What Decade in Baseball Produced the Most Stars?

Blackborder

My vote would be the 1910's, with the 1950's coming in second. I know the 1920's is probably baseball's greatest decade from a popularity standpoint, but I think Ruth overshadowed everyone else. The 1910's had Cobb, Matthewson, Young, Johnson, Wagner, Speaker, McGraw, Tinker, Chase, Chance, and a host of lesser known HOFers (even Ruth if you consider the fact he started playing in 1914). No other decade comes close to this level of star power in my opinion.

What decade would you choose and why?

MikeyLikesIt

If by stars you mean HOFers, then I believe that would be the 1920's. Alot of them probably don't deserve to be in though.

ToppsCo1lector

The 1980's are up there. Three of the greatest pitchers of all time; Maddux, Clemens, and Randy Johnson. Countless others.

Skinpinch

MikeyLikesit! Right on! The 1920's has a severe overload of guys who are big mistakes for the HOF.

It is the 80's because it is the culmunation of baseball science, the high level baseball participationplayed by that generation in their youth(they weren't stolen by other sports as much as now), the fact that that is the time the largest baby boom years in the U.S. were of MLB age(much more talent being pumped out), the integration being at high speed, to produce the most number of excellent players above any generation. Whether or not they make the hall is another point, which is often obstructed by those reasons.

WinPitcher

It has to be the recent time period because of the fact we have more teams. If I had to choose off the top of my head though I would consider the 50's up there as well.

16 teams for that decade translates to less players overall but that period produced alot of stars.


The 80's into the 90's had what? 24, 26, then 30 teams? of course this era would produce 'more' stars. I'll go with my gut feeling and say the period of 1955 thru 1975 though.



Steve

fiveniner

50s & 80s

Lothar52

id say 50 through 74 starting with mays and mantle and ending with brett and yount.

loth

jaxxr

Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Williams, Wagner, and Gehrig are probably the best players of all-time.
Walter Johnson, Grove, Mathewson, Koufax, Gibson and maybe Walsh are probably the best pitchers of all-time.
Josh Gibson and Satch Paige might be considered among the best of all time.

NONE of them played in the 80s !!!

The question of which decade produced the most stars, is very much infuenced by one's definition of "star ". Is a star player a guy like HOFer Bill Mazerowski ? Is a star someone like Roger Maris, Gil Hodges, Bert Blyleven or Jim Rice ? Is the star designation reserved for the likes of Musial, Aaron and Hubbell ? Very hard to pick any decade or time span, however...........

It should be noted that 1961 could be a very good cut-off point for baseball's overall talent turning downward a bit. Expansion created places for dozens of players not qualified a year before, to play in the majors. Football was now becoming a high paying alternative to baseball for talented athletes. The NBA, which just started in 1947, was increasingly drawing skilled people away from baseball. TV made Golf a well paying professional sport and yet another choice for a physically gifted young man.
These alternatives were not there in the 1901-WW2 ( approx. ) time peroid. If a sportsman wanted to be a professional, he could play baseball, or he could try boxing, I make no mention of Ice Hockey but dont think it pulled away many potential baseball players before or after. The level of competetion was very high for a spot on any of the 16 major league teams, today the population has increased, but the number of available well-paying professional athletic positions has increased at a much greater rate. Baseball no longer gets the cream of the crop by default.

Skinpinch

Jaxxr, the one glaring thing hurting the level of competition in pre war is lack of integration. That is simply a huge factor. The second biggest thing is the population size(number of people being born pre turn of the century) was MUCH smaller compared to when the 80's guys came of age. Over a five year span, were talking many millions. I have some of the figures, but I will have to dig them out. If you do it on a per team in the league average, then pre war, and right now are the least competitive(and easiest for the stars to shine).

Yeah, there were only 16 teams, but FAR, FAR less people to draw from to fill those teams. It would be like if MLB was only allowed to draw from east of the Mississippi in 1981. Just think how the stars would shine by getting to play in a league like that in 1981. Heck, Schmidt was nearly out homering a couple of teams already.

