Bill Conlin: Phillies have best infield of baseball's modern era
swartz1
Posts: 4,911 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Bill Conlin: Phillies have best infield of baseball's modern era
The Philadelphia Daily News
discuss...
The Philadelphia Daily News
discuss...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
0
Comments
POSTED: March 10, 2010 By Bill Conlin
Daily News Sports Columnist
POSTED: March 10, 2010 Bill Conlin: Phillies have best infield of baseball's modern era By Bill Conlin
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Sports Columnist
CLEARWATER, Fla. - Joe Tinker was the shortstop. Johnny Evers played second. The first baseman was Frank Chance. Poor Harry Steinfeldt.
He was the third baseman who faded into obscurity because he didn't make the short poem titled "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," penned by a newspaper guy named Franklin Pierce Adams. The poem made "Tinker to Evers to Chance" - that's 6-4-3 for those scoring at home - code for infield excellence. Despite an acute lack of credentials, the trio was voted into the Hall of Fame in 1946 by what was then called the Old Timers Committee.
SInce 1906, when the Chicago Cubs set the record for a 154-game schedule with 116 victories, Tinker hit .233 and made 46 errors at short. Evers flogged the baseball at a .255 clip and made 44 errors, an astounding total for a second baseman. Chance batted .319 and committed 16 errors.
Poor Harry Steinfeldt. The Cubs' third sacker hit .327 and was charged with only 20 errors. And got left out of the poem. Guess they didn't have the 5-4-3 in 1906.
As for doubleplays, or "twin-killings" as they were called in the 20th-century aughts, Chance made the final putout on 71 of them. The Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance plus Steinfeldt infield crushed a combined eight of the Cubs' season total of 20 homers that year. They lost the World Series to the White Sox and won back-to-back Fall Classics in '07 and '08. Then that damned Billy Goat thing happened and you know the rest.
Imagine if Tinker, Evers and Chance had put up the kind of numbers that Rollins, Utley and Howard routinely put up. Franklin P. Adams might have wound up with a longer poem than Longfellow's "Evangeline."
The Phils' Harry Steinfeldt was slick-fielding, accurate-throwing Pedro Feliz, who also chipped in 82 RBI last season. Now, Placido Polanco is back. Polly brings less arm to the position but is a career .300 hitter and will do some wonderful things in the No. 2 hole.
Placido Polanco . . . Jimmy Rollins . . . Chase Utley . . . Ryan Howard . . .
Say hello to what is potentially the greatest all-around infield of a modern era that began in 1947 when Jack Roosevelt Robinson kicked down the door that had barred players of color from the major leagues.
Polanco hit just 10 homers for the Tigers last year, playing in one of baseball's toughest home-run parks. He has a chance to hit 15-plus in the friendly alleys of the Bank, particularly batting in front of Utley and Howard.
J-Roll hit 21 homers last year in a season when he was MIA most of the first half. The Gold Glove shortstop has hit as many as 30.
Utley is quite simply one of the great offensive second basemen of all time and has consistently put up Rogers Hornsby power numbers.
Howard hit 45 homers last year and has averaged 49.5 over his four full seasons as a regular. In 2009, the three best players in franchise history at their positions combined for 97 homers.
And ponder this . . . Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time? The closest I could come was Roy Campanella, Jackie Robinson and Duke Snider from Brooklyn's Boys of Summer.
And how often have you seen a major league infield line up 1-2-3-4 in the batting order?
These are giddy, historic, times for the Phightins.
There will be challenges to my best infield of the modern-era assertion, of course, including a couple I debated myself.
You could throw a blanket over the numbers put up by the Phillies and Yankees infields in 2009. New York's quartet of Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Robinson Cano and Mark Teixeira slammed 112 homers, three more than the Phillies with Feliz at third. But the Phils' Fab Four won the RBI war, 393-373.
Because the power-hitting middle infielder is a relatively new phenomenon in an era where both superior training methods and chemical enhancement are factors in the explosion of offense, it is hard to find infields that can match the Phillies' output. The Dodgers had two great ones in Brooklyn's Cox, Reese, Robinson and Hodges, then LA's Cey, Russell, Lopes and Garvey. But both fall far short in overall power.
Every member of the current Phillies infield has been an All-Star. Polanco and Rollins have won Gold Gloves. All four have won Silver Slugger awards - Polanco as a second baseman in the American League. Rollins and Howard have been MVPs and Utley is in the MVP conversation each year. It is a much-honored group.
Pat Gillick was the Baltimore Orioles' GM in 1996, when an infield of B.J. Surhoff, Cal Ripken, Robbie Alomar and Rafe Palmeiro put up some sick numbers. With Rafe "With God As My Witness" Palmeiro leading the way by producing 39 homers and 142 RBI, that infield pounded 108 homers and drove in an amazing 420 runs, an average of 105 for each infielder. But, sorry, Palmeiro hangs an asterisk on those numbers. Just as A-Rod hangs one on his Yankees infield.
Feel free to argue. And maybe somebody can come up with an eight-line poem that begins:
"These are the saddest of possible words:
"J-Roll to Chase to Ryno." *
Send e-mail to bill1chair@aol.com.
For recent columns, go to
http://go.philly.com/conlin.
Teixeira better than Howard
Utley better than Cano
Jeter better than Rollins
Arod better than Feliz
Overall, no contest, the Yankee guys are/were better. This guy is touting them the best of modern times, yet they weren't even the best in 2009. Typical moron sportswriter.
