@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.
Absolutely totally and completely incorrect.
If that were true, I would be saying Kaat was great as well.
Rose was a very good singles/doubles hitter who hustled a lot and played forever. He also bet on baseball, so that's enough to move on from him, even though there's LOTS more dirt on this dumpster fire of a person.
Lastly, have you guys who yap about championships bothered to look up the postseason numbers? Guess who was better?
Bert.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@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.
I think most historians put Bench at #1 catcher. And most have Seaver ahead of Carlton. So I slightly disagree.
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.
I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Is it Sutton who is equivalent to Palmer or Seaver, or Blyleven who is equal to Palmer or Seaver?
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.
1929-33 was better. Bill Dickey was even better than Lazzeri.
@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!
No, not a power hitter, but also better than "not much power". Not close to a compiler and HoF standards haven't been watered down, but I've gone into great detail in the Sports Talk forum. Carew doesn't get disqualified because he was a (slightly) below average 2B, but he was actually good at 1B until 1983.
Carew had five straight seasons with an OPS+ and finished with 407 batting runs, which puts him in a group with Larry Walker, Piazza, Winfield, Gwynn, Murray, and Snider. Madlock finished with 208. Suzuki 84, but you know as well as I that he'll be going into the Hall as soon as he's eligible.
@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.
And until you understand that it's easy to make a case that Blyleven was better than Carlton (I think it's close despite Blyleven's higher ERA+ and much higher WAR and RAA), then we really don't have much to talk about. MLB isn't the NBA: players can't choose their teammates.
@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.
And until you understand that it's easy to make a case that Blyleven was better than Carlton (I think it's close despite Blyleven's higher ERA+ and much higher WAR and RAA), then we really don't have much to talk about. MLB isn't the NBA: players can't choose their teammates.
Extremely good evaluation, I always thought Carlton was quite a bit better than Blyleven, but he was not.
Carlton was WILDLY inconsistent!
In 1969 he had a superb year with an ERA+ of 164, the previous year he had a 97 and in 1970 it was 111.
Move forward to his phenomenal season of 1972 with a 182 ERA+, the year before he had a 102 and in 1973 he dropped to a 97.
Bert, on the other hand was unbelievably consistent.
His first 9 seasons his ERA+ went from a low of 119 to a high of 156.
Carlton had those two superb years in his first 9 of 182 & 164, but not a single one of the other 7 years was his ERA+ above 118!
The next seven years, Steve had 3 great seasons, with (surprisingly) 2 consecutive in 1980 & 1981.
Bert was worse over his second seven, with a bad 1976. He came back with two very good/great years in 1984 & 1985.
Looking at hits, HR, SO, and BB per 9 innings, the numbers are very close with the exception of BB per 9, where Steve walked almost 1 batter every game more than Bert, he struck out about 1/2 a man more than Bert per game.
Here's another example of two VERY similar pitchers. Steve had a better ERA 3.22-3.31, but Bert wins in ERA+ 118-115 and WHIP 1.198-1.247.
I'll take Blyleven's consistency over Carlton's superb year sandwiched between a couple of average ones.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
all you need to know is that carlton is the second winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, all the way back to 1876.
11th all-time is wins
9th all-time in innings pitched.
From 1920 on he's the 4th winningest pitcher of all-time. Not sure why there is much debate about him. He is 5 star sure fire hofer that won championships, cy youngs, and has every stat to back it up.
Blyleven, Sutton and Katt all had fantastic careers. But none of them were Steve Carlton. Hard to find good left handed pitchers.
@olb31 said:
all you need to know is that carlton is the second winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, all the way back to 1876.
11th all-time is wins
9th all-time in innings pitched.
From 1920 on he's the 4th winningest pitcher of all-time. Not sure why there is much debate about him. He is 5 star sure fire hofer that won championships, cy youngs, and has every stat to back it up.
Blyleven, Sutton and Katt all had fantastic careers. But none of them were Steve Carlton. Hard to find good left handed pitchers.
Carlton's lifetime ERA+ is 115.
He had 12 seasons where he surpassed it.
Blyleven had 18 seasons above 115 ERA+.
@olb31 said:
Pete Rose played in 590 games or more in the following positions:
first base
second base
third base
left field
right field
He never once in 15,000 or more at bats was the designated hitter. Friends that is mighty impressive.
The 5 easiest positions, and I don't believe they had the DH available for him in the NL.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I coach JV baseball and third base is not the easiest position. They don't call it the hot corner for nothing. It's tough to get anyone to play third base. Then you have to have a big arm on top of that. Why do you think there are so few great hitting third baseman? You've got to be a good fielder first.
The NL didn't have it nor did Pete want to be traded to the American League so he could take advantage of it.
Joe, if playing all those positions is so easy, please name me your favorite player that did all of that? I can't name any, not with Pete's stats especially.
