Who Do You Want At Shortstop?
DirtyHarry
Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I post this question only as a break to some recent "Sports Talk" themes that seem to be based on personal commentary and biased team comments. Here is your chance to name the best stop you will have on your virtual team of history --you are the owner and manager, and there are no time limits. Who is the best Shortstop you want in your opinion, and why you want them on your team versus other candidates?
Proud of my 16x20 autographed and framed collection - all signed in person. Not big on modern - I'm stuck in the past!
0
Comments
450 HR's before the age of 31, career .307 BA, multiple gold glove award winner, he does it all. Hits for average, hits for gobs of power, drives in runs, gets on base, even will steal 20 or so bases per year.
Add in the fact he doesn't get injured, he doesn't get into off the field scrapes, and he's the hardest working player in the game.
Yeah, I'll pick him.
<< <i>Well, if I were a manager. I'd probably want to win, and since i want to win, the choice is easy: Jeter. >>
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>Well, if I were a manager. I'd probably want to win, and since i want to win, the choice is easy: Jeter. >>
<< <i>Well, if I were a manager. I'd probably want to win, and since i want to win, the choice is easy: Jeter. >>
Couldnt have said it better myself
-- Yogi Berra
Jeter won in NY because he had a tremendous supporting cast. I like Jeter because he always tries his hardest, but he's no Honus Wagner by any stretch. In fact, of the greatest SS's to ever play, aside from Wagner, I would also put A-Rod, Banks & Ripken ahead of him.
Baseball-reference.com links him with Ray Durham as the most similar batter statistically. Most similar through age 31 is Alan Trammell. In other words, if Jeter was on practically any other team, he would be known by name, considered a very good player, but would not have nearly the fan following and idolizing that he currently receives. His stats would probably be a little depressed also, as playing on those teams certainly bulked them up.
<< <i>Putting Jeter in the same class as Honus Wagner is pretty ignorant guys...
Jeter won in NY because he had a tremendous supporting cast. I like Jeter because he always tries his hardest, but he's no Honus Wagner by any stretch. In fact, of the greatest SS's to ever play, aside from Wagner, I would also put A-Rod, Banks & Ripken ahead of him.
Baseball-reference.com links him with Ray Durham as the most similar batter statistically. Most similar through age 31 is Alan Trammell. In other words, if Jeter was on practically any other team, he would be known by name, considered a very good player, but would not have nearly the fan following and idolizing that he currently receives. His stats would probably be a little depressed also, as playing on those teams certainly bulked them up. >>
How do you and some of the other clowns know a thing about Honus Wagner ? He played 100 years ago, in a game completely different and unfamiliar to you, me, and everyone else. It is impossible, not difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE to compare statistics from a guy who plays today to a guy who played 100 years ago. If we do that then we have to consider everyone pitching today worthless compared to the guys who threw 400+ innings a season and routinely won 30-40 games per season. There is nobody left alive who even saw these guys play, so please stop the nonsense.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>
How do you and some of the other clowns know a thing about Honus Wagner ? He played 100 years ago, in a game completely different and unfamiliar to you, me, and everyone else. It is impossible, not difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE to compare statistics from a guy who plays today to a guy who played 100 years ago. If we do that then we have to consider everyone pitching today worthless compared to the guys who threw 400+ innings a season and routinely won 30-40 games per season. There is nobody left alive who even saw these guys play, so please stop the nonsense. >>
Can you please explain to me the radical rule changes that occured between the time of Wagner and the time of Jeter? I missed the memo. Oh, did you mean the dillution of pitching talent, the watering down of the game, and the shrinking of the ballparks? Other than that, the game is EXACTLY the same.
And most pitchers today ARE worthless compared to the all time greats of the game.
The only nonsense in this thread is the discussion of Jeter as the best SS of all time...Jeter isn't even the best shortstop of THIS generation, let alone the best all time.
