Options
My dad used to throw this question out there.
math4cards
Posts: 120
in Sports Talk
He used to ask if we had one game against another planet - meaning basically a life or death situation - what baseball team from all time would you field and what batting order would you use. You could of course use regulars at positions, a designated hitter and a starter and closer and 1 man off the bench. Assuming all these players are in their primes of course.
Leadoff - Left Field - Rickey Henderson
2nd - 2nd base - Alfonso Soriano
3rd - Center Field - Willie Mays
4th - Right Field - Babe Ruth
5th - Catcher - Josh Gibson
6th - 1st base - Albert Pujols
7th - DH - Mickey Mantle
8th - 3rd base - Mike Schmidt
9th - Shortstop - Alex Rodriguez
Off the bench - Ty Cobb
Starting pitcher - Bob Gibson
Closer - Mariano Rivera
Leadoff - Left Field - Rickey Henderson
2nd - 2nd base - Alfonso Soriano
3rd - Center Field - Willie Mays
4th - Right Field - Babe Ruth
5th - Catcher - Josh Gibson
6th - 1st base - Albert Pujols
7th - DH - Mickey Mantle
8th - 3rd base - Mike Schmidt
9th - Shortstop - Alex Rodriguez
Off the bench - Ty Cobb
Starting pitcher - Bob Gibson
Closer - Mariano Rivera
0
Comments
-There are a lot of New Yorkers who may fear for their metropolis if Arod were up in a tight spot late against the one eyed closer. I would put Honus Wagner there...and I would feel much better about protecting the Empire State building..
And you would certainly need Johnny Bench back there just in case you run up against a swift team. You want to build a team that brings the best possible offesne(that could also win a game in different ways...hence Morgan being so vital!). And you want a defesne that could stop the running game, and simply catch the ball.
1st-2B Morgan
2nd-RF Mantle
3rd -LF Williams
4th -DH RUth
5th- CF Mays
6th -1B gehrig
7th-3B Schmidt
8th-SS Honus
9th-C Bench
Off the Bench- Ty Cobb. If the game is in a HUGE ballpark, then he would start over Williams for defensive reasons.
The top is loaded with On base machines...as well as the best hitters ever. Spots two thru four feature the best hitters in MLB history in their prime...and you want those guys at the top so that they get as many at bats as possible. Morgan is needed for his OB and speed, as it may take a stolen base, you never know. In fact, Mantle, Mays, and Wagner also possesss extraordinary speed and baserunning. The lineup has a good mix of lefty/righty as well. Has speed, and most importantly has OB/SLG prowess. Cobb comes in for a pinch hitter for Bench in a tight spot. But Bench is needed for his defense!
I like Ted Williams for his bravado! In an us against the world, I can't think of a better warrior to have on our team than Ted Williams...oh and he can hit
SP Gibson
RP Koufax
This way if we go against a team that is a lefty or righty dominated team, I could start either one of them. I would expect each of them to go the distance. If they are having a rough time, I would feel better about our chances if I had to substitue in the fifth or sixth inning by bringing in one of them, as opposed to a guy like Rivera. I wouldn't make an 'automatic' closer substitution and blow the world just so a guy can earn a 'save'.
Go Phillies
<< <i>It's a life or death situation and you put A-Rod in the line up? >>
Mr clutch himself!
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
The main reason I didn't take Joe Morgan is you'd have to listen to Joe Morgan - and how he could do anything at anytime from any position better than anyone else. And Josh Gibson who died at 35 freakin years old would have made Johnny Bench sit on the bench...not so much from his 700 plus home runs nor his lifetime .350 plus average nor his speed which was freakish for his strength but because his defense was AWESOME - and then I could always ask for a piece of the bat handle.
<< <i>A-Rod is one of the best offensive hitters ever - if you compare stats - but yes his lack of clutch hitting as a Yankee has me worried. >>
Which is exactly why he shouldnt be on this team. If he cant come through in the playoffs where a game is just on the line, imagine how he would perform if they were playing aliens that were ready to grind us all up and drink our blood if they won
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Also we talked about this not long ago but Breet was a far better playoff performer than Schmidt
Gemmint...all those power hitters get on base at a much higher clip then Clemente ever did. Mantle, Williams, Mays belowe Clemente? Defensively in their prime, Mantle is just as good as Clemente, and a faster runner to boot. He is in RF instead of CF.
