I agree on Yaz as I see him kinda like a Stargell who was great in the beginning had some injured/oft years in the middle and played a little long at the end. Stargell was considered one of the best players a few years but never for a 4 - 5 year stretch in a row. I also don't think he makes the Hall unless he had that great 79 season at the end of his career. Maybe he is more like a Molitor who overcame injuries to save his career at the end.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
I wouldn't say Varitek is the most overrated but he will forever be a part of BoSox lore...
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
Dallas - I cannot believe this post. I have to respond to almost all of your points.
1. The only players in history who can claim to have been as good a hitter as Yaz for a four year stretch are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Honus Wagner, Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt (and a couple of steroid abusers). At his peak, Yaz was one of the greatest who ever played the game.
Are you serious? His best 4 year stretch does not even come close the those great in this game. Never had consectutive 100 run seasons, never had back to back 185 hit seasons, only had 1 back to back .300 seasons, only had 2 30 plus HR seasons, only had 2 back to back 100 RBI seasons (happened twice)
3. Yaz played 23 seasons and never had a bad season; in fact, even in his last two seasons (at 42 and 43) he was still better than the average player.
This is crazy to say - his last two years he was barely hanging on, much like he was for the last 4 -5 years of his career. The last time he hit over .300 (it was .301) was in year 14. The last time he scored over 100 runs was in year 10 - same thing for over 30 HR's. He did have 102 RBI in year 17. Yaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year.
4. Had he retired after as few at bats, Yaz was every bit as good a career hitter as Duke Snider. Through a comparable number of at bats, Yaz was as good a hitter as Albert Belle (PLEASE don't tell me how many RBIs Belle had). That Yaz managed to play another decade as a productive player after that point has to be a good thing, right? I hope everyone got the right answer ("right").
I'll take Duke in his prime over Yaz anyday - you talk about 4 year stretch - look at Duke from 1953 - 1956. And Belle was more than just RBI and again his best 4 year stretch is hands down better than Yaz.
Yaz was longevity first and foremost which is fine, but hardly greatness.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I am adding you to my brick wall file (as in, to stop beating my head against) for my own sanity. Seriously, I am at a complete loss for how to respond to "never had back to back 185 hit seasons" among a dozen or so other things you said - but I am certain that it would be a waste of my time.
If you want to believe that every player who played in the 1920's and 1930's is better than every player who played in the 1960's ('cause of all those 185 hit seasons) then I am not going to stop you. If you want to believe that Paul Waner was better than Yaz, be my guest.
I wish you bliss.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>I guess that settles it. The answer is Jeter. Right? >>
No, it's A-Rod
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
If you want to believe that every player who played in the 1920's and 1930's is better than every player who played in the 1960's ('cause of all those 185 hit seasons) then I am not going to stop you. If you want to believe that Paul Waner was better than Yaz, be my guest.
I never once said 1920's players or Paul Waner was/are better than Yaz. I was merely pointing out that I would easily put at least 50 players 4 year stretch over Yaz's any day of the week. To me that hardly exudes dominant. I want a player to be consistanly great for a long period of time (11 - 14 years) - ...take a Manny Ramirez these days.
It comes down to this - my opinion and your opinion - nothing more.
<< <i>TextYaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year. >>
I hope your not serious...
How many players have even won the triple crown? Did you ever Yaz play? He was one of the most feared hitters in the AL for a 10-15 year period. >>
Not many, but you also have to have a bit of luck on your side. The National League leader that year in BA was almost 30 points higher, but whatever - he won.
You say feared hitter - what makes a feared hitter in your mind?
<< <i>Are you serious? His best 4 year stretch does not even come close the those great in this game. Never had consectutive 100 run seasons, never had back to back 185 hit seasons, only had 1 back to back .300 seasons, only had 2 30 plus HR seasons, only had 2 back to back 100 RBI seasons (happened twice)
This is crazy to say - his last two years he was barely hanging on, much like he was for the last 4 -5 years of his career. The last time he hit over .300 (it was .301) was in year 14. The last time he scored over 100 runs was in year 10 - same thing for over 30 HR's. He did have 102 RBI in year 17. Yaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year.
I'll take Duke in his prime over Yaz anyday - you talk about 4 year stretch - look at Duke from 1953 - 1956. And Belle was more than just RBI and again his best 4 year stretch is hands down better than Yaz.
