From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Best playes of All Time
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:24:41 GMT

In article <BzLG6v.Gxy@unix.amherst.edu> ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL) writes:
>The reasons why

>on the bench
>1B Greenberg, Foxx- definately better than McCovey.  Look at lifetime stats,
>	year by year comparisons and the fact that these two guys were the
>	impact players that McCovey never could be.

My books are packed right now, so I can't look at thte stats, but have *you*
looked at league stats for the 30's and the 60's-70's?  McCovey played
against tougher competition -- and in tougher home parks, too.  Tiger,
Shibe, and Fenway were not exactly bad for the hitter.

As for being an impact player, I seem to recall McCovey making an impact
here or there.  (Three feet higher and you wouldn't say that!  8-)  )

>2B Carew- he won how many batting titles?  Much better than Morgan.  I think

Only if batting average makes a great player.  

Which it doesn't.  

For one thing, Morgan actually played 2B for most of his career, which
is more than we can say for Carew.  

For another, Morgan hit homers, stole bases, and walked.  He got on base
more than Carew did in many years, and outslugged him by a fair amount,
too.  

Over a six-year period (1972-77), Morgan dominated his league as few 
hitters have done in recent times; only Mike Schmidt has done so since.
On a team with Bench, Perez, and Rose, Morgan had a higher SLG *and*
a higher OBA than any of them over that time.  (And stole about 60
bases a year into the bargain.)

>	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.

Carew's speed?  When we're talking about Morgan?  Morgan was one of the 
best, and certainly one of the smartest, baserunners of all time.

As for being the best hitter of his day, well, Ralph Garr used to hit
a ton, too.  In terms of average, that is.

>RP Gossage- I always liked the Goose.  His fastball was unhittable in his peak
>	years, clocked at 100 mph.

I like him too!  But Fingers practically invented modern relieving, and 
had more than the heater.  (*Lots* of pitchers get clocked around
100 mph; but some of them also get clocked.)

>SP Ryan, Feller- nobody was ever as dominating in their pitching as the two
>of them (and Koufax but he's beyond argument)  These guys had amazing
>speed.  If not for WWII Feller would have had some more amazing years.

I always thought the point of pitching was to get the opposing batters
out and keep them from scoring, not to throw the ball fast.

As for dominating, what do you call Grove, who used to win the ERA title
almost every year?  (He won 300 and lost 141; how many has Ryan lost
in winning 300?)  

Koufax was wonderful for five years; many pitchers have been almost as 
good for far longer. Which do you pick?  (Hint: Feller walked a *lot*
of batters, and lost a lot of games when he wasn't in his prime.)

>Clearly the dominant pitchers of their eras though.

Oh, come *on*!  Ryan more dominant than Seaver?  Than Carlton?  Pitching
and K'ing are two different things.  One can lead to the other, but
K's are not enough.  Ryan is very good, but not awesome like Seaver.

As for Feller in his prime, there were other good pitchers, too.  

>As for the catchers- Harnett had the power and average that most players in the
>NL at that time didn't have.  

He also had Wrigley Field and a *league* that batted as high as .300.
Just picking numbers out of a book isn't going to tell you much.

>I wouldn't say that Carter, Lombardi, Fisk were on hids level.  

Why not?  Remember that Carter spent his entire career in neutral-to-bad
hitters' parks.  Fisk was very good for a very long time.  I don't see
Hartnett having more power than they did.

>The others sure were but none were significantly better or worse.  

Bench: revolutionized catching defense; one of the best hitters in
his time.

Cochrane: big offensive force; player-manager; excellent defense,

Campanella, Berra: 3 MVP each, all deserved.

Hartnett was a lifetime .300 hitter in a time when the *league* batted
about .280.  LOTS of players had his power and average; he was never
even the best hitter on his team.

>This position was the hardest call for me.  As for Dickey, I think
>that he was better than any other Yankee catcher (Yogi, Elston Howard, Thurmon 
>Munson to name a few).  He had an amazing bat and knew how to control
>the ball game.  

What was so amazing about his bat?  He was never more than the third-best 
hitter on the team.  Usually below that.

Berra's bat was pretty amazing, too, in a more difficult era for hitters.
FAR more power than Dickey.  And are yu going to sit there and tell me 
that Berra couldn't control a game?  He called more great games than
just about anyone else -- and *nobody* played in more WS games and 
acquitted himself with more distinction.

>A real staying power for the Yankees that was on the team from
>the late 20's till the early 40's so that he could help with the transition
>from Ruth to Gehrig to DiMaggio.  A true Hall of Famer.

Berra helped to make the transition from Joe D to the *end* of the years
of Mantle's greatness.  When he went, the Yankees were gone.  As for staying
power, Berra played well over 300 games more than Dickey.

>I tried to include only 25 people onto my team to make it a bit more
>realistic in terms of team size.  Sure the case could be made for Musial,
>Hielman, Speaker, Seaver, Vaughn and Collins but I didn't have room for them.

Heilmann for batting average again, right?  He's not in my top 50.



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball