@stevek said:
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
It took 4 or 5 "tries" before Joe DiMaggio and Harmon Killebrew (I am sure there are other examples) got in. That's a lot longer than 1 second.
DiMaggio certainly should have been a first time guy!!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Well said, but I don't have the time to refute some of it. My only thing is the way they defend today. I know it's within the current rules, but I wonder if baseball will ever write up an illegal defense rule. I personally hope they do. They've made the strike zone bigger to help the pitcher. Now help the hitters by putting all the position players back to where they were before the shifts were implemented.
They were shifting against Ted Williams too. Now they do it more often.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Sabermatics are simply one more tool to use in evaluating players. Personally I don't like a lot of them, especially OPS+.
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
Getting back to OP it's a universally accepted opinion that The Babe and Teddy Ballgame were the best two hitters in MLB history. As a Yankees fan, I would think you would be arguing for Ruth before Mantle.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
The key word here is "like", and I agree that if you are comparing two players on the same team in the same year then those three stats (two actually, there's no need to throw in BA if you have the other two) will do just fine. But if you try to compare a player from the 30's with a player from the 60's using those stats, you'll fail miserably. If you try to compare a player on the Red Sox to a player on the A's using those stats, even if they played at the same time, you'll fail miserably. It isn't the "likeness" of the players that matters, it's the likeness of their circumstances.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.
Just to explain the Really's?
When it comes to Mantle, the 1952 World Series is one of the MAJOR defining moments of his career. It's not the exact same as but is similar to saying 'If you left out the called shot...' or 'If you leave out the fact that he broke the color barrier...'
As I mentioned earlier, you are entitled to form your opinion as you see fit. I don't impugn it nor do I endorse it but I always welcome it.
Ted Williams was a great hitter and is most certainly worthy of the title. Ruth is as well.
To me?
Mantle
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Gehrig
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
I know I am horsing a dead beat, but trying to convince a Yankee fan that Williams was better then Mantle is like trying to convince a Yankee fan that this years Red Sox team is better then New York.
OR convincing a Royals fan that GB was not the finest 3B ever!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
I know I am horsing a dead beat, but trying to convince a Yankee fan that Williams was better then Mantle is like trying to convince a Yankee fan that this years Red Sox team is better then New York.
That's incorrect. I believe I am maintaining objectivity. Mashing the ball when it counts matters. Ted Williams was an awesome hitter. Could he hit under pressure? We'll never know because it rarely happened and when it did he did not perform well but the sample size is small.
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
This years Red Sox team is better than this years Yankees team. They play a better brand of baseball and are a more complete team. I'll root like crazy for the Yankees and I don't view the Red Sox as leaps and bounds better but they are a better team, yes. Again, I am a big Yankees fan and they're one of the best teams in baseball...but the Red Sox are doing something historic right now. I love baseball too much to pretend it's not happening. Greatness is greatness.
I just hope they are more 2001 Mariners than 1998 Yankees.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
I am not adjusting anything for park, era or competition both Mantle and William's careers overlapped for about 10 years.
As sluggers they were close to being equal, when it comes to OB% and BA it's not close. As a wise man recently said "Greatness is greatness". ;-)
@perkdog said:
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I tried to bring up Walker in the past and was obliterated because he played a little over half of his career in Coors field. He's 12th all time in SLG%, 15th in OPS and 18th in assists as a RF...........achieving it all because of Coors field.
OPS+ says he is the 73rd best hitter even with Coors field and yet he is not HOF worthy? His defense and baserunning were also only good at Coors. Sad he isn't getting the recognition he deserves.
@1970s said:
Speaking of best ever......Cheryl Ladd or Farrah ?
Cheryl Ladd wins it by a...........nose?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
Serious question - Could Ted Williams bunt? I honestly don't know but it is a hitting skill and a valuable one at that. And I still think the value of a switch hitter is being underestimated here - at least in my eyes.
Talking about in a real game here; not a simulation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@JoeBanzai said:
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
You can't go wrong with the Mick! Another thing not mentioned here is that before his knee injuries......Mickey had the fastest time of anyone from left batters box to first!
@JoeBanzai said:
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
How many times would you have sent him up to do that? Seriously.