For their careers... the Yankee guys widen that gap tremendously. In fact, the Yankees have TWO shortstops in their infield better than Rollins, LOL. The Yanks will have tow top tier HOFers from that infield, the Phillies might get one if Utley can maintain this play for several more years. Forget Howard, no chance(at least no chance for the Hall of merit...you never know about the Hall of Fame with the goofs voting).
Save on ebay with Big Crumbs
Um... is this moron trying to say that this infield has the three best players in Phillies history? Conlin. Yo, Conlin! Have you ever heard of Micheal Jack Schmidt? Mike Schmidt. Yes, Mike Schmidt the greatest third baseman in baseball history. Are you saying that Jimmy Rollins is better than Schmidt? Or Chase Utley? Or Ryan Howard? You lost all credibility after that statement. That's like trying to talk about the greatest players in Cleveland Browns history and omitting Jim Brown. Or Baltimore Colts and forgetting Johnny Unitas. Somebody needs to wake up Bill Conlin...
"In 2009, the three best players in franchise history at their positions combined for 97 homers."
But in the following part of the story he wrote this...
"And ponder this . . . Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time?"
That is laughable, as pointed out with Schmidt. Heck Ryan Howard will need to hit at about the same rate for 4,000 more at bats, THEN one can say he was better than Luzinski.
But keep in mind that this article was geared toward the neanderthal ignorant fans. After all, look who copied and pasted it in full on here(the same guy who thinks Carlos Ruiz is a better fit for the Phillies than Joe Mauer), none other than SteveK.
<< <i>To be fair to this moron, he did say this...
"In 2009, the three best players in franchise history at their positions combined for 97 homers."
But in the following part of the story he wrote this...
"And ponder this . . . Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time?"
That is laughable, as pointed out with Schmidt. Heck Ryan Howard will need to hit at about the same rate for 4,000 more at bats, THEN one can say he was better than Luzinski.
But keep in mind that this article was geared toward the neanderthal ignorant fans. After all, look who copied and pasted it in full on here(the same guy who thinks Carlos Ruiz is a better fit for the Phillies than Joe Mauer), none other than SteveK. >>
Hey chit for brains, I never stated that, you should layoff the crack pipe. And I firmly implied the Yankees infield was better...and once again you prove your ignorance about baseball because most baseball fans know Bill Conlin and know he is prone to hyperbole, and that his comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if a fan didn't know Bill Conlin, just from reading the one article that could be figured out but not from a dimwit like you who basically follows one baseball writer like everything he says is gospel, and all you ever do is regurgitate what he says. I don't recall a single original thought ever coming from any of your posts other than the Ryan Howard is transforming into Dave Kingman thread in which everyone here has laughed at you for being so pathetically wrong. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Conlin is hyperbole, much like your thought process. All the stuff you say is in line with guys like him, and sports talk radio. All hype, no subtance. How else would you come to conclusions that having inferior players is preferable to guys vastly superior(like when you prefer Howard over Pujols, or Ruiz over Mauer).
Howard has another 4,000 more at bats to perform if he wants to be measured vs other players in their career values. Give it time. In the end, he will be in the Kingman realm, NOT the HOF company.
I don't cater to any writer or analyst. Bill James is good, but I've seen better.
<< <i>SteveK,
Conlin is hyperbole, much like your thought process. All the stuff you say is in line with guys like him, and sports talk radio. All hype, no subtance. How else would you come to conclusions that having inferior players is preferable to guys vastly superior(like when you prefer Howard over Pujols, or Ruiz over Mauer).
Howard has another 4,000 more at bats to perform if he wants to be measured vs other players in their career values. Give it time. In the end, he will be in the Kingman realm, NOT the HOF company.
I don't cater to any writer or analyst. Bill James is good, but I've seen better. >>
Again you blatantly repeat something I never said - I never stated I'd prefer Ruiz over Mauer...but I guess you get off acting like a little troll.
I enjoy hyperbole and smack, and sports talk radio...to me it's all part of the fun of being a sports fan.
I know you enjoy the hyperbole and smack, and that is fine...but it is all basically nonsense. It does explain a lot of your thoughts.
<< <i>Stevek, your ideas prefer Ruiz over Mauer, just as they do Dave-Sexson-Howard over Pujols.
I know you enjoy the hyperbole and smack, and that is fine...but it is all basically nonsense. It does explain a lot of your thoughts. >>
Actually, your post explains your thoughts, beyond nonsense - delusional...your crack dealer must have sold you some bad product...contact him for a refund or replacement.
<< <i>SteveK, your ideas, or your premise, state that you prefer Ruiz over Mauer, just as you prefer Howard over Pujols. >>
Saberman - sorry, I can't help you, but try this link...
argument clinic
Funny guy
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 they had Giants pitching they would win 161 games this year
ohhhh, my bad we are talking about hitting and NOT defense.
Steve
You are soooooooooooooooo forgetting the Big Red Machine infield of the 70's. No body can touch them. They had a TEAM batting average over .300!
1994 Astros wins for being the infield better than you think
Including catcher (which I don't like to do) nothing is close to Campanella-Hodges-Robinson-Reese
<< <i>At their peak, the Cey-Russell-Lopes-Garvey infield was pretty darned good too. >>
True, and it's hard to compare because there was quite a bit less offense and fewer HRs in that era (late '70s-early '80s). These guys were most notable for how long they stayed together; I don't know if any team in MLB history had a "set" starting infield for as many years as the Dodgers of this era.
<< <i>Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time? >>
Bagwell, Biggio, Berkman, Oswalt, Wagner?
Tee hee.