<< <i>
<< <i>
How do you and some of the other clowns know a thing about Honus Wagner ? He played 100 years ago, in a game completely different and unfamiliar to you, me, and everyone else. It is impossible, not difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE to compare statistics from a guy who plays today to a guy who played 100 years ago. If we do that then we have to consider everyone pitching today worthless compared to the guys who threw 400+ innings a season and routinely won 30-40 games per season. There is nobody left alive who even saw these guys play, so please stop the nonsense. >>
Can you please explain to me the radical rule changes that occured between the time of Wagner and the time of Jeter? I missed the memo. Oh, did you mean the dillution of pitching talent, the watering down of the game, and the shrinking of the ballparks? Other than that, the game is EXACTLY the same.
And most pitchers today ARE worthless compared to the all time greats of the game.
The only nonsense in this thread is the discussion of Jeter as the best SS of all time...Jeter isn't even the best shortstop of THIS generation, let alone the best all time. >>
The radical changes in the game are many Ax. From the cavernous ballparks that players of yesteryear played in allowing base hits every which way, to the gloves that were the size of work gloves compared to todays baskets which allowed alot more balls to drop, to the pitchers that took the mound every 3...not 4, not 5 days, and pitched complete games nearly EVERY time out. Pitchers literally averaged between 300-450 innings a year in those days. There were no relief specialists or fresh arms coming into the games. The batter saw a pitcher 4 or 5 times a game, and around 3 times a month. There were no lefty righty matchups, and the batters saw weakened arms by the late innings and late in the seasons. There was also not nearly as much variety of pitches thrown in those days, again making it easier on the hitters.
The pitchers of those days had gaudy numbers for two reasons. The amount of innings they pitched, and the lack of a power game that todays baseball featured. Other than that there isnt but a handfull that would have a prayer of making it today. Baseball is not in any way the same game it was 100 years ago save the 60 ft 6 inches, 90 ft between bases, 4 balls and 3 strikes, 3 outs an inning, and a 9 inning game. Nothing else has stayed the same, and if you dont recognize that then you are truly clueless regarding the game of baseball.
-- Yogi Berra
Batters still have to put the bat on the ball, and the hitters of the day didn't have the scouting they have now, they didn't have the training and nutrition experts they have now, and they didn't have the ability to feast on 4th and 5th day starters on watered down, dilluted teams.
<< <i>And yet pitchers in the era set records for ERA that will never be touched, so don't give me this crap about how tired they were at the end of the season.
Batters still have to put the bat on the ball, and the hitters of the day didn't have the scouting they have now, they didn't have the training and nutrition experts they have now, and they didn't have the ability to feast on 4th and 5th day starters on watered down, dilluted teams. >>
I thought it was explained very well WHY pitchers still had those E.R.A.'s Ax......the hitters were singles hitters. The game was about singles, moving the runners, steals, etc. There was ZERO power game, thus the low earned run averages. Once again you are shown a long list of reasons why you are wrong, and you pick one where you think you can work an angle, and still you are shown how wrong you are.
By the way, there were also no scouting on hitters, nor was their the nutrition and workout programs for hitters OR pitchers.
Ax, please go to the library, if you know where one is, do some research, you might find some very interesting reading. It is not an opnion as to how the game has changed, it is FACT. There are countless books, articles, etc. on the history of the game. Until you have some reading of the game under your belt please do not continue to look up numbers in an almanac or wherever else online and spew them out like you have some knowledge of baseball history.
-- Yogi Berra
Let me jump in on the Wagner debate. There's really no way to know how well he would do in today's game, but I'll bet he would be great.
What you need to look at is how he was the absolute best hitter, not ony at his position, but in all of baseball during his prime. 8 batting titles, 6 slugging percentage titles and 6 time leading in total bases PLUS leading the league in several other categories says he dominated his era. That's really all he could do.
No other shortstop comes close.
I still like Ernie, he was a cool dude.
JB
Look, Jeter might not even be the best SS in NY anymore (Jose Reyes is slowly claiming that title), and he's not the best SS on his own team (A-Rod is, Yankee fans like him this week right?), and he's not the best SS in the AL (Tejada is). But when we start talking about Jeter and Honus Wagner, and dismissing the play of an All-Time legend (that would be Wagner) by saying no one here actually saw him play so his greatness isn't as important as Jeter's - this thread has officially lost it.
<< <i>There is nobody left alive who even saw these guys play, so please stop the nonsense. >>
Not picking on you Bri - but Ralph Kiner was in the booth for the Mets game this afternoon, and talked a lot about him, his play, and his greatness. So, there are a few folks left perhaps.
