@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
That's an argument for whether a HOFer deserves to be in for continued dominance or the evaluation of an entire career.
I'm just one that thinks your stats at the end of your career are just as important as how dominant you were every season. I don't necessarily think being dominant for several years has anymore weight than someone who was consistently good/great for a career.
Well that's an argument, but I'm not going to say that Richie Ashburn, with two good years out of his last four, was better than Griffey who was terrible his last ten, especially if you omit 2005, or that the consistent Jeff Bagwell was better than Albert Pujols who was just bad his last seven years.
@JoeBanzai said:
In his final 7 seasons Pete slugged an anemic .333 with an OPS of .687 and an OPS+ of 92.
Not every player hangs on too long. Three that immediately come to mind are Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, and Larry Walker.
Most HOFers play one or two year too long, not 7-8.
Pete's decision to play several years too many to achieve a record is understandable, however, there's no way you can ignore he was a below average player for about 1/3 of his time in the majors.
That is one way to view it. In hindsight he could have retired after losing in the 83 WS but he would never have broken Cobb's hits record. The 2.5 seasons as Player Manager created an odd situation that allowed him to play an 2.5 extra seasons.
To elaborate on his final 7 seasons, specifically the 4 when he was only a player:
1980 Age 39 All Star Phillies win their FIRST World Series in 90 years.
1981 Age 40 All Star 10th in the MVP voting. Phillies lost in NL Divisional Series.
1982 Age 41 All Star Phillies missed playoffs.
1983 Age42 No All Star Phillies lose in the World Series
1984-1986 Ages 43-45 Player Manager.
Not quantifying any leadership qualities Rose may have had in 1980, that team belongs to Schmidt and Carlton. Then you take Tug McGraw, Manny Trillo, Bake McBride, Dick Ruthven, and a whole host of minor contributors before you get to Rose.
No doubt Rose was better in 1981, but still the Phillies belonged to Schmidt and Carlton, and Rose was still less valuable than Trillo.
1982 same as 1980, though the minor contributors have changed.
1983 there is a new team leader, John Denny, but Rose was beyond terrible. OPS of .602 can perhaps be tolerated in a slick fielding shortstop, though Ozzie Smith was better in all but four seasons, and even the completely overmatched Mark Belanger was better four times, but it's unforgivable in a poor fielding first baseman.
Nevertheless, I contend that Rose's career isn't diminished by his play after his first year in Philadelphia. I consider him roughly the same. Assuming the player is of adequate character, are we really saying that a Rose with 3164 hits and a .310/.379/.432 is somehow less great than one with 4256 hits, but a .303/.375/.409 line? I'll grant less sexy, but I don't think those seven years as a significantly below average, and, in fact barely above replacement level, player move the needle one way or the other.
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
Ironic since Ryan really isn’t one of the absolute best pitchers either. Certainly Seaver was much better.
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
Ironic since Ryan really isn’t one of the absolute best pitchers either. Certainly Seaver was much better.
ryan is #1. no seaver card with same psa grade and same year will ever match ryan's. most of the time its not even close.
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
Ironic since Ryan really isn’t one of the absolute best pitchers either. Certainly Seaver was much better.
ryan is #1. no seaver card with same psa grade and same year will ever match ryan's. most of the time its not even close.
but tom was certainly terrific..
Ryans cardboard is definitely more valued than Seaver's, but on the mound, Tom was considerably better than Nolan. Ryas cards are so valuable mostly because of the last 5 years of his career. Every middle-aged man in America seemed like a huge fan at the time. He became a mythic figure tossing no-hitters and 98 MPH fastballs in his 40s
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
Ironic since Ryan really isn’t one of the absolute best pitchers either. Certainly Seaver was much better.
ryan is #1. no seaver card with same psa grade and same year will ever match ryan's. most of the time its not even close.
but tom was certainly terrific..