Most infielders don't play outfield and definitely not vice versa.
@olb31 said:
I coach JV baseball and third base is not the easiest position. They don't call it the hot corner for nothing. It's tough to get anyone to play third base. Then you have to have a big arm on top of that. Why do you think there are so few great hitting third baseman? You've got to be a good fielder first.
The NL didn't have it nor did Pete want to be traded to the American League so he could take advantage of it.
I never said playing 3B was easy.
Pete would have played anywhere to get the hit record.
@olb31 said:
Joe, if playing all those positions is so easy, please name me your favorite player that did all of that? I can't name any, not with Pete's stats especially.
Most infielders don't play outfield and definitely not vice versa.
Again, I didn't say that AT ALL. Please read carefully in the future.
Harmon Killebrew played both the infield and outfield and was an "All Star" left fielder three consecutive years. That doesn't mean Harmon was a great left fielder. He was a much better hitter than Pete.
If you coach, you then should understand that shortstop, center field and catcher are the three most difficult positions, thereby making the other ones easier, not EASY.
Pete's stats were just not great, he had a nice run from 1968-1972 other than that he wasn't a top batting average guy and he had almost no power.
What Pete was good at was getting up to bat. 15 times he had more than 700 PA in a year. That's amazing, but the down side is you barely hit .300 in those years wit 200 hits. You also make a LOT of outs.
He has the most hits ever, great accomplishment, but it just means he was a good (singles/doubles) hitter for a long, long time. He was no where near the greatest hitters of all time.
He tried real hard when he played too!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@olb31 said:
Pete Rose played in 590 games or more in the following positions:
first base
second base
third base
left field
right field
He never once in 15,000 or more at bats was the designated hitter. Friends that is mighty impressive.
Rose was great from 1969-76, and good to very good the rest of his career. He wouldn't be at the very top, but his play was good enough to satisfy even most of the "small hall" types. But, and this is a big but, his off-field activities are far more disqualifying than those of Schilling, Joe Jackson, and the Bonds-Clemens-Alex Rodriguez bunch. He's out, and won't be in in his lifetime at least, and I'm OK with that.
Rose played Left well, especially in the full seasons there from '72 to '74. Otherwise he was below average to poor fielding.
I once introduced a speaker by noting that he had attended seven colleges. It's exactly as flattering as playing 590+ games at five positions. Hint: the reason that Ozzie Smith played every single defensive inning at short (10778 PA and never once as DH) wasn't because his managers didn't think he could handle Left.
@olb31 said:
all you need to know is that carlton is the second winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, all the way back to 1876.
11th all-time is wins
9th all-time in innings pitched.
From 1920 on he's the 4th winningest pitcher of all-time. Not sure why there is much debate about him. He is 5 star sure fire hofer that won championships, cy youngs, and has every stat to back it up.
Blyleven, Sutton and Katt all had fantastic careers. But none of them were Steve Carlton. Hard to find good left handed pitchers.
You can make a case that Carlton was better than Blyleven. What absolutely no one who understands baseball would do is say that Blyleven is closer to Sutton and Kaat than to Carlton. I'd also dispute the fantasticness of Sutton and Kaat's careers.
Pete had a career batting average of .303…Killebrew .256. I will take Pete over Killebrew. Pete 3 World Championship teams, Killebrew 0 World Championships.
@mintonlypls said:
Pete had a career batting average of .303…Killebrew .256. I will take Pete over Killebrew. Pete 3 World Championship teams, Killebrew 0 World Championships.
Hahahahahahahaha
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@olb31 said:
all you need to know is that carlton is the second winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, all the way back to 1876.
11th all-time is wins
9th all-time in innings pitched.
From 1920 on he's the 4th winningest pitcher of all-time. Not sure why there is much debate about him. He is 5 star sure fire hofer that won championships, cy youngs, and has every stat to back it up.
Blyleven, Sutton and Katt all had fantastic careers. But none of them were Steve Carlton. Hard to find good left handed pitchers.
You can make a case that Carlton was better than Blyleven. What absolutely no one who understands baseball would do is say that Blyleven is closer to Sutton and Kaat than to Carlton. I'd also dispute the fantasticness of Sutton and Kaat's careers.
Carlton had two phenomenal seasons, but in the end his lifetime ERA+ and WAR were lower than Bert's. People remember Carlton's 1972, one of the finest years by a pitcher ever, but in the end Steve had enough bad years to negate both 1972 and 1980, (his best two years) and he ends up with a career not quite as good as Bert's. I am not going to dispute someone who thinks Carlton was the better pitcher, but it's VERY close.
Carlton is somewhat overrated and Blyleven is VASTLY underrated.
Neither is as good a pitcher as Tom Seaver was.
