Baseball's All Time Dream Team
frankhardy
Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
SI.com's Tom Verducci did a very interesting piece on Baseball's Dream Team (All Time, Current, and Future). I want to start a different thread for each one since I think they are all very interesting. Each team features a complete roster with reserves, bullpen, and coaches. I think he did a pretty good job overall of compiling the lists. I only disagreed a handfull of times.
This is the All Time Dream Team thread.
All Time Dream Team
STARTERS
Catcher - Josh Gibson. I agree.
1B - Lou Gehrig. I agree. I think Pujols will take over that place if he keeps it up. Yes, I think I'm being objective on that.
2B - Rogers Hornsby. I agree.
SS - Alex Rodriguez. I agree. Hard to keep him out. He will probably end up on a top 3 player of all time.
3B - Mike Schmidt. I agree.
LF - Ted Williams. I agree. Many would probably move Ty Cobb to LF and put Mays in CF. I can't keep out the greatest hitter to ever live.
CF - Ty Cobb. I agree. Horrible person. Fantastic player.
RF - Babe Ruth. I agree. The greatest player to ever live.
ROTATION
Walter Johnson. I agree.
Cy Young. I agree.
Roger Clemens. I agree.
Lefty Grove. I would put Sandy Koufax here and put Lefty Grove in the bullpen.
Christy Mathewson. I agree.
CLOSER
Mariano Rivera. I agree.
COACHES
Manager - John McGraw. I agree.
Pitching Coach - Johnny Sain. Not sure.
Hitting Coach - Charley Lau.
RESERVES
C - Pudge Rodriguez. I would have to go with Johnny Bench. I would even go with Yogi Berra before Pudge.
Infielders - Stan Musial. Honus Wagner. I agree with both.
Outfielders - Hank Aaron. Willie Mays. Mickey Mantle. I agree with all three. What a bench.
Bullpen - Pedro Martinez. Greg Maddux. Randy Johnson. Sandy Koufax. Grover Cleveland Alexander. I would have to put Koufax in the rotation and put Lefty Grove in the bullpen. I would replace Pedro Martinez with Bob Gibson and Alexander with Satchell Paige.
Interesting, huh? What's your take.
This is the All Time Dream Team thread.
All Time Dream Team
STARTERS
Catcher - Josh Gibson. I agree.
1B - Lou Gehrig. I agree. I think Pujols will take over that place if he keeps it up. Yes, I think I'm being objective on that.
2B - Rogers Hornsby. I agree.
SS - Alex Rodriguez. I agree. Hard to keep him out. He will probably end up on a top 3 player of all time.
3B - Mike Schmidt. I agree.
LF - Ted Williams. I agree. Many would probably move Ty Cobb to LF and put Mays in CF. I can't keep out the greatest hitter to ever live.
CF - Ty Cobb. I agree. Horrible person. Fantastic player.
RF - Babe Ruth. I agree. The greatest player to ever live.
ROTATION
Walter Johnson. I agree.
Cy Young. I agree.
Roger Clemens. I agree.
Lefty Grove. I would put Sandy Koufax here and put Lefty Grove in the bullpen.
Christy Mathewson. I agree.
CLOSER
Mariano Rivera. I agree.
COACHES
Manager - John McGraw. I agree.
Pitching Coach - Johnny Sain. Not sure.
Hitting Coach - Charley Lau.
RESERVES
C - Pudge Rodriguez. I would have to go with Johnny Bench. I would even go with Yogi Berra before Pudge.
Infielders - Stan Musial. Honus Wagner. I agree with both.
Outfielders - Hank Aaron. Willie Mays. Mickey Mantle. I agree with all three. What a bench.
Bullpen - Pedro Martinez. Greg Maddux. Randy Johnson. Sandy Koufax. Grover Cleveland Alexander. I would have to put Koufax in the rotation and put Lefty Grove in the bullpen. I would replace Pedro Martinez with Bob Gibson and Alexander with Satchell Paige.
Interesting, huh? What's your take.
Shane
0
Comments
But I'm old school. Mariano blows one of Cy Youngs gem's Cy might take him out back and kick his ass.
Peace
Doug
45% complete.
My changes;
Since its a dream team , we need a DH, Ted Williams will be perfect, and lets Willie Mays take over CF, Cobb to LF
SS, Honus Wagner should start over AROD, in five years or so maybe not, though maybe still.