Ryans cardboard is definitely more valued than Seaver's, but on the mound, Tom was considerably better than Nolan. Ryas cards are so valuable mostly because of the last 5 years of his career. Every middle-aged man in America seemed like a huge fan at the time. He became a mythic figure tossing no-hitters and 98 MPH fastballs in his 40s
And how soundly he whipped Robin Ventura when he charged the mound. It looked like he was manhandling a teenager!
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Rose was never a favorite player of mine while he was active because he was never on a team I rooted for. Mostly he was against them and his style made every opposing fan hate the guy.
I have a lot of his cards because he was as much 'the guy' as anyone while he played. He was bigger than life, played hard and set record after record.
Additionally, he was sort of a social media-type star before it even existed, because he's lived on his infamy/notoriety more than most former athletes to stay relevant and in the public eye. He's one of the greatest players ever and been able to stay famous (for good or bad).
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
I don’t even think that’s the best trio for the Yankees. Jeter is the weak link. I’d rather have Mantle, Ford and Berra.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
I like to consider different teams and (in hindsight) their records based on talent. The 78 Padres had Winfield, Fingers, Perry and Ozzie Smith for a while. The 82 Brewers had Molitor, Yount, Sutton and Simmons.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
Love this question. I feel like old school would have to be 1955 Dodgers with Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Snider (Koufax on the mound as a bonus). Modern day would be hard to top the 1995 Mariners with Griffey, ARod, Edgar Martinez and Randy Johnson on the mound as an added bonus.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
Schmidt choked in post season for the most part, except 1980 WS.
He went 1-for-20 (.050 BA) against the Orioles in 1983, a team that had all time greats Ripken, Murray, Palmer.
Some might mention Rose, Bench, Morgan of the 70's Reds, as a better 3 that includes Rose.
You must not be a Brooklyn Dodger fan, not mentioning the all times greats that were teammates in the 50's.
And the '51 Yankees had Dimaggio, Mantle, Berra. They were pretty good.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
I'm shocked that the Trouty fanboys haven't mentioned Trouty, Ohtani, and Pujols. Maybe because deep down they know that Trouty turns into just another schlub when the stakes ramp up.
The 28 A's in all honesty probably have it all wrapped up.
Cobb, Speaker, Foxx. throw in Grove, Cochrane, Simmons, Collins and Wheat. You practically have an all-HOF team with multiple top-tier HOFers.
Schmidt - best 3b of all-time, maybe/probably
Rose - all-star at 5 different positions, all-time hit leader
Carlton - second all-time winningest left hander
while schmidt had a bad WS, I bet Trout and Ohtani would love to play in a playoff game together, just one. How many hits did griffey have in the WS? oh he never made it.
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@olb31 said:
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
Schmidt choked in post season for the most part, except 1980 WS.
He went 1-for-20 (.050 BA) against the Orioles in 1983, a team that had all time greats Ripken, Murray, Palmer.
Some might mention Rose, Bench, Morgan of the 70's Reds, as a better 3 that includes Rose.
You must not be a Brooklyn Dodger fan, not mentioning the all times greats that were teammates in the 50's.
And the '51 Yankees had Dimaggio, Mantle, Berra. They were pretty good.
Loved that series! I am not defending Schmidt but that O's pitching staff was nasty. McGregor, Boddicker, Palmer, etc.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
You diminish Rose's worth because of his lack of power, yet you call singles slapper Carew a 'stud'? LOL (and even like Carew, but c'mon)
Carew was WAY better than Rose!
Seven batting titles shows his superiority as a hitter, not much power but at least he was dominant in what he was good at.
Rose didn't do anything better than everyone else except to hang on longer.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Carew was WAY better than Rose!
Seven batting titles shows his superiority as a hitter, not much power but at least he was dominant in what he was good at.
Rose didn't do anything better than everyone else except to hang on longer.
Carew was a better power hitter than you think. His slugging percentage was .429 against a league average slugging percentage of .386. That's a huge difference.