Not sure why Sutton and Kaat were brought into the discussion, but neither were good enough to be in the HOF in my mind.
Actually, these two are a lot like the Blyleven and Carlton comparison (only they were not nearly as good). Sutton had the best 2 years, but ends up about even with Kaat.
Bert/Steve Steve/Bert are sure fire HOFers, Sutton and Kaat are in, but neither is deserving. I would put Sutton in over Kaat if I had to pick one. I guess I am not such a Twins fan as some would claim.
I'll never understand why people continue to try to use Wins, Cy Youngs and Championships into these debates, it really shows you don't understand team sports and how those stats don't work when comparing individual players.
I can't respond to anyone who thinks Rose was anywhere near the player Killebrew was. That's just hilarious. 😂
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I can't respond to anyone who thinks Rose was anywhere near the player Killebrew was. That's just hilarious. 😂
Hear me clearly. Killebrew was A LOT better than Rose when he was playing. But there has to be some adjustment for the 1000 games Rose played at a reasonably high level when not even the Royals wanted Killebrew.
Killebrew was a great hitter, likely top 50 of all time, but he was pretty bad at everything else. That, combined with career length, makes it reasonable to consider Rose greater. I'm pretty sure I do.
Having said that, the argument that Rose was better because of his batting average is extremely foolish. Some guy named Oscar "Ski" Melillo wasn't better than Killebrew, or thousands of other players, because he had a .260 BA compared to Killebrew's .256.
@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.
Pitcher wins and win % are a terrible way to compare pitchers. those are team stats, not individual ones. That is a big reason why Palmer was viewed as highly as he was in the 70s. Big "win" totals. if you were to put Bert on those Orioles teams and Jim on the Twins teams, you can bet their "win" totals would be reversed.
I can't respond to anyone who thinks Rose was anywhere near the player Killebrew was. That's just hilarious. 😂
Hear me clearly. Killebrew was A LOT better than Rose when he was playing. But there has to be some adjustment for the 1000 games Rose played at a reasonably high level when not even the Royals wanted Killebrew.
Killebrew was a great hitter, likely top 50 of all time, but he was pretty bad at everything else. That, combined with career length, makes it reasonable to consider Rose greater. I'm pretty sure I do.
Having said that, the argument that Rose was better because of his batting average is extremely foolish. Some guy named Oscar "Ski" Melillo wasn't better than Killebrew, or thousands of other players, because he had a .260 BA compared to Killebrew's .256.
First off, I have repeatedly said Rose was the best of all time at showing up for the most games, AB, PA. He also was durable.
A lifetime BA of .303 with no power is not good. Ichiro was much better, at least he could play defense, had a great arm, and could steal you a base.
It wasn't Killebrew's fault Washington kept him on the bench and in the minors for 4+ seasons and it's not Harmon's fault he wasn't given an extra 7 or so seasons at the end of his career to chase numbers.
Killebrew was a solid 3rd baseman, not poor, not great, and would have been fine at first and DH for a couple more years. His final 3 years his OPS+ was 95, 90, & 93.
Killebrew had an OPS of .900 or higher nine times, Pete ONCE.
Pete's 1983 & 1986 his OPS+ was 69 & 61 PATHETIC.
Rose was not a great defender and despite all his exciting head first dives, he was a HORRIBLE base stealer. He didn't walk much, so he ended up with 100 extra ABs every year compared to Killebrew, who usually batted 4th, which cost him PA.
Hitting wise there's NO COMPARISON.
Pete really doesn't make up any ground as a defender, a base runner or a great arm.
Rose also made more outs than anyone in the history of the game by about 1,000 and the hits he did get were the weakest.
Mickey Mantle once said of Pete; " If I hit like that I'd wear a dress".
Finally, it's ludicrous that anyone can say Pete should be in the HOF, he bet on baseball, the absolute number one transgression against the game.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Consistency and skill over time were needed to break Cobb’s record…no other player has at least 4000 hits than Rose and Cobb. Killer did not even make it to 2500 hits and sub .260 batting average with that many homeruns reminds of King Kong Kingman. Killer barely made it to 2000 hits (2086 hits) in fact.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. And you do not have to raise your font size to me…
@mintonlypls said:
Consistency and skill over time were needed to break Cobb’s record…no other player has at least 4000 hits than Rose and Cobb. Killer did not even make it to 2500 hits and sub .260 batting average with that many homeruns reminds of King Kong Kingman. Killer barely made it to 2000 hits (2086 hits) in fact.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. And you do not have to raise your font size to me…
Killebrew's 2088 hits were more valuable than Pete's 4256.
Killebrew was the much better hitter, as I have REPEATEDLY said, Pete got to the plate more often and was a fairly good singles/doubles hitter with zero power.