Closer, Hoyt Wilhelm gets the call, the greatest knuckler ever, would really offset the starters.
Starting Pitcher, Ed Walsh, the ALL-TIME ERA leader and last 40 game winner, instead of Clemens. Reserve Starter, Carl Hubbell instead of Pedro and Randy Johnson would be left off.
Maybe 2B, Hornsby a great hitter but only fair defense, Fine glovemen like Eddie Collins, Jackie Robinson, or Joe Morgan, outstanding hitters themselves, might be a better fit on a team already loaded with hitting.
However, I have to disagree with you about Hornsby. You bat .424 and win 2 triple crowns, your on my team.
Shane
You are correct. This is the typical all time team...mostly guys from before 1950, and in some cases mostly guys before 1935!
People will never see it because they are basically 'brainwashed' by the enhanced results of the pre war guys. Yes, they are enhanced...not chemically enhanced, but enhanced from being able to pick on the 'weak sisters' they got to play against.
Basically the results are lying...as in lying compared to the results of players who had to play against better peers.
I've written a lot on this already. Those threads can be dug up for more elaboration. No need to rewrite it here.
<< <i>Koby,
You are correct. This is the typical all time team...mostly guys from before 1950, and in some cases mostly guys before 1935!
People will never see it because they are basically 'brainwashed' by the enhanced results of the pre war guys. Yes, they are enhanced...not chemically enhanced, but enhanced from being able to pick on the 'weak sisters' they got to play against.
Basically the results are lying...as in lying compared to the results of players who had to play against better peers.
I've written a lot on this already. Those threads can be dug up for more elaboration. No need to rewrite it here. >>
I knew the great Skinpinch would arrive, you sniffed this out didnt you!
Yeah, I decided to post. I'm not really in the mood for discussion...just thought I would give the reminder
All of these lists composed by Old Farts who reminisce about players they never saw play (either in person or on video) are humorous. I love nostalga as much as the next guy, but most players today put old timers to shame. Exceptions exist, but are not common.
Kind of like a Corvette. Baby Boomers love 1964 Stingrays with 427 engines (for great reasons), but those Vettes cannot compare to a 2006 Z06.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
Typical ??
AROD, a first team choice , is still active, so is another first team pick, Mariano Rivera,
and also reserves like Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson are playing in 2007 !
One third of the starting 15 chosen, were playing AFTER 1950, but that should have no bearing on the team make-up.
The selector is modern member of today's population, and is paid professional sportswriter who makes his living watching and evaluating athletes like major league ballplayers and seems to have a very good understanding and knowledge of the past.
The mere title "all-time" should preclude any bias for only players those of us have actually seen play baseball, but should allow and encourage historical appreciation for former greats.
I dont agree with all the picks, however will not automatically dismiss them, because of any time era prejudice.
Eight of them played almost entirely before the war. That is eight out of fourteen. This is according to what Frankhardy posted as the team. I didn't read the link, and I figure Frank copied the list.
There are three out of the starting fourteen that played the majority of their career after 1960.
Are we looking at different lists?
Jaxxr, on the team you made...you made it even more heavily biased toward before the war. You took off almost every modern post 1960 player and replaced them with an inferior old timer...inferior when the understanding of why the records occured.
Tom Verducci has a job because of his writing skills and the like...not necessarily because of his knowledge. He falls into the same trap as everyone, and others fall into it even more.
Check your post, you said 1950 and 1935, now you change to 1960,
The list of 14 starters selected, had 5 guys who played, and quite productivly, after 1950, just like I said before, check my post.
Perhaps my use of one third was inappropriate, the actual percent would be a bit greater, at 35.7% (5/14)
Gehrig....never played it he 40's
Hornsby....never played in the 40's
Arod...modern active
Schmidt...modern
Ted Williams....split the pre war and post war era. Was a big leaguer 11 years prior to 1950
Cobb...never played in the 40's
Ruth...never played in the 40's
Cy Young....never played in 40's
Walter Johnson...never played in 40's
Grove...never played in 50's
Mathewson....never played in 40's
Clemens....modern active
Rivera....modern active
Of those players NINE players never played in the 50's. That isn't overkill for the watered down era?
You are correct in saying 5 played past 1950. Yet that is a small number and shows exactly what I mean...especially considering Williams played only half his career after 1950.
The starting staff has four of five guys from pre war? Again, just pure misuse of available information to have selections like that.
