This is tough - ALL TIME ALL STAR TEAM
frankhardy
Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Folks, this was tough to do. Here is the link. Vote on yours.
SI - All Tim All Star Team
Here is mine.
Catcher - Johnny Bench (over Pudge)
First Baseman - Albert Pujols (Yes, over Gehrig due to projections. It is really saying something that he is even a choice)
Second Baseman - Rogers Hornsby (over Jackie Robinson)
Shortstop - Alex Rodriguez (over Ozzie and Honus Wagner)
Third Baseman - Brooks Robinson (over Schmidt and Rolen
Left Fielder - Ted Williams (over Musial)
Center Fielder - Ty Cobb (over Mantle and Mays)
Right Fielder - Hank Aaron (I had to leave Babe Ruth off, even though I consider him to be the best ever. Why? Because he was a dominating pitcher as well. But pitching is not needed on this team. I had to go with Aaron.)
Left Handed Pitcher - Randy Johnson (over Koufax)
Right Handed Pitcher - Walter Johnson (over Clemens and Gibson)
Relief Pitcher - Mariano Rivera (over Eckersley)
Manager - John McGraw (over Torre)
See, I told you it was tough. Try it.
SI - All Tim All Star Team
Here is mine.
Catcher - Johnny Bench (over Pudge)
First Baseman - Albert Pujols (Yes, over Gehrig due to projections. It is really saying something that he is even a choice)
Second Baseman - Rogers Hornsby (over Jackie Robinson)
Shortstop - Alex Rodriguez (over Ozzie and Honus Wagner)
Third Baseman - Brooks Robinson (over Schmidt and Rolen
Left Fielder - Ted Williams (over Musial)
Center Fielder - Ty Cobb (over Mantle and Mays)
Right Fielder - Hank Aaron (I had to leave Babe Ruth off, even though I consider him to be the best ever. Why? Because he was a dominating pitcher as well. But pitching is not needed on this team. I had to go with Aaron.)
Left Handed Pitcher - Randy Johnson (over Koufax)
Right Handed Pitcher - Walter Johnson (over Clemens and Gibson)
Relief Pitcher - Mariano Rivera (over Eckersley)
Manager - John McGraw (over Torre)
See, I told you it was tough. Try it.
Shane
0
Comments
Gehrig
Hornsby
Ripken
Schmidt
Ted Williams
Willie Mays
Babe Ruth
Steve Carlton
Roger Clemens
Rivera
Stengel
That is almost an impossible task trying to pick that team. Personally, I simply can't base a selection for an all-time team based on projections. Great stuff. Thanks for the link!
As soon as I saw this I didn't even bother looking at the rest. Anyone want to argue Brett over Schmidt? That's fine even though Schmidt was the best third baseman. To put Rolen on there and not mention Brett? Just pathetic really.
Okay I looked more. This statement is almost too pathetic for words.
Rolen?
Chipper?
Hershiser?
Fernando Valenzuela?
Some of these guys were/are fine players, but to be put on a list of all-time greatest? Not even close to being considerable.
second-Hornsby
Short-Wagner
third-Schmidt
Catcher-Bench
Right-Ruth
Center-DiMaggio
Left-Williams
RHP-Johnson
LHP-koufax
Relief-Rivera
Manager-McCarthy
Wow! Pujols over Gehrig. Pujols has played six seasons. Let's see where he stands in 10 years. I'd take Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Thomas, and Greenberg over Pujols. I might change my tune in 10 years though.
It is an interesting excercise though, but as usual, there is always that dominance/longevity factor that muddles things. For example, Mickey Mantle in his prime is clearly the best CF ever. But since he didn't contribue anything after age 35, and Mays kept going, then Mays is the better choice longtime. So one really can't be 'wrong' by choosing either one.
One CAN go wrong by not taking Mike Schmidt though...how one would not want the best offensive and best defensive third baseman ever, would be sort of surprising.
You get that Koufax/Spahn debate...though Lefty Grove was actually more dominant than Koufax, and better longer.
There are some choices like Ruth that are absolute no brainers. Some other close calls too where era plays a big role, Morgan/Horsnby. J. Robinson isn't in either's class, he gets the special treatment though.