Amazing that Rose stayed healthy with how hard he played. That doesn't make him better.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Rose is MUCH, MUCH BETTER than killebrew. You have no argument! You’re way off on your Twinkies “hero”! killebrew was a twinkies cream puff…King Kong 2.0
joe just doesn't like rose, no facts or stats will ever change his mind. he's hung up with outside obstacles. i have a hard time with some of the outside crap Lebron, kareem and kobe had/have issues/opinions on outside of basketball and in fact it could be worse than what pete did, but i still can recognize that all three are top 10 all-time basketball players. i don't say that bill laimbeer was better than kareem because i liked bill better.
How did it come to be that any post on this board, no matter the OPs intent, becomes a debate on the merits of Bert Blylevens career by page 4.
I swear I could start a post about whether to store binders laying down or on their edge and before post 125 someone will be telling me I don’t understand ERA+.
@olb31 said:
joe just doesn't like rose, no facts or stats will ever change his mind. he's hung up with outside obstacles. i have a hard time with some of the outside crap Lebron, kareem and kobe had/have issues/opinions on outside of basketball and in fact it could be worse than what pete did, but i still can recognize that all three are top 10 all-time basketball players. i don't say that bill laimbeer was better than kareem because i liked bill better.
You're correct, t don't like Pete Rose. However, that doesn't change the way I feel about him as a baseball player AT ALL.
Are you actually reading my posts? I have repeatedly expressed my admiration for his longevity and durability. I have used the word amazing in describing that part of his game. I stated that 1968 & 1969 were SUPERB seasons for him.
As a hitter, the facts are right there for those who aren't blinded by 4256;
His batting average was a nice .303, 178 players in MLB history had a higher BA.
He scored a lot of runs, averaging nearly 100 per season, that's great, but it's also dependent on teammates to drive you in, and he had plenty of great hitters batting behind him.
Pete must be one of the worst base stealers in MLB history for a top of the order guy, he averaged 9 SB per year and 7 times a season got caught stealing. Horrible.
Pete was NOT a great fielder. It would appear he won his Golf Gloves more because of his hitting, but this is just a guess on my part. He did win 2.
Pete was a HORRIBLE hitter for power! His .409 SLG was 985th on the all time list. He hit a HR once every 88 AB. PATHETIC!
Not sure about his arm, but I'm guessing it was average?
We've taken a look at the 5 "tools", he was good/very good hitting for average, horrible hitting for power, horrible at running, average/above average fielder and below average arm.
Still while playing/managing, he admitted bet on the outcome of games his team was involved in. The NUMBER ONE worst thing you can do as a player, even WORSE as a manager.
Still while playing he had at least one long term sexual relationship with an underage girl. Allegedly, this was his "thing" he liked young "hardbodied" women. Didn't seem to worry about if they were of age.
Still while playing/managing he failed to report income and pled guilty and went to jail for it after his career was over. WENT TO JAIL!
Allegedly he was willing to finance at least one drug deal in order to make some quick cash to help pay his gambling debts. I don't think this did actually happen.
Other than his ability to get in games, get a LOT of ABs and stay healthy, what's to admire? Oh yeah 4256.
He's GOT TO BE one of the WORST human beings in the history of sports.
Be my guest, admire the guy. He's a GIGANTIC POS.
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.
Pitcher wins and win % are a terrible way to compare pitchers. those are team stats, not individual ones. That is a big reason why Palmer was viewed as highly as he was in the 70s. Big "win" totals. if you were to put Bert on those Orioles teams and Jim on the Twins teams, you can bet their "win" totals would be reversed.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts Stop trying to change history. We can create hypotheticals and what ifs but the facts and history don't support it. Jim Palmer and Pete Rose are key reasons why their teams dominated and won.
Just win, Baby!
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.
Pitcher wins and win % are a terrible way to compare pitchers. those are team stats, not individual ones. That is a big reason why Palmer was viewed as highly as he was in the 70s. Big "win" totals. if you were to put Bert on those Orioles teams and Jim on the Twins teams, you can bet their "win" totals would be reversed.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts Stop trying to change history. We can create hypotheticals and what ifs but the facts and history don't support it. Jim Palmer and Pete Rose are key reasons why their teams dominated and won.
Just win, Baby!
cute saying, but are you actually attempting to defend pitcher "win" totals as an effective means of comparing individual players?
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes said:
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
I'll give you 1970, but Palmer wasn't a key factor in 1966 and didn't help at all in 1983. Palmer was a very good player from 1975-78 and had a few other good seasons. Let's not minimize that, and it's as good as an awful lot of HoF pitchers were (it's actually hard to put together a career like that) but there is no reason to choose a Palmer over a Kevin Brown, say.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Palmer is anywhere near as good as his rough contemporaries Blyleven and Phil Niekro. Palmer was just more fortunate in his choice of teammates, especially Brooks Robinson, Blair, and Belanger.