He was replaced by a pinch hitter once, however. The guy who had the honor was Carroll Hardy. At the end of Ted's career in 1960, he fouled a ball off his instep and could barely walk. Journeyman player, Carroll Hardy, finished Ted's at batt.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@JoeBanzai said:
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
Well, despite Morgan's playing to 39 he only performed in about 400 more games. So he gave his team about three more years of service which is undeniable, but his last seven years (with 1982 excluded) he certainly wasn't much of a hitter, although he still walked a lot and could still steal bases. His OPS over those last seven years was 114, above average but if you are going to play when you are no longer a good hitter (.386 SLG over those years), it SHOULD effect your lifetime totals.
No doubt Joe was a better base runner, but Rogers' SB/CS stats look incomplete and thereby I can't decide if he was THAT bad on the bases. I always have liked hitters over base stealers unless the speed guy has some slug to his game. Hornsby CRUSHES Morgan in that respect. Guys like Morgan certainly help their teams, but still depend on other hitters to drive them in.
Hornsby is an oddity at 2B, as he wasn't a base stealer, but a clean-up type hitter. Certainly appears to me that Hornsby could have put up some good numbers if he had played more when he was player/manager 1932-37. Final full (100 games) season he was at 163.
In general, I'm not convinced that the era had that much to do with it. I thought your + was supposed to take care of that.
OPS+ and WAR seem to have a LOT of flaws. I don't think they work too well when trying to compare players. I'll wait for a better stat.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
OPS+ and WAR seem to have a LOT of flaws. I don't think they work too well when trying to compare players. I'll wait for a better stat.
OPS+ doesn't really have "flaws", it does an outstanding job measuring what it claims to measure, which is how a player did at the plate relative to the other players he was playing against. It's a decent statistic for comparing across eras, but it wasn't intended to be used for that purpose (the "+" is for ballpark effects, not era effects), and the further apart the eras are the worse job OPS+ does.
WAR does have a LOT of flaws; offensive WAR is pretty good, but defensive WAR is next to useless. Win Shares is the best single stat out there (as in, you can buy access to them since they aren't online anywhere for free), but even that stat has its own issues with comparisons across eras, and with defensive measurement. Ultimately, any determination of who was "best" of Hornsby and Morgan, or Ruth and Willams, or Ty Cobb and Gene Tenace is going to involve some assumptions, and some judgment as to what matters most (career, peak, etc.), what is the relative value of offense and defense, what is the overall quality of play in one era vs. another, and many other things. I believe Morgan is the GOAT, but there is no way to prove that he was better than Hornsby (or Collins).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Gene Tenace had a better lifetime OPS+ then..................................
George Brett
Al Kaline
Tony Gwynn
Buster Posey
Joe Morgan
Rafael Palmeiro
Rod Carew
Carl Yazstremski
Fred Lynn
and
Don Mattingly
If you'd like, I could explain all of this to you, but finding someone to actually make you understand what I said is the hard part. I will simply repeat that OPS+ measures overall offensive contribution at the plate very well; it makes no effort to measure anything else such as length of career.
All of the HOF players you listed (and Palmeiro) have an OPS+ higher than Tenace for the 5,500 plate appearances that Tenace had, and then significantly more to add beyond that. I've never said Tenace was better than any of them, and if I ever do it will be because I am making fun of you.
The non-HOFers you added:
Fred Lynn - OPS+ 1 point lower than Tenace for comparable PA, then 2,500 more PA with an OPS+ of 114. Better hitter than Tenace. Considering that Tenace was a catcher, the gap between Tenace and Lynn isn't all that big as players.
Don Mattingly - pretty much the same as Lynn. Mattingly had an incredible 4-year run but was nothing special after that.
Buster Posey - no idea why you threw Posey in with these other guys. He's got the one great year six years ago, but other than that he hasn't played as long as Tenace yet, and outside of that one season he's not as good a hitter as Tenace. If he retired today, he would clearly rank behind Tenace as a hitter. His hitting has fallen off so far in recent years that unless he turns that around he'll have to play quite a bit longer than Tenace to catch up to him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
I really believe the data is way too close on this one to give an edge to either player.