Again, you are correct five played past 1950....but isn't it painfully obvious the bias towards the old era? I know why that bias occurs, and have outlined it previously...again this was just a reminder for all our readers that what you thought was always true...isn't always.
His other picks just follow the typical minsinformed company line.
Ivan Rodriguez the second catcher....that is proof enough to know that this writer is an idiot.
Edited to add: The pre war is not the watered down era, it is the sparse era.
It is quite probable today's ballplayers have superior physical skills.
I would think a guy like, say, Jermaine Dye could out bench press Ty Cobb, maybe beat him in a 100 meter dash, and similar physical measures.
Dye has likely trained better, ate more healthy, and used advanced medical methods to his advantage.
Does this mean he is/was a better player than Cobb ?
Not in the historical representation of a comparison against his respective peers.
Is the school bully, usually physically superior, always good at sports ? Does pure strength and/or speed always outdistance coordination, eyesight, determination, quickness, mental ability, perserverance, reflexes, and other qualities, when baseball performance is evaluated ?
Carlos Zambrano is probably more fit than Cy Young was, so he automatically must be more effective a pitcher? Hardly.
Because an all time great played before 1935, or 1950, or 1960, or whatever number you like at the moment, does he automatically become less great in relation to his peers ? Not at all.
Being a league leader in 1921, with no baseball expansion, NBA, NFL, Etc., should still be very similar to leading the league in 1987 or any year.
What is true, is the fact that I did say AROD may become a replacement for Wagner at SS, but I will wait until he finalizes his numbers, and might or might not change my view, I also mentioned Joe Morgan as a possibility over Hornsby, I do realize there many great players post 1935, 1950, or 1960, but will not blindly think recent equates to better.
Schmidt was a superior fielder to Brett and a more feared slugger. There is no one better at 3rd to take his spot.
No point in reading the rest of the list after that.
<< <i>skin, it really is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. =Basically, in your mind, people who disagree with your conclusions are misinformed, or bias, or nostaligic, or whatever stupid label you want to put on them. Never mind that the OVERWHELMING majority if baseball historians, current managers, sportswriters have these opinions. To you, we are all just ignorant about baseball and obviously don't get something that YOU only seem to be able to. Get a clue! You're neither that smart nor that insightful. Your's is just an opinion at the end of the day like anyone else. Don't pretend like it's the word of God. >>
Baseball, the overwhelming majority of people have often thought a lot of things to be true, only they werent right.
It doesn't hurt to learn a little more info Baseball. Not all things are easy to grasp, just because you don't, doesn't mean you dismiss it.
No, I am not the only person to have these views. Research a little, and you may come up with something.
I don't care if you take me seriously.
By the way, I have never dismissed players from the PRe war as not being capable. I jsut understand why their accomplishments were so out of this world to cause this misconception that so many of the best players came from that time. If you can't grasp it Baseball, no biggie, have a beer...ignorance is bliss.
They aren't really opinions.
Schmidt never hit .390 and, .469 with runners in scoring position like George did. I'll offer Brett was much more feared in his prime than Schmidt ever was. Ask Sparky Anderson.
Hey, if you feel it is condescening, so be it.. If you challenge an assertion I make(which you often do), fine, but back it up with something good, and not just an opinion. If you use poor information to back it up, sure I will call you on it. If you take it as condescending, then hey whatever.
Baseball, if your stance is "So what if a few names etc..." then why even bother reading this thread? The title talks about the all time team, and it must be of some importance to you if you read and post on it. If "so what" is your response, then why even read it?
By the way, what exactly was condescending in any of my posts for you to write your idioc post? I was discussing something calmly and rationally. Was it to say Tom Verducci was stupid? To say that he fell in the company line of what everyone usually picks?
Is it because I said people were 'brainwashed'? These were not condescending in the least.
It prompted you to write things, and call me not so smart and other B.S. I don't care how smart or not smart you think I am, thats fine.
Part of my hobby is advancing baseball truths. Whereas nothing is at the extreme 100% truth, the closer you get the better! Not everything you have 'learned' through the years is accurate. Starting from the Easter Bunny, up to all time baseball lists...fans have been filled with incomplete information, or just plain wrong information. That isn't good enough.
compared to Brett, Schmidt clearly dominates.
The season Brett hit .390 he only played in 117 games.
<< <i>I still can't get past the statement that Albert Pujols will someday overtake Lou Gehrig on this mythical all-time team.