@Cakes said:
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
I was referencing your cute little "candy and nuts" saying. I just disregarded the Al Davis quote. Al Davis never won anything. The players he paid to play the games did.
other than individual sports like boxing, singles tennis, wrestling, and the like, winning is a TEAM accomplishment. Same with pitcher wins that you seem to put so much stock into.
Pitcher A: 5 IP, 4 ER team wins 6-4 pitcher gets the "Win"
Pitcher B: 8 IP, 1 ER, reliever gives up 2 run HR in the 9th team loses. The pitcher gets the "loss"
@Cakes said:
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
I'll give you 1970, but Palmer wasn't a key factor in 1966 and didn't help at all in 1983. Palmer was a very good player from 1975-78 and had a few other good seasons. Let's not minimize that, and it's as good as an awful lot of HoF pitchers were (it's actually hard to put together a career like that) but there is no reason to choose a Palmer over a Kevin Brown, say.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Palmer is anywhere near as good as his rough contemporaries Blyleven and Phil Niekro. Palmer was just more fortunate in his choice of teammates, especially Brooks Robinson, Blair, and Belanger.
Jim Palmer, age 20, started game 2 of the 1966 WS and had to go against Koufax. He pitched a 4 hit. complete game, shutout for the win. YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY!
Frank Robinson was the big Dog that year, he won the triple crown!
On top of that, Palmer's nickname was Cakes Maybe I am too emotionally invested.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes said:
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
I was referencing your cute little "candy and nuts" saying. I just disregarded the Al Davis quote. Al Davis never won anything. The players he paid to play the games did.
other than individual sports like boxing, singles tennis, wrestling, and the like, winning is a TEAM accomplishment. Same with pitcher wins that you seem to put so much stock into.
Pitcher A: 5 IP, 4 ER team wins 6-4 pitcher gets the "Win"
Pitcher B: 8 IP, 1 ER, reliever gives up 2 run HR in the 9th team loses. The pitcher gets the "loss"
44 game hit streak
ws champ 3 times
allstar at 5 differnet positions
all-time hit leader
but like another famous person, some people will only see the negatives about him, no matter that he just got it done for 26 years like no other player ever.
Comments
Absolutely totally and completely incorrect.
If that were true, I would be saying Kaat was great as well.
Rose was a very good singles/doubles hitter who hustled a lot and played forever. He also bet on baseball, so that's enough to move on from him, even though there's LOTS more dirt on this dumpster fire of a person.
Lastly, have you guys who yap about championships bothered to look up the postseason numbers? Guess who was better?
Bert.
I think most historians put Bench at #1 catcher. And most have Seaver ahead of Carlton. So I slightly disagree.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Is it Sutton who is equivalent to Palmer or Seaver, or Blyleven who is equal to Palmer or Seaver?
1929-33 was better. Bill Dickey was even better than Lazzeri.
No, not a power hitter, but also better than "not much power". Not close to a compiler and HoF standards haven't been watered down, but I've gone into great detail in the Sports Talk forum. Carew doesn't get disqualified because he was a (slightly) below average 2B, but he was actually good at 1B until 1983.
Carew had five straight seasons with an OPS+ and finished with 407 batting runs, which puts him in a group with Larry Walker, Piazza, Winfield, Gwynn, Murray, and Snider. Madlock finished with 208. Suzuki 84, but you know as well as I that he'll be going into the Hall as soon as he's eligible.
And until you understand that it's easy to make a case that Blyleven was better than Carlton (I think it's close despite Blyleven's higher ERA+ and much higher WAR and RAA), then we really don't have much to talk about. MLB isn't the NBA: players can't choose their teammates.
Extremely good evaluation, I always thought Carlton was quite a bit better than Blyleven, but he was not.
Carlton was WILDLY inconsistent!
In 1969 he had a superb year with an ERA+ of 164, the previous year he had a 97 and in 1970 it was 111.
Move forward to his phenomenal season of 1972 with a 182 ERA+, the year before he had a 102 and in 1973 he dropped to a 97.
Bert, on the other hand was unbelievably consistent.
His first 9 seasons his ERA+ went from a low of 119 to a high of 156.
Carlton had those two superb years in his first 9 of 182 & 164, but not a single one of the other 7 years was his ERA+ above 118!
The next seven years, Steve had 3 great seasons, with (surprisingly) 2 consecutive in 1980 & 1981.
Bert was worse over his second seven, with a bad 1976. He came back with two very good/great years in 1984 & 1985.
Looking at hits, HR, SO, and BB per 9 innings, the numbers are very close with the exception of BB per 9, where Steve walked almost 1 batter every game more than Bert, he struck out about 1/2 a man more than Bert per game.
