<< <i>Soriano versus Morgan - comparing the first 8 years - so it's close to equal in age - >>
Close to equal in AGE? Seriously, if you think getting them equal in age is more important than comparing them when Morgan wasn't playing in the Astrodome in the dead-ball sixties then you have a LOT of homework to do. A LOT.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If you seriously think Morgan has more power than Soriano -then you have a lot of homework to do...and because of the spacious astrodome - you'd think Morgan would have had a higher batting average or a higher on base percentage - you can't have it both ways...either the long ball suffers and he gets on base - or the long ball thrives and he doesn't - which is it? Now am I saying that Morgan sucks? Of course not - but I am saying having Soriano isn't like losing ground - if you think Soriano would be a huge sacrifice then you need to bust out the stats and the record books. Still no explanation from anyone why Sorianos numbers exploded in Washington - a very dead ballpark - and why Morgan needed two good seasons combined to see 40-40.
<< <i>If you seriously think Morgan has more power than Soriano -then you have a lot of homework to do...and because of the spacious astrodome - you'd think Morgan would have had a higher batting average or a higher on base percentage - you can't have it both ways...either the long ball suffers and he gets on base - or the long ball thrives and he doesn't - which is it? Now am I saying that Morgan sucks? Of course not - but I am saying having Soriano isn't like losing ground - if you think Soriano would be a huge sacrifice then you need to bust out the stats and the record books. Still no explanation from anyone why Sorianos numbers exploded in Washington - a very dead ballpark - and why Morgan needed two good seasons combined to see 40-40. >>
I don't even know where to start and I think it'll be better for everyone if I don't even try.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Well Dallasactuary it's good you won't comment because you are too high on your buddy Joe Morgan. If you look at Morgans first world series he went a whopping 3 -24 and that was at age 29 - Soriano in his first world series at age 25 went 6-25 - and after their first two series each - Morgan at 32 years old was only 10 - 51 while Soriano at 27 after his 2nd world series was 11 - 47 with a homer. Morgan returned at 33 and then again at 40 going 5-15 and 5-19 respectively - so in the big games until he was 33 he wasn't much to write home about - and when people talk about Soriano k'd 9 times, Jeter and Posada k'd 7 times each and it was against Randy Johnson a couple of times and Curt Schilling a couple of times and you know that was a lot more than Morgan was facing in his first 2 world series...
<< <i>Well Dallasactuary it's good you won't comment because you are too high on your buddy Joe Morgan. If you look at Morgans first world series he went a whopping 3 -24 and that was at age 29 - Soriano in his first world series at age 25 went 6-25 - and after their first two series each - Morgan at 32 years old was only 10 - 51 while Soriano at 27 after his 2nd world series was 11 - 47 with a homer. Morgan returned at 33 and then again at 40 going 5-15 and 5-19 respectively - so in the big games until he was 33 he wasn't much to write home about - and when people talk about Soriano k'd 9 times, Jeter and Posada k'd 7 times each and it was against Randy Johnson a couple of times and Curt Schilling a couple of times and you know that was a lot more than Morgan was facing in his first 2 world series... >>
Well now we've reached the point where I can't tell if you're pulling my leg or not. If you are - and have been all along - then you got me good and I won't walk into one of your traps quite so quickly next time. (Of course, if you're not pulling my leg then you're just embarrassing yourself now and, trust me, you should just let this go.) Either way, since I can't tell, I'll stop.
I honestly hope you've been pulling my leg, because it takes an awfully clever person to construct such a well-formed argument for the purpose of annoying people who know baseball. As someone who has written several thousand words in support of Ron Fairly's greatness, I can appreciate the thought that goes into making arguments like the ones you've been making - and you've picked somebody who isn't even as good as Ron Fairly. I'm going to have to start a Don Mincher for the HOF thread if I expect to keep up!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I seriously think I'm talking to Joe Morgan...I can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not either. Joe Morgan's numbers through a comparable period aren't as good, his post season numbers through the same period aren't good, he will annoy the heck out of the players on the bench during this VERY IMPORTANT game about how he can do everything and no one else can, and Soriano is better.
Another thing is that you act like your choice is better than mine, and that you are better than me - two comments Joe Morgan would have made to anyone going against his decisions. In all honesty, as I've said before, it's who you would pick - not who you wouldn't agree with off my team. It's like those threads about people's best pulls - and then you get on there and tell them they are wrong - it's not their best pulls. If I pick the team I put Soriano out there - it would be nice to have a speed burner that can hit the long ball in a tight game, however if I had to play Joe Morgan, I wouldn't forfeit by any means - as I'm sure if Morgan pulled a hammy and you had Soriano on the bench - I am more than sure you'd put him in right? Or why don't we just forget this whole thing and put Chuck Knoblauch at 2nd and maybe he can bean the first base coach, maybe throw a ball into the dugout, and maybe take out a baserunner or two in the process.
This reminds me of the that debate we had with that guy from Boston who argued about all those players he saw first hand at Fenway for over a 1,000 games, yet he never heard of ANdre Thornton. Then he made the claim how he saw Joe Carter win dozens of games with late inning doubles or homers at FEnway...yet it happened once. That was funny stuff.
Math, if you can't understand how the era affects the numbers that Soriano is playing in, then there isn't much else to say...except that the top 20 pitchers of all time would then reside pre/early 1900. I guess mommies really knew how to give birth to future pitchers in 1865 era...because those guys went on to have all the best ERA's, much better than guys like Randy Johnson, or Pedro Martinez . Was it the stress of the civil war that made moms tougher, and their future sons to throw harder to get all those fine ERA's? ERA's that Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens could only hope for?
You are saying all those goofy things where Morgan ranks career OB%, disregarding era, or longevity. Do you realize that ROger Clemens is nowhere near the top 100 in lifetime ERA? Without understaning baseball, the analysis of a players worth, and the different era's to a strong degree, you can't make statements that you are making...UNLESS you are willing to agree that all the best pitchers are from around the turn of the century...the 1900 TURN OF THE CENTURY!
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON PLAYERS AT THEIR BEST, NOT FOR CAREER!
Math, it is a who would "you" pick thread, but that isn't what the debate has changed to. You are making a different claim altogether about the ability, merit, or worth of each player, and those claims are wrong. It isn't wrong to say you would want Soriano...go for it. But it is wrong with all the other invalid statements you are making.
Jaxxr, I actually went against my grain and picked two pitchers Koufax/Gibson, who had lesser primes than some guys you mentioned. I gave a short rationale why, and Grove could be a better pick than Koufax for the lefty spot, and others could be for Gibson on the righty spot. I've always championed Grove over Koufax for peak AND career. I guess I went with the popular sentimental picks with Koufax and Gibson.
<< <i>-then you have a lot of homework to do...and because of the spacious astrodome - >>
Hey bro,
Hate to burst your bubble but the Dome was a pitcher's park, not a hitters.
May I suggest the pot do it's own homework prior to calling out the kettle
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
May I suggest the pot do it's own homework prior to calling out the kettle
Nah, couldn't be....
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.
Wow, talking about changing horses midstream - you said Morgan was better than Soriano. I backed up my choice and then you backed up your choice for Morgan. The discussion could have ended there, but then you throw out obscure stats about OBP in the era and then Joe Morgan's batting average when his temperature was over 100 degrees and how Joe Morgan stole more bases in a light drizzle than any other player and how Joe Morgan played 2nd, SS, 3b and C at the same time.