The above is true, but Rose really was a very good player. He gets a 64 on Bill James' Black Ink while Carew gets 42 and the average HoFer just 27. So not only were Rose's on field results good enough for the Hall, he would be far better than the average there.
Rose doesn't belong because of the off field problems. I'm fine with that. And Carew was far better.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@olb31 said:
Schmidt Carlton and Rose - top hard to top.
Bench, Seaver, Rose. (late 70's)
Good one. Bench is definitely a top 3 -5 catcher of all-time maybe higher. Carlton and seaver about equal. Schmidt might have been a little better than Johnny Bench. But its close no doubt.
Leaving out Meusel as not a HOFer but who put up great years from 1920-1928. His brother had some great years in the 20's as well. Both .300 hitters. Imagine the publicity if that was today.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@olb31 said:
Schmidt Carlton and Rose - top hard to top.
Bench, Seaver, Rose. (late 70's)
Good one. Bench is definitely a top 3 -5 catcher of all-time maybe higher. Carlton and seaver about equal. Schmidt might have been a little better than Johnny Bench. But its close no doubt.
Another good trio that includes a Catcher one is from the Pittsburg Crawfords (Negro League):
Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Going by who is in the hall of fame, Blyleven is a very good choice. He was not as good as Palmer, but he was a very good, way above average pitcher. I know you are strict, but Joe is living in reality not what if world. (not trying to sound condensing).
I don't disagree that the standards to be in the hall have been greatly diminished the last 10 - 15 years.
Going by who is in the hall of fame, Blyleven is a very good choice. He was not as good as Palmer, but he was a very good, way above average pitcher. I know you are strict, but Joe is living in reality not what if world. (not trying to sound condensing).
I don't disagree that the standards to be in the hall have been greatly diminished the last 10 - 15 years.
Blyleven is not a very good choice. If you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher you would never choose Blyleven.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the what if world, but the reality is Blyleven wasn't on the same level as pitcher as Palmer. I know you are young but trust me Palmer was considered one of the best if not the best pitcher of the entire decade in the 70's. Blyleven wasn't even in the discussion.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@JoeBanzai said:
Carew was WAY better than Rose!
Seven batting titles shows his superiority as a hitter, not much power but at least he was dominant in what he was good at.
Rose didn't do anything better than everyone else except to hang on longer.
Carew was a better power hitter than you think. His slugging percentage was .429 against a league average slugging percentage of .386. That's a huge difference.
Ichiro's slg pct was .403 and Boggs' slg pct was .446. Are we calling these guys power hitters?
Madlock had a bunch of batting titles, but no one's confusing him to a HOFer.
Ichiro twice had .350+ BA and didn't win the batting title those years.
Carew was an average fielder at his peak and a liability playing the easiest position at 1st and was DH a lot, and ended with a negative defensive career WAR. He was compiler too, trying to reach 3000 hits, and possibly wouldn't be in the Hall without that stat. Although HOF creds have shifted now to just having to be dominant or a specialist or really really good for peak 5-7 years and you're considered.
I really don't want to crap on Carew because I like the guy and I rooted for him and the early 80s Angels.
And that 77 season!
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Bert had 12 seasons with an ERA+ of 123 or higher, Jim had 11 seasons above 122.
Looking at the top 11 years, Palmer averaged an ERA+ of 140, While Blyleven's was 138. You can't get much closer than that.
Palmer did have the best season in 1975, but Bert's 1973 was better than any of Palmer's other years!
If you want to talk "dominant" Bert had 6 seasons of 140 or above, while Palmer managed only 5.
You mention Cy Young awards, Blyleven was better in 1973 than Palmer, yet Palmer won. Cy Young awards is a POOR way to measure pitchers, especially these two.
The fact is Palmer WAS NOT a more "dominating" pitcher, in fact he was LESS dominating than Bert who struck out more and walked less guys.
These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen, but I will grant you that Palmer was very SLIGHTLY better.> @RonSportscards said:
@JoeBanzai said:
Carew was WAY better than Rose!