Here's another example of two VERY similar pitchers. Steve had a better ERA 3.22-3.31, but Bert wins in ERA+ 118-115 and WHIP 1.198-1.247.
I'll take Blyleven's consistency over Carlton's superb year sandwiched between a couple of average ones.
all you need to know is that carlton is the second winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, all the way back to 1876.
11th all-time is wins
9th all-time in innings pitched.
From 1920 on he's the 4th winningest pitcher of all-time. Not sure why there is much debate about him. He is 5 star sure fire hofer that won championships, cy youngs, and has every stat to back it up.
Blyleven, Sutton and Katt all had fantastic careers. But none of them were Steve Carlton. Hard to find good left handed pitchers.
Pete Rose played in 590 games or more in the following positions:
first base
second base
third base
left field
right field
He never once in 15,000 or more at bats was the designated hitter. Friends that is mighty impressive.
Carlton's lifetime ERA+ is 115.
He had 12 seasons where he surpassed it.
Blyleven had 18 seasons above 115 ERA+.
The 5 easiest positions, and I don't believe they had the DH available for him in the NL.
I coach JV baseball and third base is not the easiest position. They don't call it the hot corner for nothing. It's tough to get anyone to play third base. Then you have to have a big arm on top of that. Why do you think there are so few great hitting third baseman? You've got to be a good fielder first.
The NL didn't have it nor did Pete want to be traded to the American League so he could take advantage of it.
Joe, if playing all those positions is so easy, please name me your favorite player that did all of that? I can't name any, not with Pete's stats especially.
Most infielders don't play outfield and definitely not vice versa.
And he was all-star at all 5.
I never said playing 3B was easy.
Pete would have played anywhere to get the hit record.
Again, I didn't say that AT ALL. Please read carefully in the future.
Harmon Killebrew played both the infield and outfield and was an "All Star" left fielder three consecutive years. That doesn't mean Harmon was a great left fielder. He was a much better hitter than Pete.
If you coach, you then should understand that shortstop, center field and catcher are the three most difficult positions, thereby making the other ones easier, not EASY.
Pete's stats were just not great, he had a nice run from 1968-1972 other than that he wasn't a top batting average guy and he had almost no power.
What Pete was good at was getting up to bat. 15 times he had more than 700 PA in a year. That's amazing, but the down side is you barely hit .300 in those years wit 200 hits. You also make a LOT of outs.
He has the most hits ever, great accomplishment, but it just means he was a good (singles/doubles) hitter for a long, long time. He was no where near the greatest hitters of all time.
He tried real hard when he played too!
Rose was great from 1969-76, and good to very good the rest of his career. He wouldn't be at the very top, but his play was good enough to satisfy even most of the "small hall" types. But, and this is a big but, his off-field activities are far more disqualifying than those of Schilling, Joe Jackson, and the Bonds-Clemens-Alex Rodriguez bunch. He's out, and won't be in in his lifetime at least, and I'm OK with that.
Rose played Left well, especially in the full seasons there from '72 to '74. Otherwise he was below average to poor fielding.
I once introduced a speaker by noting that he had attended seven colleges. It's exactly as flattering as playing 590+ games at five positions. Hint: the reason that Ozzie Smith played every single defensive inning at short (10778 PA and never once as DH) wasn't because his managers didn't think he could handle Left.
Edited to fix spelling errors.
You can make a case that Carlton was better than Blyleven. What absolutely no one who understands baseball would do is say that Blyleven is closer to Sutton and Kaat than to Carlton. I'd also dispute the fantasticness of Sutton and Kaat's careers.
Pete had a career batting average of .303…Killebrew .256. I will take Pete over Killebrew. Pete 3 World Championship teams, Killebrew 0 World Championships.
Hahahahahahahaha
Carlton had two phenomenal seasons, but in the end his lifetime ERA+ and WAR were lower than Bert's. People remember Carlton's 1972, one of the finest years by a pitcher ever, but in the end Steve had enough bad years to negate both 1972 and 1980, (his best two years) and he ends up with a career not quite as good as Bert's. I am not going to dispute someone who thinks Carlton was the better pitcher, but it's VERY close.
Carlton is somewhat overrated and Blyleven is VASTLY underrated.
Neither is as good a pitcher as Tom Seaver was.
Not sure why Sutton and Kaat were brought into the discussion, but neither were good enough to be in the HOF in my mind.
Actually, these two are a lot like the Blyleven and Carlton comparison (only they were not nearly as good). Sutton had the best 2 years, but ends up about even with Kaat.
Bert/Steve Steve/Bert are sure fire HOFers, Sutton and Kaat are in, but neither is deserving. I would put Sutton in over Kaat if I had to pick one. I guess I am not such a Twins fan as some would claim.