No point in reading the rest of the list after that. >>
ctsoxfan,
My mistake. I should have said David Ortiz instead of Albert Pujols.
Seriously though, I understand that you don't like Pujols and think he's a crybaby and all that. Even if you simply stated that you don't agree with that statement and give a reason as to why, that would be ok. If you said, "No, I really think that "xyz" player will take over Gehrig's spot" or that "no one playing now will take Gehrig's spot that I can see", I would honor that opinion. But to totally dismiss anything I say because I say that Albert Pujols will take over Gehrig's spot is ridiculous. What you are implying is that Pujols does not even have a shot at being one of the greatest. If Albert Pujols was drafted by the Red Sox and had this start to a career, you would be saying that he is on his way to passing Ted Williams as the greatest hitter ever.
Are you implying that Pujols is not off to the greatest 7 year start to a career in the history of baseball? If you are, name a better start. Are you implying that Pujols is over rated and not one of the all time greatest players (so far)? Are you implying that, yes he is a great player, but will suddenly be an average player starting next year and throughout the rest of his career?
I simply stated that I think Pujols, when his career is finished, will be considered a better player than Lou Gehrig. That's just my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, I don't thing it's a stretch to say that he will be considered in the top 3 first basemen of all time. What you are implying is that Pujols is not even in the discussion.
I will be waiting for your reply.
Shane
There really is no need to argue what is or is not an opinion. Anything that is not backed up with valid object facts and information isn't really worth anything, opinion or not.
Many do not know or realize a lot of the information, and thus form opinions that aren't well informed. But usually it is opinions based on bias.
If Tom Verducci is putting Ivan Rodriguez on a team instead of Johnny Bench, then he either doesn't understand what constitutes the worth of a player, or if he does understand that Bench is worth more runs/wins, then he is stupid for then putting a lesser player on the team.
All facts do not go out the door in recognizing the variables that cause different eras to achieve performances unattainable in other times.
There is a truth in one player being better than another, or the level of competition being different. If two guys are standing next to each other, there are three scenarios that can be true...Player A is/was better, Player B is/was better, or they were equal. To find out that truth, one must use the best valid information and it will lead to a very strong conclusion. Can it be 100% balls on accurate? Maybe it can. Maybe it can't. But it is certainly better than using somebody's misinformed, or lack of informed biased thoughts.
Those are some impressive numbers for Schmidt, and yet.................................... he and Brett drove in the exact same number of runs in their careers, 1,595.
I know Schmidt was good, but in my opinion he's a little overrated. I'd never put a .267 hitter on an alltime team, regardless if he walked a lot.
I think your in a very small minority if you think Schmidt is overrated. Brett played three more seasons 21 to 18. Your overlooking that Schmidt had more dominating stats overall, just not a higher batting average and was far superior defensively, which in my opinion gives him the edge over Brett any day of the week.
basically Brett got a hit 30% of the time and Schmidt 26% of the time.
Both were superb ball players, I would just prefer the guy with the better glove.
Is that an acceptable post policeman...or Basestealer?
I am a passionate guy, love baseball, and love people. Often times my zeal and snappy type comments are taken for rude or arrogant. I apologize to you or anyone if you are offended by it. That isn't my intention. I didn't feel any comments early in this thread were in that vein, and I was surprised when you made that post. My apologies for other posts that may have indeed contained those types of comments.
I wish you well.
-skin
<< <i>Baseball,
I am a passionate guy, love baseball, and love people. Often times my zeal and snappy type comments are taken for rude or arrogant. I apologize to you or anyone if you are offended by it. That isn't my intention. I didn't feel any comments early in this thread were in that vein, and I was surprised when you made that post. My apologies for other posts that may have indeed contained those types of comments.
I wish you well.
-skin >>
Your zeal and snappy type comments arent what are taken for rude or arrogant.
Your grouping, generalizing, and bashing of folks from NY are taken as far more rude, arrogant, and ignorant than all else.
-- Yogi Berra
I generally don't make those comments regularly about New York, though I did in the other thread. You are correct, those comments should not be made. Grouping and generalizing are never a good thing to do, my apologies for that as well. Go Reggie!
Hornsby is probably the worst defensive middle infielder in the Hall of Fame, so again I think Morgan was better, while still accepting that some might go with Hornsby
Same is true for Mays being better than Cobb
Interesting that in all the close choices, he goes with the pre-World War II, pre-Jackie Robinson player