Seven batting titles shows his superiority as a hitter, not much power but at least he was dominant in what he was good at.
Rose didn't do anything better than everyone else except to hang on longer.
Carew was a better power hitter than you think. His slugging percentage was .429 against a league average slugging percentage of .386. That's a huge difference.
Ichiro's slg pct was .403 and Boggs' slg pct was .446. Are we calling these guys power hitters?
Madlock had a bunch of batting titles, but no one's confusing him to a HOFer.
Ichiro twice had .350+ BA and didn't win the batting title those years.
Carew was an average fielder at his peak and a liability playing the easiest position at 1st and was DH a lot, and ended with a negative defensive career WAR. He was compiler too, trying to reach 3000 hits, and possibly wouldn't be in the Hall without that stat. Although HOF creds have shifted now to just having to be dominant or a specialist or really really good for peak 5-7 years and you're considered.
I really don't want to crap on Carew because I like the guy and I rooted for him and the early 80s Angels.
And that 77 season!
Everything you say about Carew is correct, still, he was a MUCH better player than Pete Rose, who made more outs than any player who ever played the game.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Bert had 12 seasons with an ERA+ of 123 or higher, Jim had 11 seasons above 122.
Looking at the top 11 years, Palmer averaged an ERA+ of 140, While Blyleven's was 138. You can't get much closer than that.
Palmer did have the best season in 1975, but Bert's 1973 was better than any of Palmer's other years!
If you want to talk "dominant" Bert had 6 seasons of 140 or above, while Palmer managed only 5.
You mention Cy Young awards, Blyleven was better in 1973 than Palmer, yet Palmer won. Cy Young awards is a POOR way to measure pitchers, especially these two.
The fact is Palmer WAS NOT a more "dominating" pitcher, in fact he was LESS dominating than Bert who struck out more and walked less guys.
These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen, but I will grant you that Palmer was very SLIGHTLY better.> @RonSportscards said:
For context my original point was if you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher, you would never choose Blyleven, who was barely a .500 pitcher:
Jim Palmer+ (19) .6381 wins 268 losses 152 162 game average 17-10
Bert Blyleven+ (22) .5345 wins 287 losses 250 162 game average 14-12
You discredit the Cy Young award so I assume you will try to devalue W-L percentage. Palmer had an outstanding W-L percentage, number 51 all time. Blyleven is number 526. That is almost 100 more losses.
You say "These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen" while looking at their stats but ask either player whose career they would rather have. Ask a random 100 former players and you might get 1 or 2 former teammates of Blyleven's to say he was better No matter how hard you look at the stats you can never turn Blyleven into Palmer, it's just not what happened. Palmer has all of those awards and WS Titles because he earner them and he was the better player.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Bert had 12 seasons with an ERA+ of 123 or higher, Jim had 11 seasons above 122.
Looking at the top 11 years, Palmer averaged an ERA+ of 140, While Blyleven's was 138. You can't get much closer than that.
Palmer did have the best season in 1975, but Bert's 1973 was better than any of Palmer's other years!
If you want to talk "dominant" Bert had 6 seasons of 140 or above, while Palmer managed only 5.
You mention Cy Young awards, Blyleven was better in 1973 than Palmer, yet Palmer won. Cy Young awards is a POOR way to measure pitchers, especially these two.
The fact is Palmer WAS NOT a more "dominating" pitcher, in fact he was LESS dominating than Bert who struck out more and walked less guys.
These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen, but I will grant you that Palmer was very SLIGHTLY better.> @RonSportscards said:
For context my original point was if you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher, you would never choose Blyleven, who was barely a .500 pitcher:
Jim Palmer+ (19) .6381 wins 268 losses 152 162 game average 17-10
Bert Blyleven+ (22) .5345 wins 287 losses 250 162 game average 14-12
You discredit the Cy Young award so I assume you will try to devalue W-L percentage. Palmer had an outstanding W-L percentage, number 51 all time. Blyleven is number 526. That is almost 100 more losses.