Yaz was longevity first and foremost which is fine, but hardly greatness. >>
Vovler, what Dallas meant with saying that(you said) all the players from the 20's were better, is that if you applied the same criteria you used above in this quote to every player, then the guys from the 20'/30's would dwarf guys from later times...simply because those such numbers were a product of environment rather than true ability.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong.
"Yaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year"
my friend, you can't WIN the triple crown without dominating; beating every other hitter in the league. I'm no Sox fan, but I have always loved Yaz, classy guy and a heck of a ball player. Overrated? no way.
Vovler, what Dallas meant with saying that(you said) all the players from the 20's were better, is that if you applied the same criteria you used above in this quote to every player, then the guys from the 20'/30's would dwarf guys from later times...simply because those such numbers were a product of environment rather than true ability.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong. >>
You cannot compare pitchers from years 80 years ago - the game has changed too much. You can compare hitters (stat wise) with the exception of triples and possibly average and home runs (drug years) That said, I mention those stats to show how consistenly great someone was for a period of time. And if you put Yaz's stats juxtaposition with most other HOF'ers they are dwarfed.
This has been fun...my vote was for Yaz and continues to be
<< <i>Vovler, what Dallas meant with saying that(you said) all the players from the 20's were better, is that if you applied the same criteria you used above in this quote to every player, then the guys from the 20'/30's would dwarf guys from later times...simply because those such numbers were a product of environment rather than true ability.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong. >>
You cannot compare pitchers from years 80 years ago - the game has changed too much. You can compare hitters (stat wise) with the exception of triples and possibly average and home runs (drug years) That said, I mention those stats to show how consistenly great someone was for a period of time. And if you put Yaz's stats juxtaposition with most other HOF'ers they are dwarfed.
This has been fun...my vote was for Yaz and continues to be >>
I would be curious to see the mathematical justification for the proposition that pitchers' stats are not sensitive to the era in which they played, but hitters' stats are.
See? This is why I come here- I'm always learning something new. Please, Volver-- edify me.
80 years ago hitters and fielders alike played 9 innings - that still happens today. With pitchers 80 years ago there was no such thing as middle relief, closers, pitch count and 5 days rest. Hence you will never see 511 wins, 50 complete game season, 400 innings pitched.
For example - Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927 - still an awesome mark today, but reached. Ted Lyons had 30 complete games that same year. Today it's news if a pitcher gets 30 starts.
The pitching game has evolved a lot more than the hitting game.
I believe Pitching has been watered down the most by the increase in the number of teams compared to the past as well as the fact that kids today would rather play Nintendo than baseball, corkball, and maybe even softball or wiffleball...games that honed the arms and got them ready for the bigs. Watered down talent leads to the best players putting up bigger numbers than they would be able to against teams with four legitimate starters. The growth of how relief pitchers are used today retards some of this but even the relief pitching is not what it could/should be.
Just imagine what baseball would look like if there were only twelve teams in each league.......
NOW imagine baseball today with only SIX teams in each league! I dare say Ozzie Smith would never have been heard of if there were only six teams in each league, he wouldn't have been called up as poor as his hitting was when he started out.
Holes-in-One 1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4) 2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole 3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole 4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole 5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
I agree with baseball completely. Before Cal Ripken came along, the SS position was almost entirely a defense-oriented position. I gew up watching Bud Harrelson play SS for the Mets and though he's not nearly as good as Smith was, he was considered a solid shortstop even with a batting average that usually hovered around the .230 mark. Smith also developed into a fairly decent hitter over the course of his career, and most certainly would have been a top SS in any era due to his outstanding fielding skills.
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 almost ALWAYS exceptions to most things realted to baseball.
Honus Wagner was a prety good hitter at SS in the 1910s, Vern Stephens was a true slugger while playing SS in the 1940s, and Ernie Banks could bat very well in the 50s at SS.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
There are almost ALWAYS exceptions to most things realted to baseball.
Honus Wagner was a prety good hitter at SS in the 1910s, Vern Stephens was a true slugger while playing SS in the 1940s, and Ernie Banks could bat very well in the 50s at SS.
Exceptions, exactly. You've named three guys who played over the span of 50 years. The SS position, though, was forever changed when Cal Ripken came into the league. Just take a look at all the power-hitting shortstops in the league since then.