Comprehending the impact of eras on performance plays a huge role, but most fans aren't ready to accept this knowledge. It plays a big role on defining what a player contributed, and how much that contribution impacted winning games in their era. That is a looong topic.
I just hope Axtell doesn't see that Jeter and Arod are tied in the poll results. How long before he notices?
<< <i>First Baseman - Albert Pujols (Yes, over Gehrig due to projections. It is really saying something that he is even a choice)
Wow! Pujols over Gehrig. Pujols has played six seasons. Let's see where he stands in 10 years. I'd take Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Thomas, and Greenberg over Pujols. I might change my tune in 10 years though. >>
Yeah, I just can't see anyone picking anyone over Gehrig, even counting projections. Don't get me wrong, Pujols is perhaps the best player in baseball today, but over Gehrig? Let's see Puljols win the triple crown like Gehrig...did you know Gehrig has the highest slugging % and highest on base % for first baseman? How about those 7 World Series rings Lou won?
<< <i>
I just hope Axtell doesn't see that Jeter and Arod are tied in the poll results. How long before he notices? >>
I didn't notice, but anyone who puts jeter on the same planet as Arod is an absolute moron.
Hey man, lighten up a little bit. This was for fun. That was just MY OPINION. That is who I would take. You feel free to take however you please. This is just a fun debate.
I happen to watch Rolen all the time. Maybe not offensively, but DEFENSIVELY, I have never seen a better third baseban than Scott Rolen. Just my opinion. I picked Brooks Robinson because he had it all.
Now, please explain rationally why my pick of Hank Aaron over Babe Ruth was so obsurd (or my explanation of my pick).
"Who put these options together?"
I think that the players were nominated for how good they were at their peak, not necessarily their whole careers. That is the only way that I can explain some of them. Orel Hersheiser? He was pretty dominant their for a while. Valenzualla? Same thing.
Shane
<< <i>First Baseman - Albert Pujols (Yes, over Gehrig due to projections. It is really saying something that he is even a choice)
Wow! Pujols over Gehrig. Pujols has played six seasons. Let's see where he stands in 10 years. I'd take Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Thomas, and Greenberg over Pujols. I might change my tune in 10 years though. >>
I see what you are saying as far as an ENTIRE CAREER. Let's look at this from another perspective. Pujols has played 6 full seasons now. Are you telling me that their is ANYONE on that first baseman list that you would take over Pujols after 6 full seasons? Ok, maybe there is ONE that you would take. But you are telling me that you would take ALL of those five you mentioned over Pujols? Pujols has arguabley had the greatest start to a career in the history of baseball.
Here is what I am saying - if you was to put those first baseman that you mentioned in their prime - right now as we speak - and say, "OK, who would you want on your team?" I am taking Pujols first.
Shane
And it gets more pathetic by the minute. If you understand baseball, you should know that you NEED to get offense from a 3rd baseman - it's not a luxury like a 2nd base - shortstop combo. Up the middle you need defense. At the corners you need offense - violate these basic "rules" and you don't win pennants for the most part.
And it gets even more pathetic because you said you watch Rolen, yet you choose Brooks Robinson which is fine...but if you choose Robinson then you have to be familiar with Schmidt and Brett because they played in between Robinson and Rolen. Schmidt and Brett either one were better than Robinson and Rolen - and it's not even close. PATHETIC!!!!!
Hey, it's only smack talk which is common when discussing lists like this. But I still say "pathetic" if the shoe fits.
You answered your own question:
<<< ...Babe Ruth...even though I consider him to be the best ever >>>
Yes agreed, Ruth was the best ever, so you leave him off? Seems to me like you don't want to win the game.
As far as the third baseman go, you really can't go wrong with Brett, Schmidt, Robinson, or Rolen. Those were just my picks.
Shane
Rolen in the same class as Schmidt and Brett?
Aaron a slightly better hitter than Ruth?
Man, I gotta hand it to you, you got some mightly powerful potion. Those are virtually indefensible positions you are taking.
<< <i>I said that he was the best ever because he was a dominating pitcher. When you factor in his offense AND his pitching, I consider him the best ever. On this team, however, he would not be pitching. I consider Hank Aaron a better outfielder by far, a better hitter (only slighty), and a better baserunner by far. Therefore, when building this team, I would chose Aaron for that spot. That's not that hard to understand my logic on that is it?