I'll never understand why people continue to try to use Wins, Cy Youngs and Championships into these debates, it really shows you don't understand team sports and how those stats don't work when comparing individual players.
I can't respond to anyone who thinks Rose was anywhere near the player Killebrew was. That's just hilarious. 😂
Killer is closer to Kingman than Rose…
Hear me clearly. Killebrew was A LOT better than Rose when he was playing. But there has to be some adjustment for the 1000 games Rose played at a reasonably high level when not even the Royals wanted Killebrew.
Killebrew was a great hitter, likely top 50 of all time, but he was pretty bad at everything else. That, combined with career length, makes it reasonable to consider Rose greater. I'm pretty sure I do.
Having said that, the argument that Rose was better because of his batting average is extremely foolish. Some guy named Oscar "Ski" Melillo wasn't better than Killebrew, or thousands of other players, because he had a .260 BA compared to Killebrew's .256.
Pitcher wins and win % are a terrible way to compare pitchers. those are team stats, not individual ones. That is a big reason why Palmer was viewed as highly as he was in the 70s. Big "win" totals. if you were to put Bert on those Orioles teams and Jim on the Twins teams, you can bet their "win" totals would be reversed.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
BOTH FAR SUPERIOR TO ROSE!
First off, I have repeatedly said Rose was the best of all time at showing up for the most games, AB, PA. He also was durable.
A lifetime BA of .303 with no power is not good. Ichiro was much better, at least he could play defense, had a great arm, and could steal you a base.
It wasn't Killebrew's fault Washington kept him on the bench and in the minors for 4+ seasons and it's not Harmon's fault he wasn't given an extra 7 or so seasons at the end of his career to chase numbers.
Killebrew was a solid 3rd baseman, not poor, not great, and would have been fine at first and DH for a couple more years. His final 3 years his OPS+ was 95, 90, & 93.
Killebrew had an OPS of .900 or higher nine times, Pete ONCE.
Pete's 1983 & 1986 his OPS+ was 69 & 61 PATHETIC.
Rose was not a great defender and despite all his exciting head first dives, he was a HORRIBLE base stealer. He didn't walk much, so he ended up with 100 extra ABs every year compared to Killebrew, who usually batted 4th, which cost him PA.
Hitting wise there's NO COMPARISON.
Pete really doesn't make up any ground as a defender, a base runner or a great arm.
Rose also made more outs than anyone in the history of the game by about 1,000 and the hits he did get were the weakest.
Mickey Mantle once said of Pete; " If I hit like that I'd wear a dress".
Finally, it's ludicrous that anyone can say Pete should be in the HOF, he bet on baseball, the absolute number one transgression against the game.
Consistency and skill over time were needed to break Cobb’s record…no other player has at least 4000 hits than Rose and Cobb. Killer did not even make it to 2500 hits and sub .260 batting average with that many homeruns reminds of King Kong Kingman. Killer barely made it to 2000 hits (2086 hits) in fact.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. And you do not have to raise your font size to me…
Killebrew's 2088 hits were more valuable than Pete's 4256.
Killebrew was the much better hitter, as I have REPEATEDLY said, Pete got to the plate more often and was a fairly good singles/doubles hitter with zero power.
Amazing that Rose stayed healthy with how hard he played. That doesn't make him better.
Rose is MUCH, MUCH BETTER than killebrew. You have no argument! You’re way off on your Twinkies “hero”! killebrew was a twinkies cream puff…King Kong 2.0
joe just doesn't like rose, no facts or stats will ever change his mind. he's hung up with outside obstacles. i have a hard time with some of the outside crap Lebron, kareem and kobe had/have issues/opinions on outside of basketball and in fact it could be worse than what pete did, but i still can recognize that all three are top 10 all-time basketball players. i don't say that bill laimbeer was better than kareem because i liked bill better.
How did it come to be that any post on this board, no matter the OPs intent, becomes a debate on the merits of Bert Blylevens career by page 4.
I swear I could start a post about whether to store binders laying down or on their edge and before post 125 someone will be telling me I don’t understand ERA+.
The original thread somehow was hijacked
Into this player and that player and who is better…very annoying.
Have 1927 A’s been mentioned? Too lazy to read the thread.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
You're correct, t don't like Pete Rose. However, that doesn't change the way I feel about him as a baseball player AT ALL.
Are you actually reading my posts? I have repeatedly expressed my admiration for his longevity and durability. I have used the word amazing in describing that part of his game. I stated that 1968 & 1969 were SUPERB seasons for him.
As a hitter, the facts are right there for those who aren't blinded by 4256;
His batting average was a nice .303, 178 players in MLB history had a higher BA.
He scored a lot of runs, averaging nearly 100 per season, that's great, but it's also dependent on teammates to drive you in, and he had plenty of great hitters batting behind him.