Though there weren't as many sports then, there is the workplace factor, wheras family survival depended upon young people working a lot of hours, and baseball playing took a huge back seat in many families...and in many cases altogether not even bothered with.

The pre war time is the easiest time to shine and make yourself look much better relative to your peers, as opposed to a time when there were more players closer in ability to the best...which of course makes it harder to separate from that and shine. It isn't just a coincidence that all the best seasons come from that time.

kylehess10

20's,80's,& 90's

math4cards

I think Jaxxr has it right. In the 1910's there were only 8 teams - so to produce the players they did was amazing. There were 8 teams times 20 plus versus today where there are 30 teams with 25 and a zillion minor league teams to help develop guys that otherwise would have had to pick up real jobs. It might be an easier discussion to choose the decade that produced the fewest stars - 1940's?

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Williams, Wagner, and Gehrig are probably the best players of all-time.
Walter Johnson, Grove, Mathewson, Koufax, Gibson and maybe Walsh are probably the best pitchers of all-time.
Josh Gibson and Satch Paige might be considered among the best of all time.

NONE of them played in the 80s !!!

The question of which decade produced the most stars, is very much infuenced by one's definition of "star ". Is a star player a guy like HOFer Bill Mazerowski ? Is a star someone like Roger Maris, Gil Hodges, Bert Blyleven or Jim Rice ? Is the star designation reserved for the likes of Musial, Aaron and Hubbell ? Very hard to pick any decade or time span, however........... >>



Exactly which decade are you arguing for? Cobb started in 1905, Ruth in 1914, Mays in 1951, Williams in 1939, Wagner in 1897, and Gehrig in 1923. So basically your attempting to compare players who began there careers from 1897-The 1950's(Gibson in 1959). That's quite an arguement there, comparing about 60 years to one decade. Pick one! Here's why I picked the 1980's;

Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux; easily "on the list" as some of the greatest pitchers of all time.
Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, Kirby Puckett, Cal Ripken Jr., Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Sheffield, Barry Bonds(even at pre-steroid stats) are some of the best of all time. Consider that Ripken/Griffey/Sheff/Bonds all have atleast 430+ career HRs.

Roger Maris shouldn't even be in a thread like this. Yes, he was a 2 time MVP. But he also had very few good years, at most a handful.

math4cards

Nice comeback...you do make a very strong case for the 1980's. I think the 2000's, although not as rich as the 80's will produce quite a huge amount of talent...beginning with the left side of the Mets infield and the right side of the Phillies infield.

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>Nice comeback...you do make a very strong case for the 1980's. I think the 2000's, although not as rich as the 80's will produce quite a huge amount of talent...beginning with the left side of the Mets infield and the right side of the Phillies infield. >>



I agree with the 2000's, but the 1990's are also going to be considered as one of the greatest baseball generations, consider this;
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Alfonso Soraino
Jim Thome
Andruw Jones

Just to name a few.

jaxxr

Perhaps THE greatest all-around athlete ever, was Jim Thorpe...

He tried his hand at major league baseball in the 1910s and fared somewhat below average.

I cant objectivly say which decade produced the most "stars", but from my original post, I think it shows the several VERY BEST ever baseball stars ALL started before 1961.

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>Perhaps THE greatest all-around athlete ever, was Jim Thorpe...

He tried his hand at major league baseball in the 1910s and fared somewhat below average.

I cant objectivly say which decade produced the most "stars", but from my original post, I think it shows the several VERY BEST ever baseball stars ALL started before 1961.

>>



Wouldn't you agree that several of the very best ever also started in the 1980's?

PuertoRicanFogBank

You all make a very strong case for CONTRACTION.

I don't believe I'm alone in stating that there are WAY too many "professionals" hitting .218 and taking home three-plus million dollars per year.

To answer your question, though, I'll go with the 1950s. In my opinion, it was just an overall great decade to be an American. Period.