Gibson is a nice choice, but there is still the unknown element. With the planet on the line, I wouldn't want the unknwon
Math, about your lineup, if I am an opposing manager, I get my right handers going, and I can neutral some of the effectiveness of the lineup. I simply cringe at Soriano chasing stuff in the dirt. I would almost rather put the faith of my children in my own hands and just take the bat myself.
Kobe it isn't about playoff performers. You can't simply say.."he did better in the post season, therefore I would take him." The main reason why is that PAST POST SEASON PERFORMANCE IS NOT A PREDICTOR OF FUTURE POST SEASON PERFORMANCE. For instance, if you asked this question after the 1996 post season, then Bernie Williams would have to be on the team...and we would all be dead then. Though, if i wanted to balance out my lineup a bit with Brett in his prime over Schmidt, then it wouldn't be too bad...until the martian drops a bunt down the line...then I pray I would have put Schmidt there.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I like Morgan(over Hornsby in this game) because of the other aspect he brings to the table(and he isn't an On Base liability like Soriano, but rather on On Base force). What if we run into a guy that figures out the hitters and we need to manufacture some runs? Morgan, Mantle, Mays, and Honus can all be a manufacturing type of player...when they aren't their usual stud hitter. They can steal bases. A lot of people don't realize how fast Mickey Mantle was in his prime, and the only thing keeping him from stealing bases was the era and general philosophy.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's a life or death situation and you put A-Rod in the line up? >>
Mr clutch himself! >>
Yeah he can clutch his handbag
They're into lawn bowling.
<< <i>1st-2B Morgan
2nd-RF Mantle
3rd -LF Williams
4th -DH RUth
5th- CF Mays
6th -1B gehrig
7th-3B Schmidt
8th-SS Honus
9th-C Bench
Off the Bench- Ty Cobb. If the game is in a HUGE ballpark, then he would start over Williams for defensive reasons.
SP Gibson
RP Koufax
>>
A great team and I would only make one tweak. As much as I admire Willie Mays, he would not be my first choice for this game; at their peaks, I think Cobb and possibly Speaker were a bit better than Willie. I'd start Cobb (and bat him 2nd, dropping Williams to 5th) and have Willie as my first sub.
As a Cardinal fan I am forbidden from formally objecting to your choice of Gibson as the SP, but was his peak really better than Pedro's? Maybe in a DH-less lineup Gibson inches ahead, but with a DH in there I think I might go with Martinez.
What, no Blyleven??
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I couldn't agree with Pedro Martinez because I would rather have a leader - and I don't think Don Zimmer will be managing the alien team - so he is useless. Of course Roger Clemens would bean a couple of those aliens - that wouldn't be good - and Satchel Paige in his prime - that could be a show!
One major person we forgot - Cal Ripken Jr. - at least we'd know he'd be there!
Sori is a great hitter, but put Morgan into the majors in this day and age of bandbox ballparks and watered down pitching and he'd outperform Soriano by far. Put Sori in the 70s playing in the Astrodome like Morgan did and his numbers would pale in comparison. Plus Morgan's OBP is far better than Soriano's.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>A lot of people don't realize how fast Mickey Mantle was in his prime, and the only thing keeping him from stealing bases was the era and general philosophy. >>
He was clocked at 3.1 seconds from home to first. Bill Dickey responded to that by saying " You should clock him going from first to second, thats when he's really moving."
As Skin mentioned, Mantles base stealing was almost non existent due to the coaching philosophy. There is little doubt he could have stolen as many bases as he wanted had he been allowed.
A great quote from Mantle after Canseco become the first member of the " 40-40 " club...
" If I had known it would be such a big deal I would have done it five or six times. "
Great discussion though. I thoroughly agree on Arod. With human civilization on the line I dont even want Arod in the stands as a spectator.
I would also agree with Dallas regarding Pedro. In his prime there was nobody more dominant. His numbers are eye popping when compared to league averages at the time. Not Gibson, Koufax, or anyone else can compare to his years where his ERA was THREE runs better than the league average.
-- Yogi Berra
Here is an example....you mention Soriano as better slugger than Morgan? Ok. A simple top ten ranking(in a vital measurement) among the peers is a quick way to check cross era players.
Top ten SLG% finishes...
Morgan 1st, 7th, 7th, 10th
Soriano 9th
This is a simple exercise, but a more thorough examination is needed, and Morgan dwarfs Soriano by monumentous margins in the thorough examinations.