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 do not disagree that Ripken probably changed the position, but what does that exactly mean? Was he moved there by a manager, did he request to play shortstop? The basics of the position never changed, just curious as to what the statement means and I am speaking in generalities - not directing this at anyone as I have heard many people use the phrase "he changed the way his position was played"
I do not disagree that Ripken probably changed the position, but what does that exactly mean? Was he moved there by a manager, did he request to play shortstop? The basics of the position never changed, just curious as to what the statement means and I am speaking in generalities - not directing this at anyone as I have heard many people use the phrase "he changed the way his position was played"
If I'm not mistaken, Ripken originally came up as a thirdbaseman, and was converted to shortstop early on in his career. The fact that he "chnaged the way the position was played" is accurate in the sense that the perception of the shortstop as a hitter (light-hitting, little to no power), was radically changed to the point where in the last 10 years or so some of the game's most talented hitters in the league (particularly in the AL) have been shortstops, and no one views the position the same way most people did back before Ripken. If not Ripken, it may have been someone else, but Ripken was the guy. If Bruce Sutter never learned to throw a split fingered fastball, would someone else have discovered it or started using it with such success as he did? Maybe, but Sutter is the guy who's given credit for introducing that pitch and changing the game to that degree, and he deserves that credit, IMO, and was probably elected to the HOF due in part to that contribution of his (though I don't personally believe he belongs in the HOF, but that's another story).
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.
Pete Rose & Nolan Ryan come to mind. Rose because he's the "hit king" with a .303 career average. Ryan because he lost nearly 300 games. Sure he struck out a lot of guys and sure he didn't always play on the best teams, but he gets put in the same breath as if he's one of the top 10 pitchers of all time and he's not.
You can be an all-time great HOF and still be overrated.
All he could do was strike people out, he couldn't win consistently. He was a thrower, not a pitcher, and never could perfect his craft, like Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver did. The third all time losingest pitcher with 292 loses, the alltime base on balls leader with 2, 795, and the all time leader in wild pitches, Ryan continually lead the league in ineptness. >>
Absolutely overrated, with or without the steroid factor. He's no better, and quite possibly worse, than Dave Kingman without the juice.
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>As far as Mantle goes, some people forget he tore his knee up pretty bad I believe in his rookie or second season, had he not done this his numbers might have been better. His WS #'s certainly would have, I think he missed quite a few games due to injury. >>
Sort of similar to Griffey today. Had he also not got hurt so much, HE would be going for Aaron's record (and in fact, Aaron himself said one day he would break his record; before Griffey got hurt of course). Obviously the fact that he's got more taters than Mantle and tied with Reggie on the all-time list means he'll certainly be first ballot HOF regardless.
b]Text Mickey Mantle overrated!!! Dear God in Heaven, heartstopping power left or right, 18 WS home runs, Triple Crown 1956, 2.9 seconds from home to first ( Bo Jackson is second with 3.9seconds) 5'11 inches, 190 lbs and holds the record for longest official HR 565 feet. On several occasions just missed by inches of clearing the center field wall at Ruths House that experts state would have been 700+ blasts. He was the last great player on the last great team in the last great country. And whos place did he take? Joe Dimaggio. OVERATED, hell he was Roy Hobbs. and as Gilda Radner said, THATS THE TRUTH.
<< <i>Hank Aaron is not overrated. No one talks about him in that small group of the very best players to have played (Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Mays, etc.). However, he was a VERY GREAT player and if anything, is underrated IMO. >>
The all time HR leader never hit 50 in a season. That and his 3700 hits are more a function of his longevity than greatness. Lifetime .305 average. He's a good player no doubt, but overrated.
I dont know how anyone could say Aaron was overated. Sure he played for what? 22 years? posting a lifetime .305 avg, not to mention the 755 HR's, this guy is the benchmark for being a great player and very consistent. Consistent play is being overlooked big time here.
Hank Aaron is one of the very greatest baseball players of all time. Just because he never hit "more than 50 home runs in a season" or that he had a long and very productive career does not diminish his greatness one bit, IMO.
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>The thing is, it's not even just "consistent" play, but GREAT consistent play. Maybe even amazing, considering just how long he kept it up. >>
Agreed. My point here was that his accomplishments were due to him being consistently great, not just because he played for so long like someone pointed out.
Don't take it personal. Let me throw three more at you. Ryan, Ripkin and Rose. Like Aaron, overrated because they managed to stay around long enough to amass great numbers. I'm not saying any of them were not good players, just overrated, as the topic of the thread is based on.
Let's give Ruth 162 game seasons and 23 years as a hitter and see if Aaron is still home run champ.
Let's give Ty Cobb an extra few years as a player-manager and 8 extra games a season.
I was about to step in and tell all of you that OF COURSE he's kidding about Aaron. Every time I think I get a joke that nobody else gets, it turns out not to be a joke .
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>"Let's give Ruth 162 game seasons and 23 years as a hitter and see if Aaron is still home run champ."
How about we make Ruth play against black players and see how great the numbers would be. >>
Good point, sort of. Many of the negro league players are overrated also. Take Josh Gibson for instance. Everyone hails him as the "black Babe Ruth", over 900 home runs etc. What they always fail to mention is that they count all of the barnstorming games he played, sometimes 3-4 a day. If you counted Ruth's exhibition and barnstorming homers, I'm sure he'd have more than 900.
Comments
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Yaz won the triple Crown... he was MVP... he was good defensively. HE IS NOT OVERRATED. End of discussion on Yaz >>
Let us all remember Terry Pendleton and Mo Vaughn have won MVP's - so what does that really mean?
1. The only players in history who can claim to have been as good a hitter as Yaz for a four year stretch are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Honus Wagner, Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt (and a couple of steroid abusers). At his peak, Yaz was one of the greatest who ever played the game.
Are you serious? His best 4 year stretch does not even come close the those great in this game. Never had consectutive 100 run seasons, never had back to back 185 hit seasons, only had 1 back to back .300 seasons, only had 2 30 plus HR seasons, only had 2 back to back 100 RBI seasons (happened twice)
3. Yaz played 23 seasons and never had a bad season; in fact, even in his last two seasons (at 42 and 43) he was still better than the average player.
This is crazy to say - his last two years he was barely hanging on, much like he was for the last 4 -5 years of his career. The last time he hit over .300 (it was .301) was in year 14. The last time he scored over 100 runs was in year 10 - same thing for over 30 HR's. He did have 102 RBI in year 17. Yaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year.
4. Had he retired after as few at bats, Yaz was every bit as good a career hitter as Duke Snider. Through a comparable number of at bats, Yaz was as good a hitter as Albert Belle (PLEASE don't tell me how many RBIs Belle had). That Yaz managed to play another decade as a productive player after that point has to be a good thing, right? I hope everyone got the right answer ("right").
I'll take Duke in his prime over Yaz anyday - you talk about 4 year stretch - look at Duke from 1953 - 1956. And Belle was more than just RBI and again his best 4 year stretch is hands down better than Yaz.
Yaz was longevity first and foremost which is fine, but hardly greatness.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I am adding you to my brick wall file (as in, to stop beating my head against) for my own sanity. Seriously, I am at a complete loss for how to respond to "never had back to back 185 hit seasons" among a dozen or so other things you said - but I am certain that it would be a waste of my time.
If you want to believe that every player who played in the 1920's and 1930's is better than every player who played in the 1960's ('cause of all those 185 hit seasons) then I am not going to stop you. If you want to believe that Paul Waner was better than Yaz, be my guest.
I wish you bliss.
<< <i>I guess that settles it. The answer is Jeter. Right? >>
No, it's A-Rod
<< <i>TextYaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year. >>
I hope your not serious...
How many players have even won the triple crown? Did you ever Yaz play? He was one of the most feared hitters in the AL for a 10-15 year period.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I never once said 1920's players or Paul Waner was/are better than Yaz. I was merely pointing out that I would easily put at least 50 players 4 year stretch over Yaz's any day of the week. To me that hardly exudes dominant. I want a player to be consistanly great for a long period of time (11 - 14 years) - ...take a Manny Ramirez these days.
It comes down to this - my opinion and your opinion - nothing more.
Over rated , over paid . . . . what else ?
I like A-Rod though , 465 Dingers in just the begining of his 14th season .
I think Bonds had something like 440 or something like that at the END of 14 seasons . . . for what it's worth .