As far as the third baseman go, you really can't go wrong with Brett, Schmidt, Robinson, or Rolen. Those were just my picks. >>
Of course Aaron is a good choice, but not the best choice. Forget about the pitching aspect...Aaron over Ruth? Come on now. I watched Aaron play - a lot - certainly an excellent ball player who built up stats over playing a long time and deservedly is in the Hall of Fame - no question about that. But Ruth was a killer!
But hey, you're not all bad. I actually agree with your pick here. And for a lot of people they would take Mays over Cobb. A very tough call but I would take Cobb ahead of Mays...again...very close. Cobb and Mays were both killers on a baseball field, but I gotta take Cobb.
Shane
<< <i>Frankhardy, I'm not sure what Kool-Aid you are drinking today, but with the mood I am in, I wouldn't mind having some! >>
Sorry skinpinch, I'm afraid frank done drunk it all.
BTW, I like MMFB's team for a "greatest at their peak" team (as opposed to a greatest over an entire career team); the only one I'd change without reservation is Koufax to Grove. And while I'm not sure you'd want him managing a team of superstars, I think Billy Martin has the most impressive managing credentials ever.
You forgot one other thing he 'edged' out Ruth in....HE MADE 3,379 MORE OUTS!
Those 3,379 outs basically negate the offensive value TWO FOLD in Aarons advantage in singles, doubles, and Home Runs over Ruth. THen when you add Ruth's edge in triples, and large edge in walks, it is very clear which of the two were the better players. Ruth gets a knock down for the era he played in, but nothing that erases his large lead.
In every conceivable measure Ruth is the better hitter, and player(not even counting pitching).
You have convinced me, I think.
Forget the overhyped and overrated Hank Aaron. I'll take Ruth!
Shane
Just when I think I know way too much about games played by other people, you come along and help me feel real good about myself.
Keep it up!
Homerun leaders
This is just one category, but it shows Ruth's dominance.
Notice when Ruth retired in 1935 with 714 homeruns, Gehrig was second with 378, followed by Jimmie Foxx with 302, and Rogers Hornsby with 300. That means Ruth had more than twice as many home runs as everyone in history except Gehrig, who wasn't even close.
When Aaron retired with 755, Ruth had 714, Mays had 660 and Robinson, Killebrew, Mantle, Williams, Foxx, Banks, Matthews, etc. all had 500+.
It was just a different time period when Ruth played, but he was that much better than everyone else. If Aaron dominated that much, he should have ended up with twice as many homeruns as everyone else.
That may be overdoing it, but Ruth was by far the most dominate player compared to his "peers" in any generation.
Anyway, thought you might enjoy the list.
shawn
I will be the first to say, I've spent too much time in my life analyzing baseball. I've found a more happy medium in the past number of years though. The solice I can take about my hobby is that I did what I liked and found enjoyable. Following MLB was a natural occurance from loving to play so much, whether in the high level organized competitive leagues, or just whiffle ball in the alley. But the bottom line, it is/was fun!
The tangible things I got from my love of the game is the money I made in cards over the years, and the money in various types of gambling or fantasy type events. But best of all are the life long friends I've made who had similar type interests.
So if you feel like you've spent too much time, take solice in that.
If that was being said sarcastically, then I'm content with what I've done and what i am currently doing with my time, life, and resources...and the first thing people should know/learn is that it makes one a very small person if they have to pick on the legitmate interests of others in order to make themselves shine brighter.
For example, Axtell gets picked on for his interest in his wizard game, so that somebody can feel better about themself because they dont' think that activity is 'cool'. That is Junior High level thinking. If somebody has to degrade my interests to feel better about themself, then hey, I'm even more content as I am now helping a miserable soul feel better about himself. I have to deal with that type of attitude when I am working with 9 year olds on a daily basis.
KC, I doubt your response was sarcastic, but I've had other type of things of that ilk said about me.
Prediction time! SOmebody will respond that I try and make myself feel better because I often show the error in people's sports views/knowledge etc... Berfore that statement is said(as it has nothing to do wtih what I just said), yes I do show the errors, as I like to enlighten certain aspects that aren't typically known by sports fans. I always start the truth off in proper terms and tone, and yes, after countless dopey statements(with nonexistent evidence) I will fire back...one can ony take so much.