If you want Joe Morgan - take him please! And please back up the nonsense you say. Remember the mounds were higher back in the day - the parks were larger - the ball was 'deader' - the ozone layer wasn't in bad shape yet - global warming wasn't an issue - Elvis and the Beatles had the players happier back then.
The bottom line is, for all the talking about how Morgan is better because look what he did against other 2b - the infielders of today are primarily a different breed. There shouldn't be any argument about the offensive abilities expected from infielders of today versus yesteryear.
If you want to believe Morgan would run the roost today...imagine what Soriano would have done in those huge ballparks with his speed and power. Now either you have something against math and want to go after everything I type - or two Soriano alone is better than your baseball team - or 3 you bought too many Joe Morgan autos and are trying to drive up the demand - or 4 you just love to talk - fine. But Soriano is actually a very good ballplayer - so save an argument like you are making for someone naming Steve Sax or Johnny Ray to the team.
You talk about knowing sports and implying you know more than I do...then accept a good player when you see one and start chomping after players that aren't good. Now most would agree the 40-40 club could have been reached by a Mantle or a Mays if it was a big deal in the day - but it wasn't - but when the company includes a then very good Canseco, an Alex Rodriguez, a Barry Bonds and ALFONSO SORIANO - who was 1 steal away from doing it twice - how can you argue? Unless of course all you do is argue, then I can understand.
That's why I don't get in the middle of those believing Tyson would have been the best - it's insane I know for people to believe he would have beaten a boxer like Ali - but people believe it. And since Tyson was so dominant - it's not stupid - it's plausible, and since it's plausible - it's understandable. So let it go.
And Dallasactuary - nice to jump in why the fire is hot. Question for you, is Ozzie Smith the worst offensive player outside of pitchers in the hall of fame? I would argue he is one of the bottom 3. What is your view?
For those that get in doing only 1 thing - when Ozzie got in...I was sure Dave Kingman was waiting near his phone. Just wait until Omar Vizquel gets in. Ozzie had a lifetime average of .262 and had 28 homers. He did have 580 steals and a near .980 fielding percentage which of course should be asterisked because errors he made were balls no one else could get to...
Vizquel has 73 career homers, a .276 lifetime average, a fielding percentage of .984 and 366 steals. So I guess he's getting in as well.
when Ozzie got in...I was sure Dave Kingman was waiting near his phone
Comparing Ozzie Smith to Dave Kingman is just ridiculous. You need to study the game a bit more before making foolish posts like that one.
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.
It's sarcasm - the guy has an Ozzie Smith picture and I made a sarcastic comment about Ozzie - as he made one at me calling me Eddie Gaedel...have to follow the posts to understand it.
But clearly Ozzie got in for defense alone - any debate about that?
But clearly Ozzie got in for defense alone - any debate about that?
Yes, Ozzie did get into HOF primarily because of his defensive skills, but he is arguably the best fielding, most entertaining SS who ever played the game, so I have no problem with him getting into the HOF. He also collected almost 2,500 hits and 590 SBs in the process. Throw in the ROY Award, 13 straight Gold Gloves and his 15 All Star appearances, and it's a no brainer, really, for anyone who's not obsessed with long ball steroid stats.
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>You need to study the game a bit more before making foolish posts like that one. >>
That about says it all. And given my now (after the Ozzie taunts) uncomfortable feeling that I am arguing with a 12 year old, I will leave future responses to math4cards' posts to others.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Here's a nugget for you...only Ray Schalk had less homers AND a lesser batting average than Ozzie Smith of all hall of famers outside of pitchers. That's not bad - at least he's not the worst offensive player in Cooperstown. As far as fun to watch - that shouldn't get you in the hall of fame. His stolen bases are great - but there are 20 guys with more and over half of them aren't in the hall of fame. If Ozzie Smith, since we seem to like talking about eras, came into today's game, he wouldn't be a hall of famer. His defense would be great - but so is Vizquel's defense - his offense would be horrible, and since you admitted teams don't steal as much, he wouldn't even have that. Omar Vizquel has won 11 gold gloves, has better offensive stats and is still playing - yet we all know he has no chance at the hall...so how can you defend Ozzie but there is no case for Omar?
Here's another nugget for you...you know nothing about the game or the history of baseball.
Good advice, dallas, think I'll take it, too.
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.
Dallas, you haven't made any points yet - when are you going to get in there and defend Ozzie? Does he or does he not deserve to be next to Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Joe Dimaggio? Did he deserve a first ballot entry? Come on now, don't hide behind skinpinch knowledge and homework. All your quotes refer to letting others argue for you - I haven't seen one ounce of stat behind your assumptions - and then to throw the 12 year old line out there...please you're outmatched.
Now skin - he's a tough one. His points are about as ironclad as they get. He's the kind of guy that makes you dig deep into the annals of history.
Grote, I'm impressed with you as well...and thanks for backing up my position on Ozzie - all defense.
Grote are you for real? Anyday you want to throw some sports knowledge around - you'll know then how much I know. You said that Ozzie didn't get in just for defense look at all the gold gloves he won - newsflash - gold gloves are for defense. I know you didn't know that Ray Schalk is the only player in the hall with a lesser batting average AND home runs than Ozzie Smith. And then both of you running and hiding when you can't admit to the forum that Ozzie Smith wouldn't be a big deal compared to today's shortstops. You must be blind! Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada, Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, Carlos Guillen, Michael Young, Edgar Renteria, Omar Vizquel - come on...where would you rank him in today's game? 10th?
<< <i>Anyday you want to throw some sports knowledge around - you'll know then how much I know. >>
So you say the Dome was a hitter's park.
Please enlighten me more Mr. Baseball Knowledge.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
It was a small ball hitters paradise - big alleys - astroturf. Joe Morgan wasn't a long ball hitter - in any era. So if you want to chime in...where would you rank Ozzie Smith with that list of todays shortstops in todays game.
Does anyone ever admit they are wrong in here? Joe Morgan played 7 seasons with over 100 games as an Astro...SIX times he had a higher batting average at the dome! That's 6 out of 7 seasons.
Anyday you want to throw some sports knowledge around - you'll know then how much I know.
From reading your posts thus far, it's quite apparent to me and to those who actually know and follow the game of baseball, that you know next to nothing, but hey, don't take my word for it, just listen to everyone else and you'll get the picture (maybe).
Since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension, I'll reiterate what I said about Ozzie Smith's qualifications for the HOF:
Yes, Ozzie did get into HOF primarily because of his defensive skills, but he is arguably the best fielding, most entertaining SS who ever played the game, so I have no problem with him getting into the HOF. He also collected almost 2,500 hits and 590 SBs in the process. Throw in the ROY Award, 13 straight Gold Gloves and his 15 All Star appearances, and it's a no brainer, really, for anyone who's not obsessed with long ball steroid stats.
P.S. Anyone who thinks Soriano is a better second baseman than Joe Morgan, or that Ozzie Smith doesn't belong in the HOF, obviously has no clue, so why bother? Time for bed, kid.
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.