Sure, some must have been great players in their day, but frankly that doesnt mean jack in todays game. Baseball has changed so incredibly much that there really is no way of comparing the different eras, and especially when NONE of us have ever seen guys from 100 years ago play.
I didnt imply that Jeter was better than Wagner because none of us saw him play, I simply stated that because the game has changed so much AND we never saw these guys play that we cant compare them to ANYONE of today. Was Wagner the best of his day, probably. Is Jeter the best in the game today, maybe, maybe not. Sure, some others have better numbers, but for my money I wouldnt trade him for any of them playing today.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>
I thought it was explained very well WHY pitchers still had those E.R.A.'s Ax......the hitters were singles hitters. The game was about singles, moving the runners, steals, etc. There was ZERO power game, thus the low earned run averages. Once again you are shown a long list of reasons why you are wrong, and you pick one where you think you can work an angle, and still you are shown how wrong you are.
>>
They were singles hitters that moved them with steals and no power? Ok, you're really reaching here. Why don't YOU go back and look at Wagners numbers. See him average 37 doubles every 162 games he played and say there was no power. There were no home runs being hit, not until Ruth got going. How have you shown me I was wrong? For every reason you've said Wagner isn't worthy because the game was somehow 'easier' back then, I've given you one stating it was harder.
<< <i>Ax, please go to the library, if you know where one is, do some research, you might find some very interesting reading. It is not an opnion as to how the game has changed, it is FACT. There are countless books, articles, etc. on the history of the game. Until you have some reading of the game under your belt please do not continue to look up numbers in an almanac or wherever else online and spew them out like you have some knowledge of baseball history. >>
Listen sparky...just because people don't see Jeter as anything more than a mediocre shortstop outside of NY, doesn't mean you need to get your panties in such a twist. YOU are the one that needs to do some research if you honestly believe that Jeter is the best shortstop of all time.
Get a clue.
-- Yogi Berra
Put Arod on those teams Jeter won world championships with and Arod would have 4 rings too.
Quit spinning the facts and answer the question. You think if you keep posting a lie often enough it becomes the truth ??
-- Yogi Berra
'Who is the best shortstop you want in your opinion'
Best, dope. BEST.
Or did you not actually read the post (it wouldn't be the first time for you).
F@CK Ax, you seriously cannot comprehend a damn thing you read can you ?
I see where he later says who is the best you would take....which first of all isnt even written or said correctly. It is improper grammar. That being said, I would STILL take Jeter. I did not say he is the best. I havnt seen everyone play, and I am not one to compare players from different eras. I have seen Ozzie, Ripken, Tejada, and many others over the last 25 years. Of them I would take Jeter.
If you are getting into semantics then go argue with the guy who started the thread, because they titled it one thing and used some form of the English language I am not familiar with while stating the question within the post. I answered the title of the post, and answered it again, and again, and again. You are the dope who just cant accept that.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Here is your chance to name the best stop you will have on your virtual team of history >>
Buh bye yankee lover.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is your chance to name the best stop you will have on your virtual team of history >>
Buh bye yankee lover. >>
Good answer when proven wrong once again.
Buy bye all things NY hater.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Here is your chance to name the best stop you will have on your virtual team of history >>
Taken from the original posters first post, not my words.
Proven wrong? The only thing you've proven is you have no idea what baseball outside NY is like...otherwise, why the hell would you claim Jeter as your SS?
Buffoon.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is your chance to name the best stop you will have on your virtual team of history >>
Taken from the original posters first post, not my words.
Proven wrong? The only thing you've proven is you have no idea what baseball outside NY is like...otherwise, why the hell would you claim Jeter as your SS?
Buffoon. >>
Ax, unlike you I have studied the game of baseball and seen games and teams play all across this country. I have appreciation for teams and fans all over, unlike you who enjoys ripping certain teams and regions of this country that you have never even visited. Unlike you I have actually sat in ballparks and conversed with fans of teams from Boston to Florida, from KC to San Diego, from San Francisco to Seattle, from Pittsburgh to Baltimore and so on. Do not try to school me on what baseball is like outside of NY. I have seen it first hand many, many times which I am quite certain you have not.