You say "These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen" while looking at their stats but ask either player whose career they would rather have. Ask a random 100 former players and you might get 1 or 2 former teammates of Blyleven's to say he was better No matter how hard you look at the stats you can never turn Blyleven into Palmer, it's just not what happened. Palmer has all of those awards and WS Titles because he earner them and he was the better player.
You are finally correct at ONE THING winning percentage is the most completely irrelevant statistic to use here.
How on earth can you know what 100 former players would say? I'm betting they would rather not face Bert's curveball.
Players win championships because they play on good teams. The people who constantly jump on the "he won more championships" bandwagon are clueless.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Cakes said:
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Bert had 12 seasons with an ERA+ of 123 or higher, Jim had 11 seasons above 122.
Looking at the top 11 years, Palmer averaged an ERA+ of 140, While Blyleven's was 138. You can't get much closer than that.
Palmer did have the best season in 1975, but Bert's 1973 was better than any of Palmer's other years!
If you want to talk "dominant" Bert had 6 seasons of 140 or above, while Palmer managed only 5.
You mention Cy Young awards, Blyleven was better in 1973 than Palmer, yet Palmer won. Cy Young awards is a POOR way to measure pitchers, especially these two.
The fact is Palmer WAS NOT a more "dominating" pitcher, in fact he was LESS dominating than Bert who struck out more and walked less guys.
These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen, but I will grant you that Palmer was very SLIGHTLY better.> @RonSportscards said:
For context my original point was if you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher, you would never choose Blyleven, who was barely a .500 pitcher:
Jim Palmer+ (19) .6381 wins 268 losses 152 162 game average 17-10
Bert Blyleven+ (22) .5345 wins 287 losses 250 162 game average 14-12
You discredit the Cy Young award so I assume you will try to devalue W-L percentage. Palmer had an outstanding W-L percentage, number 51 all time. Blyleven is number 526. That is almost 100 more losses.
You say "These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen" while looking at their stats but ask either player whose career they would rather have. Ask a random 100 former players and you might get 1 or 2 former teammates of Blyleven's to say he was better No matter how hard you look at the stats you can never turn Blyleven into Palmer, it's just not what happened. Palmer has all of those awards and WS Titles because he earner them and he was the better player.
Joe only defends Blyleven because he was a Twins player. He trashes Sutton, but if he had played for the Twins, Joe would be cherrypicking stats claiming he was better than Palmer and Seaver. (Yet, in the real world, any one of the three are equal on any given start.)
Hell, if Rick Reuschel had played for the Twins, Joe would be campaigning for him to be in the Hall.
Clearly Joe has a hard-on against Rose, so no matter what, to him every Twins player is better than Rose because Rose made a lot of outs during a long career.
Comments
Well that's an argument, but I'm not going to say that Richie Ashburn, with two good years out of his last four, was better than Griffey who was terrible his last ten, especially if you omit 2005, or that the consistent Jeff Bagwell was better than Albert Pujols who was just bad his last seven years.
Not quantifying any leadership qualities Rose may have had in 1980, that team belongs to Schmidt and Carlton. Then you take Tug McGraw, Manny Trillo, Bake McBride, Dick Ruthven, and a whole host of minor contributors before you get to Rose.
No doubt Rose was better in 1981, but still the Phillies belonged to Schmidt and Carlton, and Rose was still less valuable than Trillo.
1982 same as 1980, though the minor contributors have changed.
1983 there is a new team leader, John Denny, but Rose was beyond terrible. OPS of .602 can perhaps be tolerated in a slick fielding shortstop, though Ozzie Smith was better in all but four seasons, and even the completely overmatched Mark Belanger was better four times, but it's unforgivable in a poor fielding first baseman.