Figures you'd ignore the questions you can't answer...where would you rank Ozzie today? And if the Astrodome was such a pitchers park why are 6 of the 7 years that Morgan played there his average was higher at home...come on Grote...answer something on your own for once.
And as far as a few people thinking I know nothing about sports...you don't say anything original by yourself - not only do I say the stuff I know, but I can back it up - you don't even come up with anything on your own. Well here's your chance...answer the questions honestly. And if Ozzie got in for defense only,why not Mattingly? 9 gold gloves - a higher batting average, more rbi's, more homers - but I'm sure you knew all of that. Why not Andre Dawson 8 gold gloves and much higher offensive numbers. Defense shouldn't be a ticket to the hall of fame.
And if Ozzie got in for defense only,why not Mattingly? 9 gold gloves - a higher batting average, more rbi's, more homers - but I'm sure you knew all of that. Why not Andre Dawson 8 gold gloves and much higher offensive numbers.
Stop it now, you're just embarrassing yourself with these anaolgies, why not throw Kingman in there, oh wait, you already did.
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.
Again, you've exhausted your two minutes of sports knowledge for the day Grote...but make yourself useful and answer my question on the sports card post.
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.
Seriously Grote, you should take a page from the Seinfeld episode where George learned he only had one line of use per conversation. That was the one where he would say his line, get his reaction and leave because it would always go downhill from there...your line was about 8 posts ago - you could have left without dodging questions you can't answer.
you could have left without dodging questions you can't answer.
Who is Axhole?
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.
Quote from Grote - hey that rhymes! "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."
If Soriano is a great hitter...then he should be allowed on a person's 'best team' list. And again, as I said, Morgan hit better in the dome than on the road...so I suspect Soriano could, and I say could not would, do as well - after all he's gone 40-40 in Washington - which is a pitchers park as well - and he was learning a new position on top of that. Soriano also went 41-39 with the Yankees, which is a hitters park, but is just a wee bit more stressful than hitting for the Astros when they were sitting on the bottom of the division for years.
Not quite. Jerry Grote, who played 16 seasons and was a member of both the 1969 & 1973 NY Mets WS teams, pronounced his name Jerry Grote with a long E at the end, but I'm not surprised you never heard of him considering what little you actually do know about the history of baseball and all.
Thanks, also, for reiterating my point that Morgan is the superior second baseman to Soriano. That was nice of you to quote and all.
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.
No wonder you like Groteeeeeeee - he actually had a lesser batting average than Ozzie Smith! I knew you'd idolize someone with those outstanding credentials. And would you look at that...Groteeeee played with Joe Morgan on the Colt 45's...what a small world.
I still like the phrase Quote from Grote...so don't rock the boat.
Dallas had it right...it's no use debating a 12-year-old. Have fun, sparky!
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.
Wow another one liner from the Groteee. You may have over a thousand posts...but I bet if I look hard enough at those posts...one of them, maybe even two, actually mean something. Now I know you are thinking that I'm crazy and that none of the stuff that you say makes sense or is of your own thoughts - but give me time. It may take a few months...but I'm sure you've said something on your own AND that made sense. For we all know you've said a lot of things that made sense but weren't on your own...and we all know you've said a lot of stuff on your own, that didn't make sense. But give me a few months, I'll find the quote from Grote that sounds somewhat intelligent.
Who am I kidding...we all know there isn't such a post.
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.
Wow. I have nothing against teenagers, but it is evident we are dealing with one here
There are probably a dozen points that need to be addressed one by one in all of Math's 'claims', but looking at his posts I'm not going to bother to go through them all and address them towards him. If an OB% is obscure to somebody, then they need to do a lot more homework before they get into any discussions such as these. Reading somebody's posts actually help. You need to start first with the question I posed regarding the best pitchers of all time.
-------Math, if you can't understand how the era affects the numbers that Soriano is playing in, then there isn't much else to say...except that the top 20 pitchers of all time would then reside pre/early 1900. I guess mommies really knew how to give birth to future pitchers in 1865 era...because those guys went on to have all the best ERA's, much better than guys like Randy Johnson, or Pedro Martinez . Was it the stress of the civil war that made moms tougher, and their future sons to throw harder to get all those fine ERA's? ERA's that Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens could only hope for?
You are saying all those goofy things where Morgan ranks career OB%, disregarding era, or longevity. Do you realize that ROger Clemens is nowhere near the top 100 in lifetime ERA? Without understaning baseball, the analysis of a players worth, and the different era's to a strong degree, you can't make statements that you are making...UNLESS you are willing to agree that all the best pitchers are from around the turn of the century...the 1900 TURN OF THE CENTURY!
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON PLAYERS AT THEIR BEST, NOT FOR CAREER! What part of this do you not understand? The whole debate is based on a players prime, not career record. That is what I was referring to when I brought up Morgan's best three year runs of OB%, and how nobody in his time could top his best three years.
Math, it is a who would "you" pick thread, but that isn't what the debate has changed to. You are making a different claim altogether about the ability, merit, or worth of each player, and those claims are wrong. It isn't wrong to say you would want Soriano...go for it. But it is wrong with all the other invalid statements you are making.-----
***And for the love of God, if you cannot comprehend the difference in eras, then realize that Biggio, Alomar, and Kent-- ALL 2B FROM SORIANO's own era are all better players than he...both offensively and VASTLY better defensively than the butcher. It isn't even close.
By the way, you have no clue about longevity and its effect. If you think Soriano is going to play 22 full seasons, then that puts him at age 46 in his 22nd full season.
I will make one prediction about Soriano this coming season. If he bats leadoff, he will lead the NL in outs made. That is the one thing that I will agree that Soriano is VERY GOOD at doing....make outs. The price of his other very good attribute...hittting HR is severly offset by the amount of at bats it takes to do it..
So based upon your limited sample, the Dome was a hitter's park? Not only that but the Colt 45s played in the Dome?
I'm a native Houstonian, a life long 'Stros fan, and didn't know that. Guess it's true that you learn something new every day.
So tell us about yourself, math.
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
Based upon your posts, I think you will enjoy your stay here. Obviously very knowledgeable about sports and statistics... I mean, anyone who knows anything about baseball would definately put A-Rod in a high pressured situation with the game on the line. Most importantly, you get along with others who disagree with you and don't resort to name calling.
Complete opposite of Tinkerbell..
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>So based upon your limited sample, the Dome was a hitter's park? Not only that but the Colt 45s played in the Dome?
I'm a native Houstonian, a life long 'Stros fan, and didn't know that. Guess it's true that you learn something new every day.
So tell us about yourself, math.
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
Based upon your posts, I think you will enjoy your stay here. Obviously very knowledgeable about sports and statistics... I mean, anyone who knows anything about baseball would definately put A-Rod in a high pressured situation with the game on the line. Most importantly, you get along with others who disagree with you and don't resort to name calling.
Complete opposite of Tinkerbell..
>>
1) Otsedom - (Bizarro Modesto). But once removed from Hillbillyland.
2) Since Winpitcher and Softparade beat some sense into me.
3) Referral from my mystic ruler Niam. Had to trade him 3 pelts and 20 drodnaks.
4) Presently assembling a Joe Montana set for my mommy.