So I was a little surprised when you said "Posey would clearly rank behind Tenace".
I think we just have another case of a better average hitter vs. a guy who walked a lot.
But all you're saying is that you think batting average is what matters most, and that's simply not true; any conclusion that follows from that false premise will be false.
They are about even as hitters so far, but Tenace played longer and Posey's stats are heading downhill. Unless he turns that around, by the time he catches Tenace in career length, Posey will clearly not be as good a hitter as Tenace at that point. If he can continue to be a good hitter, just not as good as Tenace, for long enough beyond that then he'll take the title for himself. I think this is about as straightforward and uncontroversial an analysis as there is.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
1970's- We've lost Dallas. He doesn't think rationally when it comes to baseball stats
because give him two players to pick from and he'll choose the one with the lowest
batting average every time. He thinks he's a modern thinker and that batting average
isn't important, so in his zealousness he doesn't compare players objectively.
He starts with a bias towards the player with the lower batting average and then
uses his stupid analysis to try to prove that particular player is better than the one with the higher BA.
That's why his posts on the Schmidt vs. Brett thread should be ignored. His intent is solely to
discredit the player with the higher average, in that case Brett, of course.
In this case, Posey, of course.
And in Dallas' warped mind Mays 1965 season (.317) was better than Williams' 1941 season (.406).
Know why? He says because the 34 year old Mays, who only stole 9 bases, was so much superior
on defense than a 21 year old Ted Williams. HaHa. Everyone knows Mays speed went downhill fast
in his mid thirties and his defense wasn't that great compared to young Mays.
Dallas has become a joke because he can't be objective when analyzing players, his favorite is always
the one with the lowest batting average.
Dallas even likes to get in little 'jabs' at players he thinks are inferior(high batting average guys)
taking a shot at Brett, "The gap between Morgan and Hornsby isn't as large as the gap between
Schmidt and Brett". LOL.
Of course Dallas says Morgan was better than Hornsby, who had the lower batting average by far between the two?
Dallas, when you lose all objectivity, time to quit pretending you're a baseball expert.
@1970s said:
To say that Buster Posey will decline is not rational. Buster Posey has hit above or slightly below .300 his entire 9 years in MLB. He's as consistent as they come.
Gene Tenace had a better season at age 33 (hit .222 with a .399 OBP) then he did in his
prime at age 27 ( hit .211 with a .367 OBP)
Tenace only played 1/3rd of each season from age 34 thorough age 36.
Posey has played over 140 games each of the past 6 seasons. He is a 7 time All Star compared
to one for Tenace. It's almost laughable that anyone can say that Tenace is a better hitter
then Posey.
Your exact words were that Posey is not as good a hitter as Tenace. That is laughable.
I’m not taking sides, but Tenace’s OPS+ is higher than Posey’s. Aren’t you the guy who argued that Brett was better than Schmidt? Talk about not having credibility...
BTW catchers typically do not age well. I hope Buster bucks the trend.
@1970s said:
This is what you said about Posey.......................He's got the one great year six years ago, but other than that he hasn't played as long as Tenace yet, and outside of that one season he's not as good a hitter as Tenace.
So please explain to me how Buster Posey is ( as in your own words) not as good a hitter
as Gene Tenace ? The only category Tenace has him beat is in OBP, and that is because of the walks.
None of the stats you posted are park or era adjusted so all of them are meaningless as comparators. The only stat Tenace wins is OBP, both because of his walks, and because Oakland in the 1970's was the toughest hitters park in the AL. I wish you would just stop posting this crap because it isn't helpful and it just makes it even more difficult to advance the conversation.
And yes, Posey had one great year six years ago and has been trending down steadily since; take away that one great year and he isn't close to as good a hitter as Tenace. If you wanted to address that you would have recalculated all those stats after taking away his one great year; as it is, you haven't even tried to address what I said. If you're waiting for me to do that work for you, you can stop; I'm not going to.
I stand by everything I've said - two or three times now - and until you offer something that addresses my statement I don't know what I'm supposed to do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
To say that Buster Posey will decline is not rational. Buster Posey has hit above or slightly below .300 his entire 9 years in MLB. He's as consistent as they come.