Pete must be one of the worst base stealers in MLB history for a top of the order guy, he averaged 9 SB per year and 7 times a season got caught stealing. Horrible.
Pete was NOT a great fielder. It would appear he won his Golf Gloves more because of his hitting, but this is just a guess on my part. He did win 2.
Pete was a HORRIBLE hitter for power! His .409 SLG was 985th on the all time list. He hit a HR once every 88 AB. PATHETIC!
Not sure about his arm, but I'm guessing it was average?
We've taken a look at the 5 "tools", he was good/very good hitting for average, horrible hitting for power, horrible at running, average/above average fielder and below average arm.
Still while playing/managing, he admitted bet on the outcome of games his team was involved in. The NUMBER ONE worst thing you can do as a player, even WORSE as a manager.
Still while playing he had at least one long term sexual relationship with an underage girl. Allegedly, this was his "thing" he liked young "hardbodied" women. Didn't seem to worry about if they were of age.
Still while playing/managing he failed to report income and pled guilty and went to jail for it after his career was over. WENT TO JAIL!
Allegedly he was willing to finance at least one drug deal in order to make some quick cash to help pay his gambling debts. I don't think this did actually happen.
Other than his ability to get in games, get a LOT of ABs and stay healthy, what's to admire? Oh yeah 4256.
He's GOT TO BE one of the WORST human beings in the history of sports.
Be my guest, admire the guy. He's a GIGANTIC POS.
Moderator, please close this thread. It is long ago non-productive!
The more you read about Rose, the worse it gets;
As Colonel Nathan R. Jessup said "You can't handle the truth"!
You’re a loser just like Killebrew and the losing Twinkies!
With 10,000+ posts, compiler JoeBanzai is the Pete Rose of this forum.
You're welcome.
now that is funny!! LOL!!
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts Stop trying to change history. We can create hypotheticals and what ifs but the facts and history don't support it. Jim Palmer and Pete Rose are key reasons why their teams dominated and won.
Just win, Baby!
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
cute saying, but are you actually attempting to defend pitcher "win" totals as an effective means of comparing individual players?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Cute saying, ug, that's from Al Davis, a winner! How nonchalantly you discredit winning is odd to me.
What I said throughout the thread is sometimes numbers guys try to strip away awards and certain stats to create a narrative that just wasn't the case. 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 earned them and he was the better player.
If you work at it hard enough and lobby hard enough you might be able to slowly gain momentum and possible get a player like Blyleven in the HOF. Which is exactly what happened.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I'll give you 1970, but Palmer wasn't a key factor in 1966 and didn't help at all in 1983. Palmer was a very good player from 1975-78 and had a few other good seasons. Let's not minimize that, and it's as good as an awful lot of HoF pitchers were (it's actually hard to put together a career like that) but there is no reason to choose a Palmer over a Kevin Brown, say.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Palmer is anywhere near as good as his rough contemporaries Blyleven and Phil Niekro. Palmer was just more fortunate in his choice of teammates, especially Brooks Robinson, Blair, and Belanger.
I was referencing your cute little "candy and nuts" saying. I just disregarded the Al Davis quote. Al Davis never won anything. The players he paid to play the games did.
other than individual sports like boxing, singles tennis, wrestling, and the like, winning is a TEAM accomplishment. Same with pitcher wins that you seem to put so much stock into.
Pitcher A: 5 IP, 4 ER team wins 6-4 pitcher gets the "Win"
Pitcher B: 8 IP, 1 ER, reliever gives up 2 run HR in the 9th team loses. The pitcher gets the "loss"
which pitcher was better?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Jim Palmer, age 20, started game 2 of the 1966 WS and had to go against Koufax. He pitched a 4 hit. complete game, shutout for the win. YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY!
Frank Robinson was the big Dog that year, he won the triple crown!
On top of that, Palmer's nickname was Cakes
Maybe I am too emotionally invested. 
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
cakes - palmer was the real deal.
My man! ty!
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Just picked up a BVG 7.5 from ebay. And does it look sharp. If I were to subgrade it, it would go something like this:
Centering 9
Corners 7
Edges 8
Surface 9
The top right corner has a little white showing, no bends, no flaking corners. Edges have nominal to almost no chipping.
Super nice card. A PSA 7.5 would go for about $750, picked this one up fro $225. Looks better in my hand than in person. Super pumped!!
I own zero Rose cards. Never saw him play and seemed like a true SOB so I've zero. That said I kind of want a 1976 Topps Rose
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
pete was a true competitor. gave it all he could.
44 game hit streak
ws champ 3 times
allstar at 5 differnet positions
all-time hit leader
but like another famous person, some people will only see the negatives about him, no matter that he just got it done for 26 years like no other player ever.
i am not a reds or phillies fan either.