Wow...it's like 8 against 1 - that should make this battle pretty fair for you as you all need to help each other out - and that's cool. I never said that OBP meant nothing - but since Sorianos is less than Morgan's wouldn't it be stupid to bring up OBP? I haven't seen you guys compare homers, rbi's, or runs because that in turn would be a losing argument for you all. Now I know all forums have their bully's and yes they usually appear really early - and this is true here. The only difference is only skinpinch with his pushing around actually has stats to defend his stances where as grote just rides his coattails - and these other guys came in a little late.
Of course era makes a difference - and as many of you are acting like you don't know - that's why it's nearly impossible to compare players with different eras. So for everyone saying that Morgan at only 5'7", which is the size of Craig Grebeck and that's about it from this era, it's hard for me to see how he'd be so great as you all say - and yet Soriano would suck back in the 70's with his incredible combination of speed and power. Now if Joe Morgan's batting average and on base percentages were higher in the astrodome for 6 of his 7 years than on the road - and it is such a pitchers ballpark - then why didn't he do much better on the road? No one can answer that...and although this is labeled a sports talk forum - many of you are more interested in honing your attack skills on someone wanting to talk about, and hear about sports - then it is in actually giving Soriano some credit - yet saying you think Morgan is still better.
Is it any coincidence that you can't name any 5'7" all stars from the last 20 years? And if you can, how many can you name? You want to talk about era, but are you ready to do that? The players of today are much taller and stronger than in the past - that is very evident - so how does a Morgan fit in today? If Morgan played today you think he'd hit 40 homers? Not a chance - and the fact that free swinging Dave Kingman hit 40 in the 70's - I'm sure a free swinging Alfonso Soriano would still crack 30 a season back in the day.
And you are right, when I joined this forum I thought I made a great choice with educated sports enthusiasts that would throw jabs back and forth through their knowledge and it would be a blast. And thus far I've been correct, but every forum has that few people that have to force their opinions upon everyone or they rip the person. If that is what your about - fine - it's not the first few guys in a forum that are rude to people with different opinions and you guys won't be the last. For the 99 percent of the forum that show decency when disagreeing with people - thanks for your opinions and I look forward to discussing topics with those individuals.
You sure crawl into the "I did nothing" position quickly. A less than 30-day alias, claiming to be all knowledgable about baseball, and telling long standing members to admit being wrong (based upon your opinion, not facts) should expect the same in return.
Lighten up, Francis, and tell us about yourself:
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
It isn't impossible to compare players from different eras, especially when you are talking Morgan's era vs. now. It does get more difficult when you go way back.
1) The quickest, easiest, and most logical way is to measure them vs. their peers, since they all play under the same circumstances. When you measure Soriano vs. his second base peers, he is well behind Biggio, Alomar, and Kent. Both Biggio and Alomar are not what you would call "Large" players that you mention. When Soriano is at best the fourth best second basemen of his own time, it would be extremely difficult to then proclaim him as the most desired second baseman of all time.
2)Your Five foot seven claim is absurd. Biggio and Alomar ain't much bigger, and they are both leap years ahead of Soriano, and NOT AS TALL. To answer your question...relative to other pitchers, Greg Maddux is equivalent in size as a pitcher as Joe Morgan was a hitter. I've been eye to eye with Maddux, and he is no taller than 5' 10". Pedro Martinez ain't much taller. The rest of the pitchers in MLB average appx 6' 3". So why then couldn't Joe Morgan dominate position players(who are smaller than pitchers), when Maddux and Pedro dominate the much taller and bulkier pitchers of their time?
3)As for Soriano, the first large drawback is his poor defense at second base. It is harder to win with a butcher at that position. There is a reason he is now a left fielder...because he is Alice's new boyfriend.
4)His biggest positive is that he is good at Home Runs and doubles. Even putting era aside for a second, you have to understand the the creation of runs. Soriano is hitting 39 home runs, but he only accomplishes that by getting a very high amount of at bats. The result effect is that he is making a ton of outs. When you examine EVERY SINGLE at bat, and EVERY SINGLE base situation from 1957 to now, you can see how making an out is killing the chance at scoring runs, and you can see how many runs a home run leads to. It isn't a mystery at all. You can not champion his home runs, and then just ignore the high negative impact of the outs and runs he costs his team.
5)Another aspect Soriano has been bad at is hitting with men on. Making outs with men on bae is even more of a negative, and Soriano's hitting with men on base has been poor. His career nobody on numbers are:
Nobody on BA .286, OB% .329, SLG% .528
Runners in Scoring Position BA. .254, OB% .317, SLG% .449
6)But again, the bottom line is that it is VERY foolish to campaign Soriano for an all time team when there are THREE other guys better both offensively, and defensively from Soriano's own era. Secondly, Morgan is so far ahead of him, that it is a ridiculous argument.
That 5' 7" claim in the garbage. If you insist on it, then Maddux and Pedro must be magicians.
<< <i>Again, you've exhausted your two minutes of sports knowledge for the day Grote...but make yourself useful and answer my question on the sports card post. >>
Ive been here long enough to realize what Grote knows and doesnt know.
Maybe if you were here for more than two minutes, and spent some of that time trying to get along with people instead of contradicting everything they say or tossing insults to people you dont have a clue about you would learn a bit of Grotes sports knowledge.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
Bri, maybe you should read how everything went down. It's all right there...I chose Soriano for my team - then someone said Soriano isn't as good as Morgan. That's fine - but then I am going to try and defend Mr. Soriano. The same Soriano who is the only infielder in baseball history to have back to back 30-30 seasons. And then there is so much contradiction from all parties involved as to what the argument is over...I argue for Soriano to be considered a very good 2b - and yet others are saying it's the era is why he is producing so well and that Joe Morgan would have stolen more. Well, he stole a lot of bases because the 70's were a big era for stolen bases...not the 2000's - so that doesn't hold water. And the biggest fact - that no one will attest to is that after 6 full seasons Soriano had 126 errors...after 6 full seasons Joe Morgan had 119 - so if Soriano is a butcher - as he is called on here - then Morgan is the apprentice butcher.
But I am more than willing to let this whole thread go - and we could start over with a new thread.
For those interested in the subject, and confused by the misinformation being peddled, some context might be useful in understanding why this debate is so exceptionally silly. Alfonso Soriano is, in fact, a good baseball player and an almost adequate second baseman. At this point in his career - assuming the remainder of his career follows an ordinary pattern - there is a decent chance that he will retire as one of the 20 best second basemen of all time (if he still counts as a second baseman at that point - if he instead counts as a left fielder then he might finish as high as 50).
But barring a remarkable improvement as he gets older, it is already impossible that he will crack the top 10, or even get close to it. No matter what he does from this point on, his chances of catching Morgan, Collins, Hornsby, Lajoie, Biggio, Sandberg, Carew, Gehringer, Jackie Robinson, Alomar, Grich, Frisch or Whitaker are essentially zero. He has to continue improving for a while yet to attain the ranks of a Joe Gordon or Willie Randolph, and he's going to have to keep producing at or near his current level for several more years to make a legitimate claim that he is as good as Bobby Doerr, Tony Lazzeri or, for that matter, Chuck Knoblauch.
That's comparing career value; if we're comparing only the best seasons of each second baseman, then he has yet to crack the top 30, or maybe even 40. Soriano has not yet had a season as good at the plate as, say, Steve Sax had in 1986 or Davey Johnson had in 1973. Even the often ridiculed Red Schoendienst had a better "peak" season than any season Soriano has put together so far.