Nevertheless, I contend that Rose's career isn't diminished by his play after his first year in Philadelphia. I consider him roughly the same. Assuming the player is of adequate character, are we really saying that a Rose with 3164 hits and a .310/.379/.432 is somehow less great than one with 4256 hits, but a .303/.375/.409 line? I'll grant less sexy, but I don't think those seven years as a significantly below average, and, in fact barely above replacement level, player move the needle one way or the other.
no question. psa 9 from 1981 and down would be awesome also.
to me ryan and rose are the pinnacle. cant have enough of them
Ironic since Ryan really isn’t one of the absolute best pitchers either. Certainly Seaver was much better.
ryan is #1. no seaver card with same psa grade and same year will ever match ryan's. most of the time its not even close.
but tom was certainly terrific..
Ryans cardboard is definitely more valued than Seaver's, but on the mound, Tom was considerably better than Nolan. Ryas cards are so valuable mostly because of the last 5 years of his career. Every middle-aged man in America seemed like a huge fan at the time. He became a mythic figure tossing no-hitters and 98 MPH fastballs in his 40s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And how soundly he whipped Robin Ventura when he charged the mound. It looked like he was manhandling a teenager!
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Let's see if mid-grade Rose cards are hot - I just posted a 1965 in PSA 6 on the B/S/T board (shameless plug)
good luck
Testing to see if the OP is correct on Rose's trajectory in a Greg Morris auction.
1969 Topps #120 Pete Rose PSA 8 AUTO POP 1 with none higher. https://ebay.com/itm/325654467485
.
Rose may be the one guy that I just can't collect / invest in. I could care less if he makes the Hall; just don't want his cards.
sounds good. I feel the same way about Mike Trout, cards are way overpriced for someone who hasn't won even one playoff game in 12 years.
Rose was never a favorite player of mine while he was active because he was never on a team I rooted for. Mostly he was against them and his style made every opposing fan hate the guy.
I have a lot of his cards because he was as much 'the guy' as anyone while he played. He was bigger than life, played hard and set record after record.
Additionally, he was sort of a social media-type star before it even existed, because he's lived on his infamy/notoriety more than most former athletes to stay relevant and in the public eye. He's one of the greatest players ever and been able to stay famous (for good or bad).
I'm a Dodger fan, so the REDS were never my favorite. It's hard to believe that Rose, Schmidt and Carlton played on one team. Maybe the best three players to ever play on one team at the same time.
Rivera Rodriguez Jeter?
I don’t even think that’s the best trio for the Yankees. Jeter is the weak link. I’d rather have Mantle, Ford and Berra.
I like to consider different teams and (in hindsight) their records based on talent. The 78 Padres had Winfield, Fingers, Perry and Ozzie Smith for a while. The 82 Brewers had Molitor, Yount, Sutton and Simmons.
One didn't work but the other almost got it all.
Love this question. I feel like old school would have to be 1955 Dodgers with Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Snider (Koufax on the mound as a bonus). Modern day would be hard to top the 1995 Mariners with Griffey, ARod, Edgar Martinez and Randy Johnson on the mound as an added bonus.
I don't know. Who was the best Yankee with Ruth and Gehrig? ETA: Bill Dickey, 1929-34?
Schmidt choked in post season for the most part, except 1980 WS.
He went 1-for-20 (.050 BA) against the Orioles in 1983, a team that had all time greats Ripken, Murray, Palmer.
Some might mention Rose, Bench, Morgan of the 70's Reds, as a better 3 that includes Rose.
You must not be a Brooklyn Dodger fan, not mentioning the all times greats that were teammates in the 50's.
And the '51 Yankees had Dimaggio, Mantle, Berra. They were pretty good.
I'm shocked that the Trouty fanboys haven't mentioned Trouty, Ohtani, and Pujols. Maybe because deep down they know that Trouty turns into just another schlub when the stakes ramp up.
what a fantastic question.
what about the 51 Yanks with Dimag, Mantle and Berra.
For my money, though, give me the 1939 Red Sox.