Gene Tenace had a better season at age 33 (hit .222 with a .399 OBP) then he did in his
prime at age 27 ( hit .211 with a .367 OBP)
Tenace only played 1/3rd of each season from age 34 thorough age 36.
Posey has played over 140 games each of the past 6 seasons. He is a 7 time All Star compared
to one for Tenace. It's almost laughable that anyone can say that Tenace is a better hitter
then Posey.
Your exact words were that Posey is not as good a hitter as Tenace. That is laughable.
I did not say that Posey will decline; go back and read it again if you don't believe me. What I said is that he HAS declined from his one great season, and that IF he continues to decline he has a long way to go to catch Tenace as a hitter. These are facts, and by definition rational.
I have no idea why you posted any of what you posted about Tenace at this or that age; none of it is remotely relevant to anything that I've said. I have addressed ONLY Tenace's career value as a hitter, not his pattern of accumulating that value.
If we accept the laughable premise that All-Star votes mean anything, then you have provided some evidence that Posey is better than Tenace. But I see what you did there, even though I know you don't. I said Tenace was a better hitter than Posey, not that he was a better player than Posey; Posey is a better catcher than Tenace, for which there is much better evidence than All-Star votes. Then you switched back to talking about them as hitters, and laughed at my position even though you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to contradict what I said.
I tried in the Brett thread, and I tried again here. You simply aren't bright enough to carry on a worthwhile debate about baseball. I will not try again.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Just to chime in - I would take Yadier Molina over Buster Posey at the catcher position in the National League. Posey may be the better hitter but I think Molina is the better total package.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Just to chime in - I would take Yadier Molina over Buster Posey at the catcher position in the National League. Posey may be the better hitter but I think Molina is the better total package.
I would love to hear how you think Monlina is the better total package. Posey has him beat by 100 points in career OPS and 60 points in career SLG. Granted Molina is a great defensive catcher, but his 8 year run of gold gloves was ended by Buster Posey in 2016, after Posey led the National League with 12 Defensive Runs Saved. Posey is always at the top of the defensive categories due to his ability to frame pitches. He is recognized as one of the best in the business. Here are the top 10 based on framing metrics.................................
To hear this moron duncetuary say that Tenace is better then Posey is just totally a joke.
To hear anyone else say that anyone is better then Posey is a joke.
If Posey keeps it up, he will replace Johnny Bench as the best catcher of all time.
WHOA! You went too far. Bench is the GOAT as Catcher. Posey doesn't have the power to replace Bench.
In their three year peak periods, Posey has Bench beat in OPS+ and wRC+.
Bench has a slight edge in WAR. All this shows is that they are very close.
Bench was great at throwing at base runners. He was the best. He created so many outs for his team defensively. Posey does the same by getting his pitchers extra strikes, creating outs for his team.
There's a lot of OPS+ and WAR going on in your post. You feeling ok?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Just to chime in - I would take Yadier Molina over Buster Posey at the catcher position in the National League. Posey may be the better hitter but I think Molina is the better total package.
I would love to hear how you think Monlina is the better total package. Posey has him beat by 100 points in career OPS and 60 points in career SLG. Granted Molina is a great defensive catcher, but his 8 year run of gold gloves was ended by Buster Posey in 2016, after Posey led the National League with 12 Defensive Runs Saved. Posey is always at the top of the defensive categories due to his ability to frame pitches. He is recognized as one of the best in the business. Here are the top 10 based on framing metrics.................................
To hear this moron duncetuary say that Tenace is better then Posey is just totally a joke.
To hear anyone else say that anyone is better then Posey is a joke.
If Posey keeps it up, he will replace Johnny Bench as the best catcher of all time.
Problem is two fold here - first, a look at the back of Posey's baseball card to me show a player in steady decline. And if you want to go with framing pitches as the basis of all defense, fine. Blocking balls, throwing out runners (or stopping it simply by putting the gear on), calling a game, knowing opposing hitters - it's more than just pitch framing. Not to mention he's had a better staff (talent wise, in my opinion, anyway) throwing to him most years than Yadier has over the same stretch. And if you like awards, how about 4 Platinum Gloves for Molina (given for the best defender in the sport!) along with his 8 gold gloves? Again, Posey's got the better hitting stats but the margin may not be as great as you believe, with Yadier turning in yet another solid season this year.