Of all the great players I have seen in my short time on this earth there have been quite a few shortstops, and out of them not a single one was clearly above the guy I know and have seen daily for over 10 years here. Does it mean he is better, maybe not, in fact probably not, but he is a great player, a great person, and a great leader who has done a great deal for my hometown team. That is more than enough for him to get my resounding vote of confidence and approval over anyone else I have seen play.
-- Yogi Berra
Just because you've talked to a bunch of people, watched a bunch of games, doesn't make you an 'expert' at all. Hell there are people who go to games all year and are clueless.
The homerism of your pick of jeter just shows how little you know about the game. A shortstop with his numbers without the NY media and 4 world series rings wouldn't be your pick - so why is Jeter?
Off to see some fireworks, happy 4th.
-- Yogi Berra
We know that you are a dope.
end of story.
now, do as you promised and go blow your head up.
Steve
Actually, Arod's run at shortstop was superior to Jeter's, both offensively and defensively, so Jeter isn't the best SS of his generation. Yankee fans will stick by their guy and take Jeter for whatever reason, but that is based on pure bias, and statments like "I like him etc.." are fine, but they really don't amount to much towards truth.
As for Wagner, there is no certainty as to what he would do if he played today, and even though baseball has changed to some degree, it is still very close to the way it was before, close enough where we can draw reasonble conclusions(if done accurately).
What is pretty certain is that Wagner was either the first or second best player in the MLB when he played, his results show that clearly. In fact, some historians have him as the best player ever. There is also plenty of observational evidence!. There are people(trained eyes) who could compare him to guys from 20 years or even 50 years later(or more), and that can put the comparisons into players from the 70's, based on first hand accounts. Good measurements can also compare him to those guys.
So the man has observational evidence, AND results evidence to back up his claims as being the best of his time, the best SS of all time, and to some the best player of all time.
Based on what is known in all areas of baseball research, there is nothing around that would show any reasonable human being that Derek Jeter was better than Wagner. Of course a die hard fan usually isn't reasonable, he already has his mind set no matter what. With all due respect if somebody would take a player who is knowlingly a lesser player, then that doesn't say a whole lot for that persons's judgement capabilities.
I have doubts about a persons objectiveness when it comes to taking Jeter of Arod, and if it comes to taking Jeter over Wagner?? Jeez, that is almost in the speechless category.
To say you'd take Jeter over anybody proves this point clearer than anything anyone can ever say. To say you'll take him instead of the many other higher quality shortstops is a laugher - 'I'll stick with my guy' is as ridiculous statement as I've ever heard on this board (and this is a poster who put up with ridiculous spammy10 sayings for a long time).
Arod is a far superior shortstop in every regard, and your dismissal of him proves you're a homer and your baseball knowledge obviously was checked at the door.
Dismissing Wagner because he played in a different era where the game was so different further proves just how little you truly know about the game you profess to know, and belittle others about as well.
Perhaps one day you'll take off those yankee colored glasses and realize the best players aren't always in pinstripes - though, at your current rate, I doubt that will ever happen.
Ignorance truly is bliss, isn't it yankee fans?
Skinpinch, the argument was not ALL players, it was shortstops. If it was anybody in the game, then of course there are several I would choose over Jeter, but it wasnt all players. If you didnt read all my posts regarding this then please go do so before you call me out and make judgements.
DirtyHarry, I answered the question initially based on your thread title. If you didnt want confusing than maybe wording it as " who would you take at shortstop " in the title, then who is your best stop you would take later on wasnt the best approach. Either way, I didnt mean to belittle your post, but it was a bit different in wording.
I will repeat over and over for whoever reads this. The game has changed drastically. I will stand by that no matter who says what. I will also stand by the viewpoint that of the shortstops I have seen play in my lifetime I would take Jeter over the lot.
Does this mean I have the rose colored glasses as Ax sees it ? No, it means I have not seen a shortstop in my lifetime that I feel is head and shoulders above Jeter to warrant me picking them over him. I can sit all day and name players from other teams that I would take over Yankees from todays game and from all time. It is complete and total hate based nonsense to believe or claim that I think only Yankees are on the all time list. Especially when I did not put Jeter on top of that all time list. Either way I am very surprised at the people OTHER than Ax who are getting on me for this without reading into my other posts. Nowhere did I say Jeter was the best ever, or even better than Wagner, NOWHERE. OF the SHORTSTOPS I have seen play I would take him over the others.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Sure, some must have been great players in their day, but frankly that doesnt mean jack in todays game. Baseball has changed so incredibly much that there really is no way of comparing the different eras, and especially when NONE of us have ever seen guys from 100 years ago play.