Foxx, Grove and Williams. Add in Doerr and Cronin for good measure. 5 HOFers!
of course, I am a homer too.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The 28 A's in all honesty probably have it all wrapped up.
Cobb, Speaker, Foxx. throw in Grove, Cochrane, Simmons, Collins and Wheat. You practically have an all-HOF team with multiple top-tier HOFers.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Schmidt Carlton and Rose - top hard to top.
Schmidt - best 3b of all-time, maybe/probably
Rose - all-star at 5 different positions, all-time hit leader
Carlton - second all-time winningest left hander
while schmidt had a bad WS, I bet Trout and Ohtani would love to play in a playoff game together, just one. How many hits did griffey have in the WS? oh he never made it.
I like the way olb added in one pitcher to the mix, for best three players to ever play on one team at the same time. It makes it even harder to choose.
I guess it would depend on how you value the different positions. Most teams like to be strong up the middle and having a great Center fielder or Catcher really helps.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Loved that series! I am not defending Schmidt but that O's pitching staff was nasty. McGregor, Boddicker, Palmer, etc.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I didn't add one in. In the post where I said it's hard to believe these three players played together I put carlton, schmidt and rose.
1971 Twins.
Killebrew, Carew, Blyleven, Oliva, Kaat.
i like the murray ripken palmer trio a little better but the twins one is definitely a solid choice.
I > @olb31 said:
If the pitcher in your mix of top 3 is Blyleven you wouldn't even make the Top 100 trios.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Proves you know little about pitchers.
I know a little! You would need a stud SP like either Johnson, Walter or Randy.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Those two were awesome, however you (as most people do) are underrating Bert, he matches up pretty well with Palmer. To say he and Killebrew and Carew wouldn't make the top 100 trios is ridiculous.
The other three hitters (Kaat does not make my HOF) were all studs.
You diminish Rose's worth because of his lack of power, yet you call singles slapper Carew a 'stud'? LOL (and even like Carew, but c'mon)
Carew was WAY better than Rose!
Seven batting titles shows his superiority as a hitter, not much power but at least he was dominant in what he was good at.
Rose didn't do anything better than everyone else except to hang on longer.
Carew was a better power hitter than you think. His slugging percentage was .429 against a league average slugging percentage of .386. That's a huge difference.
The above is true, but Rose really was a very good player. He gets a 64 on Bill James' Black Ink while Carew gets 42 and the average HoFer just 27. So not only were Rose's on field results good enough for the Hall, he would be far better than the average there.
Rose doesn't belong because of the off field problems. I'm fine with that. And Carew was far better.
Bench, Seaver, Rose. (late 70's)
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Only in your head does he match up well with Palmer.
Edited to add: Maybe top 100 trio was off, maybe top 50 was more accurate. When I came up with the statement I debated the two.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Good one. Bench is definitely a top 3 -5 catcher of all-time maybe higher. Carlton and seaver about equal. Schmidt might have been a little better than Johnny Bench. But its close no doubt.
How about 1927's Ruth,Gehrig,Lazzari,Combs
Leaving out Meusel as not a HOFer but who put up great years from 1920-1928. His brother had some great years in the 20's as well. Both .300 hitters. Imagine the publicity if that was today.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Another good trio that includes a Catcher one is from the Pittsburg Crawfords (Negro League):
Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Palmers ERA+ was 125 Bert's was 118, Jim's WHIP was 1.180 Bert's was 1.198.
If Bert doesn't have the last couple of years in California, his ERA+ is 121.
That's pretty close.
Sorry Joe but we will have to agree to disagree.
Blyleven was an excellent pitcher, for a very long time. He was an excellent number two starter, but he hardly ever dominated and should have never been elected to the HOF. Please keep in mind I am for a much stricter HOF, close to half wouldn't be in there. I don't go to Cooperstown to see Bert Blyleven and Harold Baines. It's not the Hall of very good.