I'm goin with Jeter . . .
My wife likes him though , he's probably got more female fans .
I get sick of hearing about it .
<< <i>
<< <i>TextYaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year. >>
I hope your not serious...
How many players have even won the triple crown? Did you ever Yaz play? He was one of the most feared hitters in the AL for a 10-15 year period. >>
Not many, but you also have to have a bit of luck on your side. The National League leader that year in BA was almost 30 points higher, but whatever - he won.
You say feared hitter - what makes a feared hitter in your mind?
<< <i>Are you serious? His best 4 year stretch does not even come close the those great in this game. Never had consectutive 100 run seasons, never had back to back 185 hit seasons, only had 1 back to back .300 seasons, only had 2 30 plus HR seasons, only had 2 back to back 100 RBI seasons (happened twice)
This is crazy to say - his last two years he was barely hanging on, much like he was for the last 4 -5 years of his career. The last time he hit over .300 (it was .301) was in year 14. The last time he scored over 100 runs was in year 10 - same thing for over 30 HR's. He did have 102 RBI in year 17. Yaz was never a dominate hitter even in his Triple Crown year.
I'll take Duke in his prime over Yaz anyday - you talk about 4 year stretch - look at Duke from 1953 - 1956. And Belle was more than just RBI and again his best 4 year stretch is hands down better than Yaz.
Yaz was longevity first and foremost which is fine, but hardly greatness. >>
Vovler, what Dallas meant with saying that(you said) all the players from the 20's were better, is that if you applied the same criteria you used above in this quote to every player, then the guys from the 20'/30's would dwarf guys from later times...simply because those such numbers were a product of environment rather than true ability.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong.
my friend, you can't WIN the triple crown without dominating; beating every other hitter in the league. I'm no Sox fan, but I have always loved Yaz, classy guy and a heck of a ball player. Overrated? no way.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong. >>
You cannot compare pitchers from years 80 years ago - the game has changed too much. You can compare hitters (stat wise) with the exception of triples and possibly average and home runs (drug years) That said, I mention those stats to show how consistenly great someone was for a period of time. And if you put Yaz's stats juxtaposition with most other HOF'ers they are dwarfed.
This has been fun...my vote was for Yaz and continues to be
<< <i>Vovler, what Dallas meant with saying that(you said) all the players from the 20's were better, is that if you applied the same criteria you used above in this quote to every player, then the guys from the 20'/30's would dwarf guys from later times...simply because those such numbers were a product of environment rather than true ability.
For example, Paul Waner had Five consecutive 100 run seasons, and eight out of one nine year stretch. Waner had 12 consecutive .300 seasons. Based on your own criteria, then Waner dwarfs Yaz. Either your criteria is very faulty, or Waner dwarfs Yaz.
Heck, the most consecutive .300 seasons Manny had is six...much less than Waner's 12. The most consecutive 100 run seasons Manny had was three, much worse than Waner's stretch. Manny had better consecutive in the HR and RBI department. That makes them even at two apiece in those criteria you gave. Again, either they are even based on your logic, or the criteria is very wrong. >>
You cannot compare pitchers from years 80 years ago - the game has changed too much. You can compare hitters (stat wise) with the exception of triples and possibly average and home runs (drug years) That said, I mention those stats to show how consistenly great someone was for a period of time. And if you put Yaz's stats juxtaposition with most other HOF'ers they are dwarfed.
This has been fun...my vote was for Yaz and continues to be >>
I would be curious to see the mathematical justification for the proposition that pitchers' stats are not sensitive to the era in which they played, but hitters' stats are.
See? This is why I come here- I'm always learning something new. Please, Volver-- edify me.
For example - Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927 - still an awesome mark today, but reached. Ted Lyons had 30 complete games that same year. Today it's news if a pitcher gets 30 starts.
The pitching game has evolved a lot more than the hitting game.
Just imagine what baseball would look like if there were only twelve teams in each league.......
NOW imagine baseball today with only SIX teams in each league! I dare say Ozzie Smith would never have been heard of if there were only six teams in each league, he wouldn't have been called up as poor as his hitting was when he started out.
1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4)
2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole
3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole
4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole
5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
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.
Honus Wagner was a prety good hitter at SS in the 1910s, Vern Stephens was a true slugger while playing SS in the 1940s, and Ernie Banks could bat very well in the 50s at SS.