I didnt imply that Jeter was better than Wagner because none of us saw him play, I simply stated that because the game has changed so much AND we never saw these guys play that we cant compare them to ANYONE of today. Was Wagner the best of his day, probably. Is Jeter the best in the game today, maybe, maybe not. Sure, some others have better numbers, but for my money I wouldnt trade him for any of them playing today. >>
The first paragraph isn't quite accurate, there are ways, and there are trained eyes who have seen players then, and from close enough to Jeter's time, that observational evidence has been done. Some results based methods do have some validity. Bri, you mention later on that you study the game of baseball. There are many people who do that and since back then....but you dismiss that same line of thinking when it is applied to Wagner. No, you don't outright say Jeter was better than Wagner, but with the first paragraph of your quote, you certainly don't dismiss that notion...and there is some implied reasoning there, based on the harsh "doesn't mean Jack", that made me read into it that that Wagner isn't out of the woods when being compared to Jeter.
Anyway, that can easily be cleared up.
1) Based on all the available knowledge and research, is Jeter better than Wagner?
2) Arod is a better defensive and offensive shortstop than Jeter. Is Jeter being placed higher than him for all those 'captain' reasons?
Is there any recognition on your part that most often times "leader and captain" are usually applied after the fact to people who have already won? That it is just an easy adjective to apply to somebody that won, because it is the most simple explanation as to why they won?
3) Is there any recognition that Jeter would not have won any WS if he had a mediocore supporting cast, and that the terms "captain, leader, and winner" would not nearly be applied to him to any degree? And that line of thinking would then have no merit in any debate?
4) Even if the bias is still so strong and that those terms are held in such high regard, isn't it a slap to the strong possibility that guys like Paul O'neill, or Girardi, or Pettite were actually more influential in being leaders than Jeter, and that he isn't the number one leader to win those WS, and certainly not number one ahead of the combined leadership of certain teammates?
5) IF all those terms were not applied to him based on the above reasons, then would anybody put him higher than another player who is a better defender, and better hitter, like is being done vs. Arod?
6) In regards to questions 2-5 here, why is it, that when it is pointed out that Mattingly never won a WS that Yankee fans rush to say that it is because of lack of teammates(which isn't entirely true though), but when it is brought up that Jeter won because he had a superb supporting cast, that teammates all of a sudden become a non-issue in the player evaluation?
<< <i>
<< <i>Sure, some must have been great players in their day, but frankly that doesnt mean jack in todays game. Baseball has changed so incredibly much that there really is no way of comparing the different eras, and especially when NONE of us have ever seen guys from 100 years ago play.
I didnt imply that Jeter was better than Wagner because none of us saw him play, I simply stated that because the game has changed so much AND we never saw these guys play that we cant compare them to ANYONE of today. Was Wagner the best of his day, probably. Is Jeter the best in the game today, maybe, maybe not. Sure, some others have better numbers, but for my money I wouldnt trade him for any of them playing today. >>
The first paragraph isn't quite accurate, there are ways, and there are trained eyes who have seen players then, and from close enough to Jeter's time, that observational evidence has been done. Some results based methods do have some validity. Bri, you mention later on that you study the game of baseball. There are many people who do that and since back then....but you dismiss that same line of thinking when it is applied to Wagner. No, you don't outright say Jeter was better than Wagner, but with the first paragraph of your quote, you certainly don't dismiss that notion...and there is some implied reasoning there, based on the harsh "doesn't mean Jack", that made me read into it that that Wagner isn't out of the woods when being compared to Jeter.
Anyway, that can easily be cleared up.
1) Based on all the available knowledge and research, is Jeter better than Wagner?
2) Arod is a better defensive and offensive shortstop than Jeter. Is Jeter being placed higher than him for all those 'captain' reasons?