Second, I think Buster Posey is going to have the same problem - and suffer the same fate - as Joe Mauer. They've had VERY similar careers (with Posey doing much more winning, of course) but we've already seen the transition to first base begin and if you stop raking AND stop catching? Your catching gets forgotten. Catching saps your legs, your legs provide power and the damge is already done. Both will hit for a high BA (I like it, not everyone does) but Johnny Bench caught his whole career as has Molina. So when all is said and done, it is entirely possible we'll 'forget' Posey was a catcher in the same way we have with Joe Mauer.
By the way, Buster Posey is awesome and I would say very close to a Hall of Famer already. I think Yadier's a lock...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Please let us know which stats we can use, and which are useless. Apparently you are the arbiter of all that is worthwhile. Please cc Bill James, Rob Neyer, Baseball Prospectus, Joe Sheehan, and Baseball-reference.com. We could all benefit from your boundless wisdom. Thanks.
Please let us know which stats we can use, and which are useless. Apparently you are the arbiter of all that is worthwhile. Please cc Bill James, Rob Neyer, Baseball Prospectus, Joe Sheehan, and Baseball-reference.com. We could all benefit from your boundless wisdom. Thanks.
LOL+
I had to bring in wRC+ only to show how Posey has Bench beat during both players peak
3 year periods. Wouldn't have brought it in otherwise.
BTW, you do know what 111 stands for in bowling, eh ? LOL+ This is where most of your
posts belong !!! LOL+
I guess your response means you are not going to answer my question. Perhaps you should pay more attention to bowling. Maybe you would embarrass yourself less there than you do here. Assuming, of course, that you are capable of embarrassment.
Problem is two fold here - first, a look at the back of Posey's baseball card to me show a player in steady decline. ........................................................................................................
What I see is a player who last year (2017) hit .320 and had his second best OPS season in his entire career.
How do you see a steady decline ?
Because Buster Posey, sadly, is not scotch. He's not getting better from here on out. And to my eyes, he's lost a lot of power from his swing. The numbers may or may not bear that out but I trust what I see...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
Oh, BTW. The only reason you, DallasdoesDallas, and most likely gropeme15 and justacommonwoman will come back to tell us that Tenace is better then
Posey is because you as a group enjoy making total donkey's of yourself on this forum.
Everyone does enjoy seeing it. We all get a good laugh at you as a group. Thanks for
the entertainment. LOL+
Leave my name out of yout juvenile name callings.
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.
As lame as your riduculous name callings and the gifs you feel the need to paste in every post.
There is spirited debate in this forum at times, but you have brought the level of discourse here to a new low. I'm not going to engage with you any further and respectfully request that you leave my name out of your posts.
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.
Comments
It took 4 or 5 "tries" before Joe DiMaggio and Harmon Killebrew (I am sure there are other examples) got in. That's a lot longer than 1 second.
DiMaggio certainly should have been a first time guy!!!!!!
They were shifting against Ted Williams too. Now they do it more often.
Sabermatics are simply one more tool to use in evaluating players. Personally I don't like a lot of them, especially OPS+.
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
Getting back to OP it's a universally accepted opinion that The Babe and Teddy Ballgame were the best two hitters in MLB history. As a Yankees fan, I would think you would be arguing for Ruth before Mantle.
The key word here is "like", and I agree that if you are comparing two players on the same team in the same year then those three stats (two actually, there's no need to throw in BA if you have the other two) will do just fine. But if you try to compare a player from the 30's with a player from the 60's using those stats, you'll fail miserably. If you try to compare a player on the Red Sox to a player on the A's using those stats, even if they played at the same time, you'll fail miserably. It isn't the "likeness" of the players that matters, it's the likeness of their circumstances.
Just to explain the Really's?
When it comes to Mantle, the 1952 World Series is one of the MAJOR defining moments of his career. It's not the exact same as but is similar to saying 'If you left out the called shot...' or 'If you leave out the fact that he broke the color barrier...'
As I mentioned earlier, you are entitled to form your opinion as you see fit. I don't impugn it nor do I endorse it but I always welcome it.