Stolen bases, best marks,
Morgan 67, 67, 60....Caught stealing in those seasons 15, 10,9
Soriano 43, 41, 41....Caught stealing in those seasons 14,13,17
Morgan is CLEARLY the better baserunner. There is no question who was better in their prime(and career too), and I think all the members of the human race on here are very nervous about putting their life in the hands of a guy who is easier to get out than even an average player. We aren't into giving away the world...now maybe if UNICEF gets in the wolrd giving away business...
OUTS MADE TOP TEN FINISHES. SORIANO 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th. Not good.
Why not Pedro? I can't count on him to give me the innings....though he is tempting.
Dallas, you may be correct on Mays. Cobb can go to right, Mantle to Center. Mays as a sub. I see it as interchangable depending on righty/lefty pitcher.
P.S. Fantasy Baseball value is driven by other parameters that don't equate to real life value.
You gotta get Cobb in that starting lineup.
It's hard to disagree with Gibson, but I gotta go with Koufax.
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation
You guys are right about Cobb, he should get the nod over Mays, and Mantle moves to CF.
SteveK, Gibson/Koufax were chosen to combat a team that may be one sided lefty or righty. Plus either one could come in and gas it up for a few innings if it weren't the others day.
<< <i> Maybe he could be the oddsmaker? >>
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation
Individual all-star players don't win championships. A roster filled with super-stars and HOFers don't guarantee success on the field. WBC anyone?
If my life was on the line, my team would be the 1998 Yankees.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Most of the time people say a team lost because it only had superstars is because that team is usually lacking pitching, or they are over valuing certain players and thinking that they are superstars, when in reality, guys who have less RBI are actually better players. Really, how many teams that were TRUELY loaded, and didn't do well? The current Yanks are most often cited, but they have had glaring holes in their staff recent years...plus injuries.
Plus plain luck plays a big role in post season play.
<< <i>If my life was in the balance and I had to field a winning team, I wouldn't put together a group of all-star players. There would be too many issues with ego and chemistry.
Individual all-star players don't win championships. A roster filled with super-stars and HOFers don't guarantee success on the field. WBC anyone?
If my life was on the line, my team would be the 1998 Yankees. >>
I believe that Barry Bonds is the only player that has an ego literally larger than the planet; I'd trust the others to do their best. If nothing else, I know that watching Chad Curtis come to the plate would make me wonder why the hell Babe Ruth wasn't playing.
And the comparison to basketball doesn't strike me as applicable - basketball is mostly a team game and baseball is almost entirely an individual game.
If there's one constant in baseball, it's that the best teams on paper don't always win.
Obviously, we're dealing with hypotheticals. But can you imagine how fractured a clubhouse would be if it had Ty Cobb and Koufax/Mays/Morgan on it? Cobb would be too busy trying to strangle those 3 instead of playing baseball!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Dabighurt, the biggest reason why the best team doesn't always win a short series, is pure chance. Why 'on paper' teams don't do good for a long season is probably because 'on paper' evaluations are often wrong. That is why I brought up the RBI. You see 'on paper' somebody with more RBI than Joe Mauer, but Joe Mauer is clearly better.
Also, what is the evaluation of 'on paper' based on? Usually it is based just on the previous season, and that is another big culprit why 'on paper' is often wrong. You can't look at somebody's previous season results, and expect that to be replicated the following season. Yet, that is often what is used to see which team will win. There is a lot of randomness at work. What you need to do is increase your chances to the highest degree. Like Dallas said, having chad curtis playing instead of Babe Ruth isn't going to increase your chances to win.
The hypothetical clubhouse you speak of is a scenario to consider, though all those guys on that team are hard players, who give their all. There are no J.D. Drew types whom you can seriously question their manhood. Those are the guys i would be worried about, and worried Cobb might kill him.
<< <i>Also, what is the evaluation of 'on paper' based on? Usually it is based just on the previous season, and that is another big culprit why 'on paper' is often wrong. You can't look at somebody's previous season results, and expect that to be replicated the following season. >>
But aren't you using the same logic with "previous performance" in the selection of your HOF all-time team?
You're hoping your group of players will play together, bond as a unit and win. That's something I don't have to worry about with the 1998 New York Yankees.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
In an elite competition all you can do is give yourself the best chance at winning. It won't always work when the competition is close in abiity, but you have to maximize your chances. Having Chad Curtis roaming the outfield instead of Babe Ruth is not giving yourself the best chance to win.
Think of it like this. Take your local little league team that won the little league championship. Then go around the country and pick the thirteen best kids in the country to compete against them. Baseball doesn't need skill coehesiveness to be successful. There is nothing coehisive that your teammate can do when you are batting. It isn't like he needs to know when you break for a pass, or have a good back door timing from playing on the b-ball court. It is an individual game.