Is there any recognition on your part that most often times "leader and captain" are usually applied after the fact to people who have already won? That it is just an easy adjective to apply to somebody that won, because it is the most simple explanation as to why they won?
3) Is there any recognition that Jeter would not have won any WS if he had a mediocore supporting cast, and that the terms "captain, leader, and winner" would not nearly be applied to him to any degree? And that line of thinking would then have no merit in any debate?
4) Even if the bias is still so strong and that those terms are held in such high regard, isn't it a slap to the strong possibility that guys like Paul O'neill, or Girardi, or Pettite were actually more influential in being leaders than Jeter, and that he isn't the number one leader to win those WS, and certainly not number one ahead of the combined leadership of certain teammates?
5) IF all those terms were not applied to him based on the above reasons, then would anybody put him higher than another player who is a better defender, and better hitter, like is being done vs. Arod?
6) In regards to questions 2-5 here, why is it, that when it is pointed out that Mattingly never won a WS that Yankee fans rush to say that it is because of lack of teammates(which isn't entirely true though), but when it is brought up that Jeter won because he had a superb supporting cast, that teammates all of a sudden become a non-issue in the player evaluation? >>
Skin,
I completely understand all your points. Here is how I would respond to each,
1. Though I still find it nearly impossible to compare players from close to 100 years ago to todays, I am certainly not going to argue that Wagner was an amazing talent who would almost certainly be superior to Jeter. Regarding those who did see him play and spoke of it years later, I think you and I can both agree that peoples memory and recollection tend to get skewed and exaggerated over the years. Even so, no argument as to Wagners greatness on my part. I never put Jeter ahead of him for many reasons which I have discussed.
2. I still debate whether or not Arod was a better defensive shortstop than Jeter, but even if he was I still would take Jeter. The leadership plays a strong role in my choice, but I agree that those terms usually only apply to someone who has already won. I do have a very strong loyalty to the guy since he did HELP lead the Yankees during their run.
3. I certainly agree that if Jeter had a mediocre cast around him that he wouldnt have won a thing. Just ask Mattingly how that scenario plays out. I will say this though...Jeter did have the cast around him, and he did provide a very crucial role in their winning. I havnt seen Arod in those same situations, so I would take the known of Jeter over the unknown of Arod.
4. Because I dont think Jeters leadership alone won anything, I dont consider it a slap in the face to others who played. In fact I will go as far as saying I felt it a slap in the face to Bernie Williams when Jeter was named captain over him. Williams was a great player and teammate who also had seniority over Jeter.
In the end it comes dont to what I know Jeter has contributed to winning, as opposed to what Arod MAY be capable of adding. If Arod were with the team for those years then it is highly propbably he would be the choice, but he wasnt, which was no fault of his own. Since Jeter has been and I have gotten to see his ability I would take him. Loyalty of course is a big factor, but so is the known vs. the unknown.
Now, you also remarked, or for a better term questioned would anyone put him higher than another person who is better offensively and defensively. My answer is, of course some would. Barry Bonds was a vastly superior player to what many players were. Does that mean I would take him on my team over them ? No. Talent alone does not always become the deciding factor on whether or not to take a player on your team. Personality, character, interaction with teammates and fans, and other intangibles are factored. The question was if you were the GM who would you take. In the end I would take Jeter over Arod or anyone else I have seen in my lifetime when everything is added into the mix.
-- Yogi Berra
A GM would take the better player if he wants to win baseball games. Aside from a player being an Ax murderer, even an A-hole like Bonds doesn't prevent his teammates from playing their best and their team from winning. In the end, it is how many runs you prevent and produce, that makes one a better player.
A fan has no way of knowing first hand what type a person or teammate a player is, so that really shouldn't enter your opinion. The only thing one can go by in regard to that is what the coach's and teammates say about that. From anything ever said, there has really been nothing to show Arod being a lesser teammate, or person than Jeter.
All the stuff you say about known and unknown can be used against Mattingly too. I respect your opinion on your view of Jeter, but if somebody says Keith Hernandez was better than Mattingly for those same reasons, then you must agree with them. Not to be rude, but if you don't, it really puts into question the meaning of your written word.
In an effort to keep on topic my choice for SS (if i was starting a team) would be ......drumroll........Ozzie Smith
Steve
Joe