Simply put, if Mike Schmidt were allowed the same type of environment when he played....no minority players, a fraction of the available population to choose from to play MLB, and an archain type of batting philosophy of contact/slap, he too would have out homered many teams in 1980/81.
EVEN WITHOUT ALL THE ADVANTAGES RUTH HAD TO OUT-HOMER TEAMS, in 1980 Mike Schmidt hit 48 Home Runs, the New York Mets hit 61!!
In 1981 Mike Schmidt hit 31 Home RUns, the San Diego Padres 32!!!
Just by simply creating an environment of no black players those years,we do the exercise where we elminated all black players, and the next best white player would then be the starter, Schmidt would certainly have outhomered teams. Now think of the fact that there were MILLIONS more players available to play baseball that Schmidt had to compete with(the more people born, the more better playres born). Adjust those figures to Ruth's time, and bam, there goes more. Now make a chunk of players only choke/slap, and bam there goes more. It is very easy to see that he too would out homer many teams.
C- Bench
1B- Gerhig
2B- Hornsby
3B- Schmidt
SS- Ripken Jr.
OF- Cobb, Mays, Ruth
DH- Williams
LP- Grove
RP- W. Johnson
Relief- Whilhem
I think most historians would agree with your list, save Ripken. Many consider Wagner one of the top five players of all time. There in lies the problem though, that then leaves Bench, and Schmidt as the only modern type players on the list...that is nobody from primarily the 60's onward. Mays is kind of in the middle there(Wilhelm too).
That leaves the majority of the list consisting of Pre War guys. I think you recognize this and thus add Ripken.
So then, who are the closest modern players that could challenge the Pre War guys?? After taking the extra 'Ruth' example I gave above, which modern player has the closest claim?
1. Morgan to Hornsby? When baserunning is considered he closes the gap already. When the 'population factor' is considered, he may have a claim(ala Schmidt factor)
2. Seaver/Clemens to Walter Johnson? Would be very reasonable to add Clemens instead of the Train. Seaver there too.
3. RIvera to Wilhelm? This is possible.
4. Cobb/RUth/Williams are cemented there. Gehrig is the next level of cement.
5. Mays has Mantle as a challenger from his own era(especially if prime dominance is the criteria). Dimaggio too.
6. the Late 90's/early00's? Well, the rapid expansion and overall dilluted talent pool due to other sports/activities, and the declining birth rates of 'of age' players, puts their level of competition even with Ruth's. Yes, more latin than 20 years earlier, but far less black, so it is a wash there. World Game is the biggest myth around. Europeans? Africans? Russian? Arab? Indian? NONE. It is still U.S. Whites, Latin, and a handfull of pacific rim players. Not a world game.
So what if the team looked like this...
C Bench
1B Gehrig
2B Morgan
3B Schmidt
SS Wagner
OF Cobb/Mays/Ruth
DH Williams
RHP CLemens
LHP Grove
RP Rivera
Has OB% with everyone. Has SLG% with everyone. Morgan adds legit speed, and a different dimension to the lineup. Has some balance across eras, except this one, but this one isn't done yet and the jury is still out on a lot of things too(though it does have Clemens/Rivera). Contains guys with both Peak and Longevity dominance! The team would win for five years, or 15.
Here is the next thing...put the 'second' best player at each position against them, and it may not make much of a difference
Finally...someone who understands baseball. I completely agree with that.
The order in my opinion:
1. Ruth
2. Cobb
3. Mays
4. Williams
A good sized blanket over #5...too tough to call.
And just for those uninformed baseball fans who wouldn't pick Ruth on their team...the #4 player on this list isn't "Mitch" Williams.
Shane
<< <i>I know that! It's Woody Williams! >>
I was actually thinking Roy Hobbs could be #4 because of that brilliant year he had.
No offense intended
<< <i>The order in my opinion:
1. Ruth
2. Cobb
3. Mays
4. Williams
A good sized blanket over #5...too tough to call.
>>
No argument that those 4 are outstanding candidates for a top 4, but I disagree that there is much of a gap down to number 5. Honus Wagner dominated baseball just as much and for just as long as any other player than Ruth; he belongs in that group, and I'd put him higher than number 5....