Of course in a short series, any MLB playoff team could beat anyone because they are so close in ability. But were not taking about teams that close in ability.
You mean to say that a team made up of the absolute best players of each position next year, would not be your choice over the St. Louis Cardinals...or any other team as it currently sits, because they aren't used to playing with each other?
Sure, the guys on the SUPERB team have a chance to have a down year, but so does anybody else on the COEHSIVE team. Then if you are somehow able to transform the best EVER onto your team(like we are talking about), good god, you must be crazy. But hey, I'm glad it isn't real, and you aren't on the selection board...I would have to put a plutonian hat on to save my life.
But the fate of the world is at stake here! I'm not going to trust some crazy racist like Ty Cobb murder my 2nd basemen and outfielder if I can help it! I'm not going to let that boozer Babe Ruth destroy the makeup of my team by becoming a media distraction with his off the field troubles. This game is too important!
Most of the players you listed never played against black or hispanic players, but we're expecting them to hit alien pitching?
No thanks! I'll stick with a team that's proven and battle tested. A team that won more games than any other in the history of the game. A team that played together and got the job done when it counted. Say what you will about Chad Curtis, but at least we know he's a gamer and will show up to play and plays his role to perfection. We won't need him to hit home runs. We'll win with playoff baseball - grinding out runs, clutch pitching and hitting and excellent defense.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Most never played against latin or black players? Huh? I guess I am learning something new everyday. Morgan, Mantle, Mays, Schmidt, Bench, Gibson, Koufax. Thats seven out of eleven starters that make your assumption incorrect. You mean integration occured in the 90's? I must have missed something.
What you should be worried about is taking a team in MLB that is playing in the most watered down era in the history of MLB. They are testing their worth against inferior competition, compared to that of players from the generation before. Jeez, look who they beat in the playoffs!!!
Look at the pitching of Texas and Cleveland, whom they beat in the playoffs. Here are the best ERA's among the starters of Cleveland and Texas....3.71, 3.76, 4.11, 4.23, 4.41, AND YOUR WORRIED ABOUT RUTH AND GEHRIG NOT FACING ANY BLACKS!! Yeah, the Yankees really proved themselves against the likes of Dave Burba, Charles Nagy, Jaret Wright, Aaron Sele, Rick Helling, and John Burkett! BWHAAAAAA! Yeah, I want the earth protected from guys who have proved their worth against chumps like that.
Yeah, it isn't tough to get through the playoffs when garbage is your competition.
Then your talking about wanting Chad Curtis instead of Babe Ruth? Ok. Wanting Curtis on your team over Ruth shows the depth of your knowledge. I find it quite humorous.
So these guys have such bad attitudes that it would prevent them from winning? Ok again. With Cobb over Williams in the lineup, every one of them have at least one WS win, and a total of 37 WS wins among them. Of course, with each one of them being either the best player or second best player on each of those WS teams, so they were actually the key guys on those teams. So where has the attitude cost them?
Edited: IF you are going to kill us all and pick an inferior team based on a flawed premise, then at least pick one of the best teams in MLB history, and not the '98 Yanks. At least take the '75 Reds, or one of the true Yankee great teams, or the mid 70's A's teams, or the '70 Orioles. All MUCH better choices than the '98 Yankees.
Second the guy that said Soriano was 9th in slugging and Morgan was 1st? Soriano may have been 9th versus outfielders - a far cry from the 2nd baseman of the early 70's. Also Soriano is far more powerful and a better slugger than Morgan - it wasn't until his 10th season in the majors that Morgan slugged .435 or above - Soriano has slugged .435 or above in his 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th seasons - so let's compare the slugging in comparable periods - it's no comparison - Soriano even on the Nationals outslugged Morgan.
That's like comparing Ruths 10th, 11th and 12th seasons versus Pujols - you can't do it.
Also fantasy league baseball is pretty close to guessing the best players - not maybe clutch performances - but definitely hitting ability. The best players in fantasy are Pujols, Ichiro, A-Rod...so on.
Also one more thing - everyone talks about 40-40 - and that's nice - but what about Hendersons 10 - 130? What about Bonds 73-13?
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Also, as good as Johnny Bench was, I don't think he's even good enough to carry Josh Gibson's jock strap. From what I've read of him, there's debate on him being the best player of all time. He's up in Babe Ruth's category. Johnny Bench is no where near that. If only MLB players, then I'd go with Bench or Piazza at catcher.