We are "debating" whether a player who may one day be counted as among the best 20 at his position is worthy of bumping from a game of galactic importance one of the best 20 players who ever lived, at ANY position. Even I would take George Sisler over Lou Gehrig before I would take Soriano over Morgan.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Are you talking straight up stats, dallas, for that single season, or are you talking weighted stats based on era. No middle infielder has ever had back to back 30-30's except Soriano - that is a fact. Soriano is 1 of only 4 players from any position of any era to go 40/40 and missed by 1 stolen base from doing it twice.
He's on pace - and this is if he only plays until he's 36 - to hit over 400 home runs - and steal over 400 bases. That is definitely top 10 if he qualifies at 2b by then.
And remember, no ones list is perfect. I have personal biases on my pick of Soriano - #1 I am a huge Yankees fan and enjoyed Soriano save the one world series - and I can't stand Joe Morgan and how he talks poorly of many of today's ballplayers.
I'll give you people like Wagner and Lajoie unless you throw era in there and the fact that they faced the same pitchers 8 - 10 times per year. But there is no way you get Carew - who played more games at 1b than at 2b - 1184 to 1130. You don't get Whitaker who had less steals than Soriano already, and only like 20 more homers in more than twice the games. No chance on Grich, or Gehringer - who by the way already has less steals and homers than Soriano in over twice as many games. Alfonso Soriano is much better already than over half the names on the list - the stats are already better and he has 10 years to play yet to equal the length of time it took some of them to get there. Now Jackie Robinson - regardless of stats is one of a kind - what he did is way beyond stats. The players pre-1930 - they were incredible - who knows how they'd be now. Sandberg, Morgan, Kent, Biggio - all incredible numbers - but with Kent and Sandberg they didn't lead off...Soriano does and still puts up incredible rbi's for a leadoff guy - and he will be back in that role this year. He easily rolls up top 10 second baseman if he stays there...he easily rolls up top 50 center fielders if he stays there...his offensive numbers will easily reach 400-400 if he only plays 6 more years - and most players go at least 8 or 9 from here. There is only one other player in the 400-400 club and that is BARRY BONDS!
Math, I don't want to go over the myriad of points that are being brought up. I do want to talk about the stolen bases though. It is true that Joe Morgan might not have the same number of stolen bases in todays game...though it depends on the organization and manager. However, total stolen bases isn't a mark of the better stealer. Everybody always forgets the caught stealing. I believe I showed you their prime years with stolen bases.
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
By total count of those years it looks like this...
You have to understnad one important fact with stolen bases. It takes appx. TWO successful stolen bases to even out the NEGATIVE impact of just ONE caught stealing. Thats right. If a player steals 40 bases, but gets caught 20 times, then he is basically spinning his wheels, because the 20 caught stealing negate the positive impact of the 40.
If you figure Morgan would run less in todays game, you figure his stolen bases would go down but his Caught stealing would go down with it. Probably even more so since he would still run in the highest opportune times, and his managers in todays game would avoid the risky times. A high opportune time would be when somebody like Piazza is catching
You see at their best Morgan had 70 more stolen baes, and was actually caught 10 less times! That is a vast difference.
As for the fielding. Looking at errors exclusively is about the poorest way to measure a fielder. It takes no account into how many balls a player gets to. Joe Morgan was not a Ryne Sandberg defensively, but he is much better than Soriano. Like I said, Soriano got moved to the outfield for a reason. Morgan was good enough to remain at 2B, and actually have some very fine defensive years.
Rod Carew was much better than Soriano. Yeah, the second half of his career was a 1B, but the time spent at second just beats Soriano's time at second out of the water.
One final thing. You can't get caught up in those arbitrary clubs like 40-40. What you are basically saying is that a guy who goes 40-40 is better than a player who hits 75 HR and steals 0 bases, because that guy isn't even close to the 'club'. That is nonsense. What truly matters is the offensive impact of the production...AND AGAIN DO NOT FORGET TO TAKE CAUGHT STEALING INTO ACCOUNT AND HOW IT NEGATES THE OFFENSIVE IMPACT OF STOLEN BASES!
Comments
<< <i>Soriano versus Morgan - comparing the first 8 years - so it's close to equal in age - >>
Close to equal in AGE? Seriously, if you think getting them equal in age is more important than comparing them when Morgan wasn't playing in the Astrodome in the dead-ball sixties then you have a LOT of homework to do. A LOT.
<< <i>If you seriously think Morgan has more power than Soriano -then you have a lot of homework to do...and because of the spacious astrodome - you'd think Morgan would have had a higher batting average or a higher on base percentage - you can't have it both ways...either the long ball suffers and he gets on base - or the long ball thrives and he doesn't - which is it? Now am I saying that Morgan sucks? Of course not - but I am saying having Soriano isn't like losing ground - if you think Soriano would be a huge sacrifice then you need to bust out the stats and the record books. Still no explanation from anyone why Sorianos numbers exploded in Washington - a very dead ballpark - and why Morgan needed two good seasons combined to see 40-40. >>
I don't even know where to start and I think it'll be better for everyone if I don't even try.
....for true clutch performances by a pitcher, Christy Mathewson threw THREE SHOUTOUTS in a single World Series.
No one has picked any of them ???
<< <i>Well Dallasactuary it's good you won't comment because you are too high on your buddy Joe Morgan. If you look at Morgans first world series he went a whopping 3 -24 and that was at age 29 - Soriano in his first world series at age 25 went 6-25 - and after their first two series each - Morgan at 32 years old was only 10 - 51 while Soriano at 27 after his 2nd world series was 11 - 47 with a homer. Morgan returned at 33 and then again at 40 going 5-15 and 5-19 respectively - so in the big games until he was 33 he wasn't much to write home about - and when people talk about Soriano k'd 9 times, Jeter and Posada k'd 7 times each and it was against Randy Johnson a couple of times and Curt Schilling a couple of times and you know that was a lot more than Morgan was facing in his first 2 world series... >>
Well now we've reached the point where I can't tell if you're pulling my leg or not. If you are - and have been all along - then you got me good and I won't walk into one of your traps quite so quickly next time. (Of course, if you're not pulling my leg then you're just embarrassing yourself now and, trust me, you should just let this go.) Either way, since I can't tell, I'll stop.
I honestly hope you've been pulling my leg, because it takes an awfully clever person to construct such a well-formed argument for the purpose of annoying people who know baseball. As someone who has written several thousand words in support of Ron Fairly's greatness, I can appreciate the thought that goes into making arguments like the ones you've been making - and you've picked somebody who isn't even as good as Ron Fairly. I'm going to have to start a Don Mincher for the HOF thread if I expect to keep up!
Another thing is that you act like your choice is better than mine, and that you are better than me - two comments Joe Morgan would have made to anyone going against his decisions. In all honesty, as I've said before, it's who you would pick - not who you wouldn't agree with off my team. It's like those threads about people's best pulls - and then you get on there and tell them they are wrong - it's not their best pulls. If I pick the team I put Soriano out there - it would be nice to have a speed burner that can hit the long ball in a tight game, however if I had to play Joe Morgan, I wouldn't forfeit by any means - as I'm sure if Morgan pulled a hammy and you had Soriano on the bench - I am more than sure you'd put him in right? Or why don't we just forget this whole thing and put Chuck Knoblauch at 2nd and maybe he can bean the first base coach, maybe throw a ball into the dugout, and maybe take out a baserunner or two in the process.