Thought-provoking thread. Kudos.

Blackborder

Some really great analysis in this thread!

Here are some of my thoughts on the early days vs modern. First, I agree with PRFB, there are way too many "stars" batting .218 and taking home million dollar paychecks.

I'm going to make the case that the quality of star players today would be noticibly lower if the same players had to play 100 years ago. The Cobb's and Matheweson's didn't have modern sports medicine and therapy, modern equipment, or even modern living and traveling conditions. How many "stars" never made it in that era simply because they got hurt, or didn't have the required stamina. I'll bet many of the stars mentioned in the modern era would have been out early in their careers, or had less productive careers, if they had to live, travel, and play ball in the conditions of 100 years ago. We haven't even produced a .400 hitter in 65 years. The best we can do today is produce steriod induced power hitters and pitchers.

In my opinion, what makes someone a true star in baseball would be measured by longevity and stamina, and the modern players are lacking for the most part in that area.

Skinpinch

Contraction for baseball now would be a great move.

A couple of corrections. In 1910 there were 16 teams, not 8. There was a 25 active roster in 1910, not 20. Previous to 1910 the roster size varied, partly by rule, and partly by economics. For example, team in 1877 could go with 11, or if they wanted extras, then they could pay more for reserves.

cravetopps

if you break it down into HOFers and their peak year (batting) and for pitchers, their rookie season, then it is the 1920s, not even close. Next is the 1910s and 1890s. The 1960s is notable in that it produced a lot of HOF pitchers.

RipublicaninMass

I was curious which SET had the most % hof'er, and dont tell me 1960 leaf! I know that some stars aren't in yet, but which vintage set has the highest % of HOF'ers?

blindflyer

Set with the most HOFs .... my vote (without any research) is the set I'm collecting in PSA 8 or better:

1960 Topps: (33 HOF)

Early Wynn
Ernie Banks
Brooks Robinson
Sparky Anderson
Whitey Ford
Al Kaline
Bill Mazeroski
Bob Gibson
Nellie Fox
Carl Yastzemski (RC)
Willie Mays
Harmon Killebrew
Al Lopez MGR
Casey Stengel MGR
Luis Aparicio
Stan Musial
Robin Roberts
Hank Aaron
Richie Ashburn
Willie McCovey (RC)
Roberto Clemente
Red Schoendienst
Sandy Koufax
Mickey Mantle
Hoyt Wilhelm
Eddie Mathews
Warren Spahn
Orlando Cepeda
Don Drysdale
Yogi Berra
Frank Robinson
Duke Snider
Jim Bunning


-Tom


EDITED TO ADD:
You asked about % .... the '60 set has 572 cards, but many of them are All Star, World Series, Team, Coaches, and other speciality cards. I did a real quick count and found 67 cards that should be omitted in the calculation --- leaving 505 player or manager cards. That gives the '60 Topps set a percentage of 6.5% HOF (33 of 505 player/manager cards).

cravetopps

some sets only have hofer's. maybe you mean which "major" set had the most hofer's, not necessarily by %?

WinPitcher

This was brought up a few years back and i think 1971 had the most. Pct wise I have no idea. I think 1965 set has more then the 60 set though.

Steve

TNP777

<< <i>Contraction for baseball now would be a great move. >>

I completely agree, but unfortunately it would never happen. The player's union is too strong, and too many cities would scream bloody murder.

Seems to me that there was a "If you were commissioner for a day, what would you do" thread some time ago. I was at a baseball Dodger/Giant game many years ago with a friend and we were playing commissioner. His best idea was a great one. Put simply, the team with the worst record at seaon's end would be contracted. No team is safe, not the Yankees, not the Red Sox, not the Devil Rays. Do that for say a 10 year period and call it good. Dispersal draft after the season ends. Like I said, it would never happen, but it would be nice.

Geordie

stown

<< <i>

<< <i>Contraction for baseball now would be a great move. >>

I completely agree, but unfortunately it would never happen. The player's union is too strong, and too many cities would scream bloody murder.

