pujols was a greater offensive player than trout.
Bonds was a WAY better offensive player than trout
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Pujols lifetime numbers are dropping. Batting Average is down to .300 On Base %.379 and Slugging is .549.
His Slugging % has not been above .500 for the last 7 years.
Griffey was not as good of a hitter as Pujols was his first 10 years but a Gold Glove Center Fielder makes him better than Albert who has been primarily a First base man.
Both players (and Trout) better than Bonds in my opinion.
Yes, no Aaron, no Williams. Mantle & Mays both had higher peaks than Aaron. If I drop anybody, I drop Mays and take Williams.
Trout has no pressure or spotlight playing for the Angels (do they have fans?). Mantle delivered under pressure and in the spotlight playing for the Yankees. Shouldn't even be in the same conversation for at least another 6-7 years.
My Sox fan quip was a JOKE lol
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
18 WS home runs isn't happening again. Teams just won't be that good for so long anymore AND its so much tougher to even get there these days. Anyway, regardless of the stats, Mantle is a top 5 player among the fans. It's not just Vinnie from the Bronx making every Mantle card there is a premium.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240