My knowledge of the early 1900s baseball is not sufficient, so I cannot comment on how well Ty Cobb was compared to Williams or Mays. Even though baseball is less dependent on team chemistry than basketball or hockey, it is still a factor. This is why Dick Allen or Ty Cobb would not be on my team.
Lou Gehrig is an excellent choice for first base. You cannot go wrong with that. How bad would one do if the team had Frank Thomas or Don Mattingly. With Frank Thomas, I would be concerned about speed and fielding. With Mattingly, I think speed is a detriment, but he is a very smart baserunner nonetheless and would also add to the serene club house atmosphere. Was Lou Gehrig fast?
Rickey Henderson at leadoff spot. That one is a no brainer!!! Probably the biggest one of them all.
I don't disagree with people's choices on here, but sometimes you can go with other players and it would not weaken the team necessarily.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>Rickey Henderson at leadoff spot. That one is a no brainer!!! Probably the biggest one of them all. >>
Which outfielder among Mantle, Williams and (if you don't like Cobb) Mays are you bumping for Henderson? Sure, Henderson was probably the greatest leadoff hitter in history; but he wouldn't have been if any of those three had been leadoff hitters. I'm sure somebody can tell me who the greatest no. 8 hitter in history was, too, but I'm not bumping Schmidt for whoever it happens to be.
I don't think anyone can name the top 5 active on base percentage leaders without looking...there are a few surprises...and you don't have to name them in order.
A couple of questions about Morgan. How many secondbaseman are ahead of him all time in OBP? How many players from his era are ahead of him in OBP?
Biggio, Alomar, Kent, Soriano, Sandberg, NEVER HAD A SINGLE SEASON BETTER THAN ANY OF THOSE THREE YEARS...and they hit mostly in the live ball era(except Sandberg). No other Second baseman from Morgan's era comes close to that.
Soriano .338, .332. .324 were his bests...and the league average during Soriano's service time was .337, so he only has one season above league average service time. That isn't too good. And I think it is safe to say that Soriano was a certfied butcher at 2B.
And his best three OB% are higher than the best three of Brett, Schmidt, Reggie, Murray, Winfield, and Pete Rose...the best hitters of Morgan's era. So that puts it into perspective a bit in his own era. Heck, Rickey Henderson has a career best of .439.
Only Wade boggs eclipses him, but that is severely Fenway aided, and when that is taken into account, Boggs isn't there either.
And Morgan slugged .498, .504, .576, in those years... not too shabby. His prime was incredible to say the least, and when you add the baserunning, which puts it off the charts.
Hornsby can top it, but again, it is live ball time. Plus Morgan was put on from the needed baserunning(along with his superb hitting).
Morgan may be hard to listen to at times during broadcasts(he is actually pretty cool when you talk to him), but man could he play... especially in his prime with the Machine.
He is underappreciated by the general fandom(outside Cincy at least).
Soriano versus Morgan - comparing the first 8 years - so it's close to equal in age - Morgan won all 8 times versus Soriano in on base percentage - YET he lost in every season in slugging and sometimes by a lot - Morgan slugged over .500 2 times in a 22 year career - Soriano already 4 times in 8 years and that does not include his .500 in his rookie season of 9 games. Batting average - Joe Morgan beat Alfonso the first 3 years and Soriano has won the last 5. Soriano has won 6 of the 8 runs battles, all 8 home run battles, 7 of 8 rbi battles - Morgan won in fielding BUT had 55 less steals than Soriano after 8 seasons - what about that?
If Alfonso Soriano plays 22 years he will pass Morgan in hr's easily, rbi's, runs, possibly steals, batting average, and strikeouts on pitches down and away.
Joe Morgan's best on base percentage for a season was .466 which was great - but it was 77th best all time for a season. The record of course is Bonds SICK .609...
Some other points to consider - Carlos Delgado AND John Olerud have both had better OBP seasons and Jason Giambi has twice eclipsed Morgans best - and that was with Oakland.
You can say all you want about the live ball era - but the Reds lineup being stacked with hall of famers all over the place no doubt helps.
And the best hitters of Morgan's era argument can be destroyed in one fall Rod Carew - who had a higher career OBP, so did Johnny Pesky from a deader ball era, Kruk and Olerud had better, Rickey Henderson's career OBP was .401! Even current players like Frank Thomas and Bobby Abreu are much higher...
I'll take Soriano - the man had better numbers across the board after 8seasons than Morgan and man can he hit the long ball!