This reminds me of the that debate we had with that guy from Boston who argued about all those players he saw first hand at Fenway for over a 1,000 games, yet he never heard of ANdre Thornton. Then he made the claim how he saw Joe Carter win dozens of games with late inning doubles or homers at FEnway...yet it happened once. That was funny stuff.
Math, if you can't understand how the era affects the numbers that Soriano is playing in, then there isn't much else to say...except that the top 20 pitchers of all time would then reside pre/early 1900. I guess mommies really knew how to give birth to future pitchers in 1865 era...because those guys went on to have all the best ERA's, much better than guys like Randy Johnson, or Pedro Martinez
You are saying all those goofy things where Morgan ranks career OB%, disregarding era, or longevity. Do you realize that ROger Clemens is nowhere near the top 100 in lifetime ERA? Without understaning baseball, the analysis of a players worth, and the different era's to a strong degree, you can't make statements that you are making...UNLESS you are willing to agree that all the best pitchers are from around the turn of the century...the 1900 TURN OF THE CENTURY!
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON PLAYERS AT THEIR BEST, NOT FOR CAREER!
Math, it is a who would "you" pick thread, but that isn't what the debate has changed to. You are making a different claim altogether about the ability, merit, or worth of each player, and those claims are wrong. It isn't wrong to say you would want Soriano...go for it. But it is wrong with all the other invalid statements you are making.
Jaxxr, I actually went against my grain and picked two pitchers Koufax/Gibson, who had lesser primes than some guys you mentioned. I gave a short rationale why, and Grove could be a better pick than Koufax for the lefty spot, and others could be for Gibson on the righty spot. I've always championed Grove over Koufax for peak AND career. I guess I went with the popular sentimental picks with Koufax and Gibson.
<< <i>-then you have a lot of homework to do...and because of the spacious astrodome - >>
Hey bro,
Hate to burst your bubble but the Dome was a pitcher's park, not a hitters.
May I suggest the pot do it's own homework prior to calling out the kettle
<< <i>Wait, is Dallas Joe Morgan, or am I? >>
You're Joe Morgan, I'm Ron Fairly. And I guess that makes math4cards Eddie Gaedel (since everything is going over his head).
Nah, couldn't be....
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.
If you want Joe Morgan - take him please! And please back up the nonsense you say. Remember the mounds were higher back in the day - the parks were larger - the ball was 'deader' - the ozone layer wasn't in bad shape yet - global warming wasn't an issue - Elvis and the Beatles had the players happier back then.
The bottom line is, for all the talking about how Morgan is better because look what he did against other 2b - the infielders of today are primarily a different breed. There shouldn't be any argument about the offensive abilities expected from infielders of today versus yesteryear.
If you want to believe Morgan would run the roost today...imagine what Soriano would have done in those huge ballparks with his speed and power. Now either you have something against math and want to go after everything I type - or two Soriano alone is better than your baseball team - or 3 you bought too many Joe Morgan autos and are trying to drive up the demand - or 4 you just love to talk - fine. But Soriano is actually a very good ballplayer - so save an argument like you are making for someone naming Steve Sax or Johnny Ray to the team.
You talk about knowing sports and implying you know more than I do...then accept a good player when you see one and start chomping after players that aren't good. Now most would agree the 40-40 club could have been reached by a Mantle or a Mays if it was a big deal in the day - but it wasn't - but when the company includes a then very good Canseco, an Alex Rodriguez, a Barry Bonds and ALFONSO SORIANO - who was 1 steal away from doing it twice - how can you argue? Unless of course all you do is argue, then I can understand.
That's why I don't get in the middle of those believing Tyson would have been the best - it's insane I know for people to believe he would have beaten a boxer like Ali - but people believe it. And since Tyson was so dominant - it's not stupid - it's plausible, and since it's plausible - it's understandable. So let it go.
For those that get in doing only 1 thing - when Ozzie got in...I was sure Dave Kingman was waiting near his phone. Just wait until Omar Vizquel gets in. Ozzie had a lifetime average of .262 and had 28 homers. He did have 580 steals and a near .980 fielding percentage which of course should be asterisked because errors he made were balls no one else could get to...
Vizquel has 73 career homers, a .276 lifetime average, a fielding percentage of .984 and 366 steals. So I guess he's getting in as well.
Comparing Ozzie Smith to Dave Kingman is just ridiculous. You need to study the game a bit more before making foolish posts like that one.
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.
But clearly Ozzie got in for defense alone - any debate about that?
Yes, Ozzie did get into HOF primarily because of his defensive skills, but he is arguably the best fielding, most entertaining SS who ever played the game, so I have no problem with him getting into the HOF. He also collected almost 2,500 hits and 590 SBs in the process. Throw in the ROY Award, 13 straight Gold Gloves and his 15 All Star appearances, and it's a no brainer, really, for anyone who's not obsessed with long ball steroid stats.
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>You need to study the game a bit more before making foolish posts like that one. >>
That about says it all. And given my now (after the Ozzie taunts) uncomfortable feeling that I am arguing with a 12 year old, I will leave future responses to math4cards' posts to others.
Here's another nugget for you...you know nothing about the game or the history of baseball.
Good advice, dallas, think I'll take it, too.
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.
Now skin - he's a tough one. His points are about as ironclad as they get. He's the kind of guy that makes you dig deep into the annals of history.
Grote, I'm impressed with you as well...and thanks for backing up my position on Ozzie - all defense.
<< <i>Anyday you want to throw some sports knowledge around - you'll know then how much I know. >>
So you say the Dome was a hitter's park.
Please enlighten me more Mr. Baseball Knowledge.
From reading your posts thus far, it's quite apparent to me and to those who actually know and follow the game of baseball, that you know next to nothing, but hey, don't take my word for it, just listen to everyone else and you'll get the picture (maybe).
Since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension, I'll reiterate what I said about Ozzie Smith's qualifications for the HOF:
Yes, Ozzie did get into HOF primarily because of his defensive skills, but he is arguably the best fielding, most entertaining SS who ever played the game, so I have no problem with him getting into the HOF. He also collected almost 2,500 hits and 590 SBs in the process. Throw in the ROY Award, 13 straight Gold Gloves and his 15 All Star appearances, and it's a no brainer, really, for anyone who's not obsessed with long ball steroid stats.
P.S. Anyone who thinks Soriano is a better second baseman than Joe Morgan, or that Ozzie Smith doesn't belong in the HOF, obviously has no clue, so why bother? Time for bed, kid.
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.
And as far as a few people thinking I know nothing about sports...you don't say anything original by yourself - not only do I say the stuff I know, but I can back it up - you don't even come up with anything on your own. Well here's your chance...answer the questions honestly. And if Ozzie got in for defense only,why not Mattingly? 9 gold gloves - a higher batting average, more rbi's, more homers - but I'm sure you knew all of that. Why not Andre Dawson 8 gold gloves and much higher offensive numbers. Defense shouldn't be a ticket to the hall of fame.
Stop it now, you're just embarrassing yourself with these anaolgies, why not throw Kingman in there, oh wait, you already did.
