From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Best playes of All Time
Date: 22 Dec 1992 15:40:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.151340.4511@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>  
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
> In <1992Dec22.065151.11682@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> >In article <BzLG6v.Gxy@unix.amherst.edu> ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu  
(D. DANIEL SOKOL) writes:
> 
> >>2B Carew- he won how many batting titles?  Much better than  
Morgan.  I think
> >>	that he was the best hitter of his day although I can't say  
the same
> >>	for his defense.  His bat and speed more than make up for  
this
> >>	shortcoming though.
> > 
> >Of course, the object of the game of baseball is not to get hits  
in a
> >high percentage of at bats.  It's to score a lot of runs.  And  
Morgan
> >helped his team do that more than Carew did.  Superficially, they  
had
> >similar stats, but Morgan compiled a large number of his in the  
Astrodome.
> 
> Nonsense.  The object is to collect rings.  And you do that, not by  
scoring
> "a lot of runs", but by scoring more than the other guys.  Morgan  
helped 
> the Reds do that.  He was by far the better player.

The way to score more than the other player is to score lots
of runs, at least when you are talking about offense (no second
baseman has control over how well the pitcher pitches, and with
the excpetion of amazing folks like Bill Mazeroski, few play
defense that is SO far above league average to make up for large
differences in offense).  But, as you said, Morgan was by far
the better player.

>  
> >long time.  He's a certain Hall of Famer.  But he has rarely, if  
ever,
> >been the best pitcher in the league.  Certainly not for more than  
1 year
> >in a row.  
> 
> Where the hell is Steve Carlton?  Why isn't he on any of these  
lists?
> 

But he doesn't match the criteria you yourself stated earlier
in this post of collecting a lot of rings.  Of course this
also means we might not want to put folks like Ted Williams
on the list, at least based on that criteria.  

In any case, several people DID suggest Carlton for the lists,
though, good as he was, I don't think he was one of the 3 or
4 best pitchers ever. (Though he was better than Ryan who,
though very good, may be the most overrated pitcher of 
all time.)

A final note: the pitcher Bill James raises as very underrated and
due a lot more acclaim than he got was Juan Marichal. For some
reason, Marichal got a reputation for winning against weak teams.
James checked the box scores and found that this just wasn't true.
Marichal did very well against very good teams, and was right up 
there with Koufax as the best pitcher of the 1960s.  James
claims he was better than Drysdale and Gibson.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

From: lynch@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Howard Lynch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:04:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Which baseball publication is the best one to subscribe to?
Organization: OCD IC MFG