Palmer had dominant seasons, which is why he won 3 Cy Young awards. Blyleven never won the Cy Young.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Cakes,
Going by who is in the hall of fame, Blyleven is a very good choice. He was not as good as Palmer, but he was a very good, way above average pitcher. I know you are strict, but Joe is living in reality not what if world. (not trying to sound condensing).
I don't disagree that the standards to be in the hall have been greatly diminished the last 10 - 15 years.
condescending
Blyleven is not a very good choice. If you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher you would never choose Blyleven.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the what if world, but the reality is Blyleven wasn't on the same level as pitcher as Palmer. I know you are young but trust me Palmer was considered one of the best if not the best pitcher of the entire decade in the 70's. Blyleven wasn't even in the discussion.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Ichiro's slg pct was .403 and Boggs' slg pct was .446. Are we calling these guys power hitters?
Madlock had a bunch of batting titles, but no one's confusing him to a HOFer.
Ichiro twice had .350+ BA and didn't win the batting title those years.
Carew was an average fielder at his peak and a liability playing the easiest position at 1st and was DH a lot, and ended with a negative defensive career WAR. He was compiler too, trying to reach 3000 hits, and possibly wouldn't be in the Hall without that stat. Although HOF creds have shifted now to just having to be dominant or a specialist or really really good for peak 5-7 years and you're considered.
I really don't want to crap on Carew because I like the guy and I rooted for him and the early 80s Angels.
And that 77 season!
Bert had 12 seasons with an ERA+ of 123 or higher, Jim had 11 seasons above 122.
Looking at the top 11 years, Palmer averaged an ERA+ of 140, While Blyleven's was 138. You can't get much closer than that.
Palmer did have the best season in 1975, but Bert's 1973 was better than any of Palmer's other years!
If you want to talk "dominant" Bert had 6 seasons of 140 or above, while Palmer managed only 5.
You mention Cy Young awards, Blyleven was better in 1973 than Palmer, yet Palmer won. Cy Young awards is a POOR way to measure pitchers, especially these two.
The fact is Palmer WAS NOT a more "dominating" pitcher, in fact he was LESS dominating than Bert who struck out more and walked less guys.
These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen, but I will grant you that Palmer was very SLIGHTLY better.> @RonSportscards said:
Everything you say about Carew is correct, still, he was a MUCH better player than Pete Rose, who made more outs than any player who ever played the game.
For context my original point was if you are trying to create the top trio of players and include a pitcher, you would never choose Blyleven, who was barely a .500 pitcher:
Jim Palmer+ (19) .6381 wins 268 losses 152 162 game average 17-10
Bert Blyleven+ (22) .5345 wins 287 losses 250 162 game average 14-12
You discredit the Cy Young award so I assume you will try to devalue W-L percentage. Palmer had an outstanding W-L percentage, number 51 all time. Blyleven is number 526. That is almost 100 more losses.
You say "These two are about as equal as any two players I have ever seen" while looking at their stats but ask either player whose career they would rather have. Ask a random 100 former players and you might get 1 or 2 former teammates of Blyleven's to say he was better No matter how hard you look at the stats you can never turn Blyleven into Palmer, it's just not what happened. Palmer has all of those awards and WS Titles because he earner them and he was the better player.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
You are finally correct at ONE THING winning percentage is the most completely irrelevant statistic to use here.
How on earth can you know what 100 former players would say? I'm betting they would rather not face Bert's curveball.
Players win championships because they play on good teams. The people who constantly jump on the "he won more championships" bandwagon are clueless.
Joe only defends Blyleven because he was a Twins player. He trashes Sutton, but if he had played for the Twins, Joe would be cherrypicking stats claiming he was better than Palmer and Seaver. (Yet, in the real world, any one of the three are equal on any given start.)
Hell, if Rick Reuschel had played for the Twins, Joe would be campaigning for him to be in the Hall.
Clearly Joe has a hard-on against Rose, so no matter what, to him every Twins player is better than Rose because Rose made a lot of outs during a long career.