Ted Williams was a great hitter and is most certainly worthy of the title. Ruth is as well.
To me?
Mantle
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Gehrig
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Those 1951 Wheaties premium photos are really affecting your baseball judgement.
I like the 75 topps set the best but you don't see me saying George Brett is the greatest hitter of all time.
@Darin
I'm well aware you prefer a nice piece of Schmidt!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yankee's vs Red Sox........it doesn't get any better than that!
OR convincing a Royals fan that GB was not the finest 3B ever!!!!!
That's incorrect. I believe I am maintaining objectivity. Mashing the ball when it counts matters. Ted Williams was an awesome hitter. Could he hit under pressure? We'll never know because it rarely happened and when it did he did not perform well but the sample size is small.
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
This years Red Sox team is better than this years Yankees team. They play a better brand of baseball and are a more complete team. I'll root like crazy for the Yankees and I don't view the Red Sox as leaps and bounds better but they are a better team, yes. Again, I am a big Yankees fan and they're one of the best teams in baseball...but the Red Sox are doing something historic right now. I love baseball too much to pretend it's not happening. Greatness is greatness.
I just hope they are more 2001 Mariners than 1998 Yankees.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hector Lopez post season stats where better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
I am not adjusting anything for park, era or competition both Mantle and William's careers overlapped for about 10 years.
As sluggers they were close to being equal, when it comes to OB% and BA it's not close. As a wise man recently said "Greatness is greatness". ;-)
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I tried to bring up Walker in the past and was obliterated because he played a little over half of his career in Coors field. He's 12th all time in SLG%, 15th in OPS and 18th in assists as a RF...........achieving it all because of Coors field.
OPS+ says he is the 73rd best hitter even with Coors field and yet he is not HOF worthy? His defense and baserunning were also only good at Coors. Sad he isn't getting the recognition he deserves.
Cheryl Ladd wins it by a...........nose?
It just might have been Ed Mathews,
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
Serious question - Could Ted Williams bunt? I honestly don't know but it is a hitting skill and a valuable one at that. And I still think the value of a switch hitter is being underestimated here - at least in my eyes.
Talking about in a real game here; not a simulation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
You can't go wrong with the Mick! Another thing not mentioned here is that before his knee injuries......Mickey had the fastest time of anyone from left batters box to first!
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
Well you cant argue with that
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
How many times would you have sent him up to do that? Seriously.
He was replaced by a pinch hitter once, however. The guy who had the honor was Carroll Hardy. At the end of Ted's career in 1960, he fouled a ball off his instep and could barely walk. Journeyman player, Carroll Hardy, finished Ted's at batt.
Well, despite Morgan's playing to 39 he only performed in about 400 more games. So he gave his team about three more years of service which is undeniable, but his last seven years (with 1982 excluded) he certainly wasn't much of a hitter, although he still walked a lot and could still steal bases. His OPS over those last seven years was 114, above average but if you are going to play when you are no longer a good hitter (.386 SLG over those years), it SHOULD effect your lifetime totals.
No doubt Joe was a better base runner, but Rogers' SB/CS stats look incomplete and thereby I can't decide if he was THAT bad on the bases. I always have liked hitters over base stealers unless the speed guy has some slug to his game. Hornsby CRUSHES Morgan in that respect. Guys like Morgan certainly help their teams, but still depend on other hitters to drive them in.
Hornsby is an oddity at 2B, as he wasn't a base stealer, but a clean-up type hitter. Certainly appears to me that Hornsby could have put up some good numbers if he had played more when he was player/manager 1932-37. Final full (100 games) season he was at 163.
In general, I'm not convinced that the era had that much to do with it. I thought your + was supposed to take care of that.
OPS+ and WAR seem to have a LOT of flaws. I don't think they work too well when trying to compare players. I'll wait for a better stat.
OPS+ doesn't really have "flaws", it does an outstanding job measuring what it claims to measure, which is how a player did at the plate relative to the other players he was playing against. It's a decent statistic for comparing across eras, but it wasn't intended to be used for that purpose (the "+" is for ballpark effects, not era effects), and the further apart the eras are the worse job OPS+ does.