Seems to me that there was a "If you were commissioner for a day, what would you do" thread some time ago. I was at a baseball Dodger/Giant game many years ago with a friend and we were playing commissioner. His best idea was a great one. Put simply, the team with the worst record at seaon's end would be contracted. No team is safe, not the Yankees, not the Red Sox, not the Devil Rays. Do that for say a 10 year period and call it good. Dispersal draft after the season ends. Like I said, it would never happen, but it would be nice.

Geordie >>





I. LOVE. IT.

Takes "every game counts" to a whole new level

Blackborder

Interesting discussion from 3 years ago. I noticed that quite a few people argued for the 80's. Does the steroid revelations of the past few years change anyone's opinion?

TomGshotput

Three years later and the 80s still has to be on top. And the steroids probably put them over the top. No matter what they took, McGwire, Palmerio, Sosa, Sheffield all helped their team win enough to be among top 100 players

WinPitcher

Does the fact that in the 80's we had almost 2x the amount of players matter?

Up until 1960 MLB had 16 teams today we have 30.



Steve

TomGshotput

Depends on the definition of "Star." If we say top 100 hitter or top 50 pitcher all-time, number of teams shouldn't matter

diamondman

1960 to 1969 and 2010 to 2019.

WinPitcher

Tom

I thought we were talking about sets with Hall of Famers in them?


Steve

ElToroLoco

I'm shooting for the 1980's.
Kirk Gibson,Fernando Valenzuela,Tim Raines,Jeff Reardon, Cal Ripken Jr., Dave Stewart, Brett Butler,Lee Smith, Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg,Tony Gwynn,Willie McGee,Julio Franco, Darryl Strawberry,Don Mattingly, Roger Clemens, Kirby Puckett, Dwight Gooden,Brett Saberhagen,Eric Davis, Terry Pendleton, Orel Hershiser,Mark M Jose Canseco, Cecil Fielder,Benito Santiago,Fred McGriff, Bo Jackson, Will Clark, Mark Mcgwire,John Kruk, Darren Daulton, Barry Larkin, Greg Maddux, Matt Williams, Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds, Roberto Alomar,Jim Abbott, Edgar Martinez,John Smoltz,Tom Glavine, Ken Caminiti, Mark Grace,Ken Griffey Jr,Gary Sheffield,Deion Sanders, Randy Johnson,Omar Visquel, Albert Belle,Curt Schilling,David Cone,Andres Galarraga

Ok, probably not, but I like listing down the players I once watched.

edited to add: 1980's "The decade with the most drama"

TomGshotput

In that case, Steve, the irrational selection process has a much larger effect than number of teams

Allen

We need a poll.

VintageCardLover

McGwire, Palmerio, Sosa, Sheffield

(4) Junkies, plus countless others. that = a bust for me.

thriller13

The 2000's. More teams = more players = more stars.

DeutscherGeist

In the 1980s it was hard for a player to distinguish himself from his peers in a big way because the level of competition was so high. Babe Ruth really stood out as a star player, far exceeding what average players could do at the MLB level. In the 1980s the gap between a star and average player was much smaller.

We can keep talking all we want about this, but without hard numbers and stats, this is all speculation. It is an interesting original question, but very complex to answer.

Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, and Ken Griffey Jr. were Babe Ruth type talent, but they did not stand out as much because of the competition they had to deal with and the relief specialists too.

ElToroLoco

If could because it's what many of us witnessed but I think between hard drugs,steroids/PHD's, and just plain fizzling, the 80's with all that talent really disappointed. So can I say, with the talent the 80's brought, they were the biggest failures as far as HOF material?

Blackborder

<< <i>We need a poll. >>



I tried, it won't let me do one with an edit.

WinPitcher

<< <i> More teams = more players = more stars. >>




My thoughts exactly.


Steve

K

I agree. There are a ton of promising players out there right now. Only time will tell on how many actually pan out to be HOF worthy.