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.
P.S. Nice touch with the Yankees avatar, 007.
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.
Who is Axhole?
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.
"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."
If Soriano is a great hitter...then he should be allowed on a person's 'best team' list. And again, as I said, Morgan hit better in the dome than on the road...so I suspect Soriano could, and I say could not would, do as well - after all he's gone 40-40 in Washington - which is a pitchers park as well - and he was learning a new position on top of that. Soriano also went 41-39 with the Yankees, which is a hitters park, but is just a wee bit more stressful than hitting for the Astros when they were sitting on the bottom of the division for years.
Not quite. Jerry Grote, who played 16 seasons and was a member of both the 1969 & 1973 NY Mets WS teams, pronounced his name Jerry Grote with a long E at the end, but I'm not surprised you never heard of him considering what little you actually do know about the history of baseball and all.
Thanks, also, for reiterating my point that Morgan is the superior second baseman to Soriano. That was nice of you to quote and all.
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.
No wonder you like Groteeeeeeee - he actually had a lesser batting average than Ozzie Smith! I knew you'd idolize someone with those outstanding credentials. And would you look at that...Groteeeee played with Joe Morgan on the Colt 45's...what a small world.
I still like the phrase Quote from Grote...so don't rock the boat.
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.
Who am I kidding...we all know there isn't such a post.
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.
There are probably a dozen points that need to be addressed one by one in all of Math's 'claims', but looking at his posts I'm not going to bother to go through them all and address them towards him. If an OB% is obscure to somebody, then they need to do a lot more homework before they get into any discussions such as these. Reading somebody's posts actually help. You need to start first with the question I posed regarding the best pitchers of all time.
-------Math, if you can't understand how the era affects the numbers that Soriano is playing in, then there isn't much else to say...except that the top 20 pitchers of all time would then reside pre/early 1900. I guess mommies really knew how to give birth to future pitchers in 1865 era...because those guys went on to have all the best ERA's, much better than guys like Randy Johnson, or Pedro Martinez . Was it the stress of the civil war that made moms tougher, and their future sons to throw harder to get all those fine ERA's? ERA's that Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens could only hope for?
You are saying all those goofy things where Morgan ranks career OB%, disregarding era, or longevity. Do you realize that ROger Clemens is nowhere near the top 100 in lifetime ERA? Without understaning baseball, the analysis of a players worth, and the different era's to a strong degree, you can't make statements that you are making...UNLESS you are willing to agree that all the best pitchers are from around the turn of the century...the 1900 TURN OF THE CENTURY!
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON PLAYERS AT THEIR BEST, NOT FOR CAREER! What part of this do you not understand? The whole debate is based on a players prime, not career record. That is what I was referring to when I brought up Morgan's best three year runs of OB%, and how nobody in his time could top his best three years.
Math, it is a who would "you" pick thread, but that isn't what the debate has changed to. You are making a different claim altogether about the ability, merit, or worth of each player, and those claims are wrong. It isn't wrong to say you would want Soriano...go for it. But it is wrong with all the other invalid statements you are making.-----
***And for the love of God, if you cannot comprehend the difference in eras, then realize that Biggio, Alomar, and Kent-- ALL 2B FROM SORIANO's own era are all better players than he...both offensively and VASTLY better defensively than the butcher. It isn't even close.
By the way, you have no clue about longevity and its effect. If you think Soriano is going to play 22 full seasons, then that puts him at age 46 in his 22nd full season.
I will make one prediction about Soriano this coming season. If he bats leadoff, he will lead the NL in outs made. That is the one thing that I will agree that Soriano is VERY GOOD at doing....make outs. The price of his other very good attribute...hittting HR is severly offset by the amount of at bats it takes to do it..
I'm a native Houstonian, a life long 'Stros fan, and didn't know that. Guess it's true that you learn something new every day.
So tell us about yourself, math.
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
Based upon your posts, I think you will enjoy your stay here. Obviously very knowledgeable about sports and statistics... I mean, anyone who knows anything about baseball would definately put A-Rod in a high pressured situation with the game on the line. Most importantly, you get along with others who disagree with you and don't resort to name calling.
Complete opposite of Tinkerbell..
<< <i>So based upon your limited sample, the Dome was a hitter's park? Not only that but the Colt 45s played in the Dome?
I'm a native Houstonian, a life long 'Stros fan, and didn't know that. Guess it's true that you learn something new every day.
So tell us about yourself, math.
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
Based upon your posts, I think you will enjoy your stay here. Obviously very knowledgeable about sports and statistics... I mean, anyone who knows anything about baseball would definately put A-Rod in a high pressured situation with the game on the line. Most importantly, you get along with others who disagree with you and don't resort to name calling.
Complete opposite of Tinkerbell..
1) Otsedom - (Bizarro Modesto). But once removed from Hillbillyland.
2) Since Winpitcher and Softparade beat some sense into me.
3) Referral from my mystic ruler Niam. Had to trade him 3 pelts and 20 drodnaks.
4) Presently assembling a Joe Montana set for my mommy.
5) Granny taught me how to cypher reel guud.
Of course era makes a difference - and as many of you are acting like you don't know - that's why it's nearly impossible to compare players with different eras. So for everyone saying that Morgan at only 5'7", which is the size of Craig Grebeck and that's about it from this era, it's hard for me to see how he'd be so great as you all say - and yet Soriano would suck back in the 70's with his incredible combination of speed and power. Now if Joe Morgan's batting average and on base percentages were higher in the astrodome for 6 of his 7 years than on the road - and it is such a pitchers ballpark - then why didn't he do much better on the road? No one can answer that...and although this is labeled a sports talk forum - many of you are more interested in honing your attack skills on someone wanting to talk about, and hear about sports - then it is in actually giving Soriano some credit - yet saying you think Morgan is still better.
Is it any coincidence that you can't name any 5'7" all stars from the last 20 years? And if you can, how many can you name? You want to talk about era, but are you ready to do that? The players of today are much taller and stronger than in the past - that is very evident - so how does a Morgan fit in today? If Morgan played today you think he'd hit 40 homers? Not a chance - and the fact that free swinging Dave Kingman hit 40 in the 70's - I'm sure a free swinging Alfonso Soriano would still crack 30 a season back in the day.
And you are right, when I joined this forum I thought I made a great choice with educated sports enthusiasts that would throw jabs back and forth through their knowledge and it would be a blast. And thus far I've been correct, but every forum has that few people that have to force their opinions upon everyone or they rip the person. If that is what your about - fine - it's not the first few guys in a forum that are rude to people with different opinions and you guys won't be the last. For the 99 percent of the forum that show decency when disagreeing with people - thanks for your opinions and I look forward to discussing topics with those individuals.
You sure crawl into the "I did nothing" position quickly. A less than 30-day alias, claiming to be all knowledgable about baseball, and telling long standing members to admit being wrong (based upon your opinion, not facts) should expect the same in return.
Lighten up, Francis, and tell us about yourself:
1) Where are you from?
2) How long have you been a Yankees fan?
3) Considering your alias is less than 30 days old, how did you discover this forum?
4) What do you collect?
5) Do you consider yourself a math expert in addition to being full of baseball knowledge?