WAR does have a LOT of flaws; offensive WAR is pretty good, but defensive WAR is next to useless. Win Shares is the best single stat out there (as in, you can buy access to them since they aren't online anywhere for free), but even that stat has its own issues with comparisons across eras, and with defensive measurement. Ultimately, any determination of who was "best" of Hornsby and Morgan, or Ruth and Willams, or Ty Cobb and Gene Tenace is going to involve some assumptions, and some judgment as to what matters most (career, peak, etc.), what is the relative value of offense and defense, what is the overall quality of play in one era vs. another, and many other things. I believe Morgan is the GOAT, but there is no way to prove that he was better than Hornsby (or Collins).
If you'd like, I could explain all of this to you, but finding someone to actually make you understand what I said is the hard part. I will simply repeat that OPS+ measures overall offensive contribution at the plate very well; it makes no effort to measure anything else such as length of career.
All of the HOF players you listed (and Palmeiro) have an OPS+ higher than Tenace for the 5,500 plate appearances that Tenace had, and then significantly more to add beyond that. I've never said Tenace was better than any of them, and if I ever do it will be because I am making fun of you.
The non-HOFers you added:
Fred Lynn - OPS+ 1 point lower than Tenace for comparable PA, then 2,500 more PA with an OPS+ of 114. Better hitter than Tenace. Considering that Tenace was a catcher, the gap between Tenace and Lynn isn't all that big as players.
Don Mattingly - pretty much the same as Lynn. Mattingly had an incredible 4-year run but was nothing special after that.
Buster Posey - no idea why you threw Posey in with these other guys. He's got the one great year six years ago, but other than that he hasn't played as long as Tenace yet, and outside of that one season he's not as good a hitter as Tenace. If he retired today, he would clearly rank behind Tenace as a hitter. His hitting has fallen off so far in recent years that unless he turns that around he'll have to play quite a bit longer than Tenace to catch up to him.
But all you're saying is that you think batting average is what matters most, and that's simply not true; any conclusion that follows from that false premise will be false.
They are about even as hitters so far, but Tenace played longer and Posey's stats are heading downhill. Unless he turns that around, by the time he catches Tenace in career length, Posey will clearly not be as good a hitter as Tenace at that point. If he can continue to be a good hitter, just not as good as Tenace, for long enough beyond that then he'll take the title for himself. I think this is about as straightforward and uncontroversial an analysis as there is.
1970's- We've lost Dallas. He doesn't think rationally when it comes to baseball stats
because give him two players to pick from and he'll choose the one with the lowest
batting average every time. He thinks he's a modern thinker and that batting average
isn't important, so in his zealousness he doesn't compare players objectively.
He starts with a bias towards the player with the lower batting average and then
uses his stupid analysis to try to prove that particular player is better than the one with the higher BA.
That's why his posts on the Schmidt vs. Brett thread should be ignored. His intent is solely to
discredit the player with the higher average, in that case Brett, of course.
In this case, Posey, of course.
And in Dallas' warped mind Mays 1965 season (.317) was better than Williams' 1941 season (.406).
Know why? He says because the 34 year old Mays, who only stole 9 bases, was so much superior
on defense than a 21 year old Ted Williams. HaHa. Everyone knows Mays speed went downhill fast
in his mid thirties and his defense wasn't that great compared to young Mays.
Dallas has become a joke because he can't be objective when analyzing players, his favorite is always
the one with the lowest batting average.
Dallas even likes to get in little 'jabs' at players he thinks are inferior(high batting average guys)
taking a shot at Brett, "The gap between Morgan and Hornsby isn't as large as the gap between
Schmidt and Brett". LOL.
Of course Dallas says Morgan was better than Hornsby, who had the lower batting average by far between the two?
Dallas, when you lose all objectivity, time to quit pretending you're a baseball expert.
I’m not taking sides, but Tenace’s OPS+ is higher than Posey’s. Aren’t you the guy who argued that Brett was better than Schmidt? Talk about not having credibility...
BTW catchers typically do not age well. I hope Buster bucks the trend.
None of the stats you posted are park or era adjusted so all of them are meaningless as comparators. The only stat Tenace wins is OBP, both because of his walks, and because Oakland in the 1970's was the toughest hitters park in the AL. I wish you would just stop posting this crap because it isn't helpful and it just makes it even more difficult to advance the conversation.