Honus Wagner was a prety good hitter at SS in the 1910s, Vern Stephens was a true slugger while playing SS in the 1940s, and Ernie Banks could bat very well in the 50s at SS.
Exceptions, exactly. You've named three guys who played over the span of 50 years. The SS position, though, was forever changed when Cal Ripken came into the league. Just take a look at all the power-hitting shortstops in the league since then.
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 I'm not mistaken, Ripken originally came up as a thirdbaseman, and was converted to shortstop early on in his career. The fact that he "chnaged the way the position was played" is accurate in the sense that the perception of the shortstop as a hitter (light-hitting, little to no power), was radically changed to the point where in the last 10 years or so some of the game's most talented hitters in the league (particularly in the AL) have been shortstops, and no one views the position the same way most people did back before Ripken. If not Ripken, it may have been someone else, but Ripken was the guy. If Bruce Sutter never learned to throw a split fingered fastball, would someone else have discovered it or started using it with such success as he did? Maybe, but Sutter is the guy who's given credit for introducing that pitch and changing the game to that degree, and he deserves that credit, IMO, and was probably elected to the HOF due in part to that contribution of his (though I don't personally believe he belongs in the HOF, but that's another story).
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.
You can be an all-time great HOF and still be overrated.
Erik
With the Bonds talk on another thread got me thinking - How about Mark McGwire as overrated
<< <i>This one is easy......... Nolan Ryan.
All he could do was strike people out, he couldn't win consistently. He was a thrower, not a pitcher, and never could perfect his craft, like Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver did. The third all time losingest pitcher with 292 loses, the alltime base on balls leader with 2, 795, and the all time leader in wild pitches, Ryan continually lead the league in ineptness. >>
Bingo!
<< <i>If Warren Spahn and Yogi Berra got together and made a baby, that's what it would like it. >>
Absolutely overrated, with or without the steroid factor. He's no better, and quite possibly worse, than Dave Kingman without the juice.
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>As far as Mantle goes, some people forget he tore his knee up pretty bad I believe in his rookie or second season, had he not done this his numbers might have been better. His WS #'s certainly would have, I think he missed quite a few games due to injury. >>
Sort of similar to Griffey today. Had he also not got hurt so much, HE would be going for Aaron's record (and in fact, Aaron himself said one day he would break his record; before Griffey got hurt of course). Obviously the fact that he's got more taters than Mantle and tied with Reggie on the all-time list means he'll certainly be first ballot HOF regardless.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>I am going to hear the masses on this one but I think
mickey mantle (not because he was a bad ball player, just because he is always talked about, we get it he was an american hero)
if I here about one Mickey Mantle subset by Topps, I am going to kill myself
Most overrated for sure >>
<< <i>Hank Aaron is not overrated. No one talks about him in that small group of the very best players to have played (Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Mays, etc.). However, he was a VERY GREAT player and if anything, is underrated IMO. >>
The all time HR leader never hit 50 in a season. That and his 3700 hits are more a function of his longevity than greatness. Lifetime .305 average. He's a good player no doubt, but overrated.
Please ?
Pretty please ???
-- Yogi Berra
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>The thing is, it's not even just "consistent" play, but GREAT consistent play. Maybe even amazing, considering just how long he kept it up. >>
Agreed. My point here was that his accomplishments were due to him being consistently great, not just because he played for so long like someone pointed out.
<< <i>I wasn't trying to correct you or anything. I was just trying to amplify just how good Aaron was. >>
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Let's give Ruth 162 game seasons and 23 years as a hitter and see if Aaron is still home run champ.
Let's give Ty Cobb an extra few years as a player-manager and 8 extra games a season.
How about we make Ruth play against black players and see how great the numbers would be.
<< <i>"Let's give Ruth 162 game seasons and 23 years as a hitter and see if Aaron is still home run champ."
How about we make Ruth play against black players and see how great the numbers would be. >>
Good point, sort of. Many of the negro league players are overrated also. Take Josh Gibson for instance. Everyone hails him as the "black Babe Ruth", over 900 home runs etc. What they always fail to mention is that they count all of the barnstorming games he played, sometimes 3-4 a day. If you counted Ruth's exhibition and barnstorming homers, I'm sure he'd have more than 900.