1) The quickest, easiest, and most logical way is to measure them vs. their peers, since they all play under the same circumstances. When you measure Soriano vs. his second base peers, he is well behind Biggio, Alomar, and Kent. Both Biggio and Alomar are not what you would call "Large" players that you mention. When Soriano is at best the fourth best second basemen of his own time, it would be extremely difficult to then proclaim him as the most desired second baseman of all time.
2)Your Five foot seven claim is absurd. Biggio and Alomar ain't much bigger, and they are both leap years ahead of Soriano, and NOT AS TALL. To answer your question...relative to other pitchers, Greg Maddux is equivalent in size as a pitcher as Joe Morgan was a hitter. I've been eye to eye with Maddux, and he is no taller than 5' 10". Pedro Martinez ain't much taller. The rest of the pitchers in MLB average appx 6' 3". So why then couldn't Joe Morgan dominate position players(who are smaller than pitchers), when Maddux and Pedro dominate the much taller and bulkier pitchers of their time?
3)As for Soriano, the first large drawback is his poor defense at second base. It is harder to win with a butcher at that position. There is a reason he is now a left fielder...because he is Alice's new boyfriend.
4)His biggest positive is that he is good at Home Runs and doubles. Even putting era aside for a second, you have to understand the the creation of runs. Soriano is hitting 39 home runs, but he only accomplishes that by getting a very high amount of at bats. The result effect is that he is making a ton of outs. When you examine EVERY SINGLE at bat, and EVERY SINGLE base situation from 1957 to now, you can see how making an out is killing the chance at scoring runs, and you can see how many runs a home run leads to. It isn't a mystery at all. You can not champion his home runs, and then just ignore the high negative impact of the outs and runs he costs his team.
5)Another aspect Soriano has been bad at is hitting with men on. Making outs with men on bae is even more of a negative, and Soriano's hitting with men on base has been poor. His career nobody on numbers are:
Nobody on
BA .286, OB% .329, SLG% .528
Runners in Scoring Position
BA. .254, OB% .317, SLG% .449
6)But again, the bottom line is that it is VERY foolish to campaign Soriano for an all time team when there are THREE other guys better both offensively, and defensively from Soriano's own era. Secondly, Morgan is so far ahead of him, that it is a ridiculous argument.
That 5' 7" claim in the garbage. If you insist on it, then Maddux and Pedro must be magicians.
Nope.
Steve
<< <i>Again, you've exhausted your two minutes of sports knowledge for the day Grote...but make yourself useful and answer my question on the sports card post. >>
Ive been here long enough to realize what Grote knows and doesnt know.
Maybe if you were here for more than two minutes, and spent some of that time trying to get along with people instead of contradicting everything they say or tossing insults to people you dont have a clue about you would learn a bit of Grotes sports knowledge.
-- Yogi Berra
And then there is so much contradiction from all parties involved as to what the argument is over...I argue for Soriano to be considered a very good 2b - and yet others are saying it's the era is why he is producing so well and that Joe Morgan would have stolen more. Well, he stole a lot of bases because the 70's were a big era for stolen bases...not the 2000's - so that doesn't hold water.
And the biggest fact - that no one will attest to is that after 6 full seasons Soriano had 126 errors...after 6 full seasons Joe Morgan had 119 - so if Soriano is a butcher - as he is called on here - then Morgan is the apprentice butcher.
But I am more than willing to let this whole thread go - and we could start over with a new thread.
But barring a remarkable improvement as he gets older, it is already impossible that he will crack the top 10, or even get close to it. No matter what he does from this point on, his chances of catching Morgan, Collins, Hornsby, Lajoie, Biggio, Sandberg, Carew, Gehringer, Jackie Robinson, Alomar, Grich, Frisch or Whitaker are essentially zero. He has to continue improving for a while yet to attain the ranks of a Joe Gordon or Willie Randolph, and he's going to have to keep producing at or near his current level for several more years to make a legitimate claim that he is as good as Bobby Doerr, Tony Lazzeri or, for that matter, Chuck Knoblauch.
That's comparing career value; if we're comparing only the best seasons of each second baseman, then he has yet to crack the top 30, or maybe even 40. Soriano has not yet had a season as good at the plate as, say, Steve Sax had in 1986 or Davey Johnson had in 1973. Even the often ridiculed Red Schoendienst had a better "peak" season than any season Soriano has put together so far.
We are "debating" whether a player who may one day be counted as among the best 20 at his position is worthy of bumping from a game of galactic importance one of the best 20 players who ever lived, at ANY position. Even I would take George Sisler over Lou Gehrig before I would take Soriano over Morgan.
He's on pace - and this is if he only plays until he's 36 - to hit over 400 home runs - and steal over 400 bases. That is definitely top 10 if he qualifies at 2b by then.
And remember, no ones list is perfect. I have personal biases on my pick of Soriano - #1 I am a huge Yankees fan and enjoyed Soriano save the one world series - and I can't stand Joe Morgan and how he talks poorly of many of today's ballplayers.
Now Jackie Robinson - regardless of stats is one of a kind - what he did is way beyond stats.
The players pre-1930 - they were incredible - who knows how they'd be now.
Sandberg, Morgan, Kent, Biggio - all incredible numbers - but with Kent and Sandberg they didn't lead off...Soriano does and still puts up incredible rbi's for a leadoff guy - and he will be back in that role this year.
He easily rolls up top 10 second baseman if he stays there...he easily rolls up top 50 center fielders if he stays there...his offensive numbers will easily reach 400-400 if he only plays 6 more years - and most players go at least 8 or 9 from here.
There is only one other player in the 400-400 club and that is BARRY BONDS!
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
By total count of those years it looks like this...
MOrgan 194 stolen bases...34 caught stealing
Soriano 124 stolen bases...44 caught stealing.
You have to understnad one important fact with stolen bases. It takes appx. TWO successful stolen bases to even out the NEGATIVE impact of just ONE caught stealing. Thats right. If a player steals 40 bases, but gets caught 20 times, then he is basically spinning his wheels, because the 20 caught stealing negate the positive impact of the 40.
If you figure Morgan would run less in todays game, you figure his stolen bases would go down but his Caught stealing would go down with it. Probably even more so since he would still run in the highest opportune times, and his managers in todays game would avoid the risky times. A high opportune time would be when somebody like Piazza is catching
You see at their best Morgan had 70 more stolen baes, and was actually caught 10 less times! That is a vast difference.
As for the fielding. Looking at errors exclusively is about the poorest way to measure a fielder. It takes no account into how many balls a player gets to. Joe Morgan was not a Ryne Sandberg defensively, but he is much better than Soriano. Like I said, Soriano got moved to the outfield for a reason. Morgan was good enough to remain at 2B, and actually have some very fine defensive years.
Rod Carew was much better than Soriano. Yeah, the second half of his career was a 1B, but the time spent at second just beats Soriano's time at second out of the water.
One final thing. You can't get caught up in those arbitrary clubs like 40-40. What you are basically saying is that a guy who goes 40-40 is better than a player who hits 75 HR and steals 0 bases, because that guy isn't even close to the 'club'. That is nonsense. What truly matters is the offensive impact of the production...AND AGAIN DO NOT FORGET TO TAKE CAUGHT STEALING INTO ACCOUNT AND HOW IT NEGATES THE OFFENSIVE IMPACT OF STOLEN BASES!