And yes, Posey had one great year six years ago and has been trending down steadily since; take away that one great year and he isn't close to as good a hitter as Tenace. If you wanted to address that you would have recalculated all those stats after taking away his one great year; as it is, you haven't even tried to address what I said. If you're waiting for me to do that work for you, you can stop; I'm not going to.
I stand by everything I've said - two or three times now - and until you offer something that addresses my statement I don't know what I'm supposed to do.
I did not say that Posey will decline; go back and read it again if you don't believe me. What I said is that he HAS declined from his one great season, and that IF he continues to decline he has a long way to go to catch Tenace as a hitter. These are facts, and by definition rational.
I have no idea why you posted any of what you posted about Tenace at this or that age; none of it is remotely relevant to anything that I've said. I have addressed ONLY Tenace's career value as a hitter, not his pattern of accumulating that value.
If we accept the laughable premise that All-Star votes mean anything, then you have provided some evidence that Posey is better than Tenace. But I see what you did there, even though I know you don't. I said Tenace was a better hitter than Posey, not that he was a better player than Posey; Posey is a better catcher than Tenace, for which there is much better evidence than All-Star votes. Then you switched back to talking about them as hitters, and laughed at my position even though you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to contradict what I said.
I tried in the Brett thread, and I tried again here. You simply aren't bright enough to carry on a worthwhile debate about baseball. I will not try again.
Based on the stats given. Posey looks better than Tenace to me.
@1970s
Just to chime in - I would take Yadier Molina over Buster Posey at the catcher position in the National League. Posey may be the better hitter but I think Molina is the better total package.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
WHOA! You went too far. Bench is the GOAT as Catcher. Posey doesn't have the power to replace Bench.
There's a lot of OPS+ and WAR going on in your post. You feeling ok?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Problem is two fold here - first, a look at the back of Posey's baseball card to me show a player in steady decline. And if you want to go with framing pitches as the basis of all defense, fine. Blocking balls, throwing out runners (or stopping it simply by putting the gear on), calling a game, knowing opposing hitters - it's more than just pitch framing. Not to mention he's had a better staff (talent wise, in my opinion, anyway) throwing to him most years than Yadier has over the same stretch. And if you like awards, how about 4 Platinum Gloves for Molina (given for the best defender in the sport!) along with his 8 gold gloves? Again, Posey's got the better hitting stats but the margin may not be as great as you believe, with Yadier turning in yet another solid season this year.
Second, I think Buster Posey is going to have the same problem - and suffer the same fate - as Joe Mauer. They've had VERY similar careers (with Posey doing much more winning, of course) but we've already seen the transition to first base begin and if you stop raking AND stop catching? Your catching gets forgotten. Catching saps your legs, your legs provide power and the damge is already done. Both will hit for a high BA (I like it, not everyone does) but Johnny Bench caught his whole career as has Molina. So when all is said and done, it is entirely possible we'll 'forget' Posey was a catcher in the same way we have with Joe Mauer.
By the way, Buster Posey is awesome and I would say very close to a Hall of Famer already. I think Yadier's a lock...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Request for 1970s Posts:
Please let us know which stats we can use, and which are useless. Apparently you are the arbiter of all that is worthwhile. Please cc Bill James, Rob Neyer, Baseball Prospectus, Joe Sheehan, and Baseball-reference.com. We could all benefit from your boundless wisdom. Thanks.
I guess your response means you are not going to answer my question. Perhaps you should pay more attention to bowling. Maybe you would embarrass yourself less there than you do here. Assuming, of course, that you are capable of embarrassment.
Because Buster Posey, sadly, is not scotch. He's not getting better from here on out. And to my eyes, he's lost a lot of power from his swing. The numbers may or may not bear that out but I trust what I see...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Leave my name out of yout juvenile name callings.
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.
As lame as your riduculous name callings and the gifs you feel the need to paste in every post.
There is spirited debate in this forum at times, but you have brought the level of discourse here to a new low. I'm not going to engage with you any further and respectfully request that you leave my name out of your posts.
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.