 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Who is the best player of all time?
Duff77
Clemente. I'd much rather have a guy like Clemente in the outfield. Obviously Clemente was not the hitter Williams was, but defense and baserunning are two of those things that don't show up so easily in the stats. Williams put more runs on the board, but Clemente took a way a whole lot--and in the end it's about scoring more runs than the other guy, no matter how you manage it.
The trouble with defense is for the most part, it's not quantifiable. There's no accurate way to judge how many runs a fielder saved in comparision to some other fielder in the same situation. But nonetheless, I believe the impact is huge.
Say Clemente is in left (I know he played right, but whatever). The batter is...Derek Jeter. There's a fairly hard hit ball toward the corner, and he (or Mays, or Andruw Jones, or whatever great outfielder we're talking about) makes a nice running grab. It's out #1. The next two batters make outs and the inning is over.
Swap Clemente with Williams, or some lesser figure. On the same ball, Williams plays it cleanly, but it's still a leadoff double. The next batter is Sheffield, and the pitcher gets a little nervous with Jeter at second, so he walks him. Then Giambi comes up with two on and nobody out, and hits a three-run homer.
In that scenerio, Clemente's nice running grab saved three runs, and there's absolutely no way to know about it. I think stuff like that is going on all the time without our knowledge. It's hard to judge the total impact but it makes the point: The guys who meant the most to wins and losses were the guys who did it all.
Best play of all time then? Probably Mays.
August 07, 2004 at 04:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
Hitting is much more important than defense or baserunning ability. Would you rather have Ted Williams or Roberto Clemente?
Clemente. I'd much rather have a guy like Clemente in the outfield. Obviously Clemente was not the hitter Williams was, but defense and baserunning are two of those things that don't show up so easily in the stats. Williams put more runs on the board, but Clemente took a way a whole lot--and in the end it's about scoring more runs than the other guy, no matter how you manage it.
The trouble with defense is for the most part, it's not quantifiable. There's no accurate way to judge how many runs a fielder saved in comparision to some other fielder in the same situation. But nonetheless, I believe the impact is huge.
Say Clemente is in left (I know he played right, but whatever). The batter is...Derek Jeter. There's a fairly hard hit ball toward the corner, and he (or Mays, or Andruw Jones, or whatever great outfielder we're talking about) makes a nice running grab. It's out #1. The next two batters make outs and the inning is over.
Swap Clemente with Williams, or some lesser figure. On the same ball, Williams plays it cleanly, but it's still a leadoff double. The next batter is Sheffield, and the pitcher gets a little nervous with Jeter at second, so he walks him. Then Giambi comes up with two on and nobody out, and hits a three-run homer.
In that scenerio, Clemente's nice running grab saved three runs, and there's absolutely no way to know about it. I think stuff like that is going on all the time without our knowledge. It's hard to judge the total impact but it makes the point: The guys who meant the most to wins and losses were the guys who did it all.
Best play of all time then? Probably Mays.
arodtoo
August 07, 2004 at 04:53PM View BBCode
i would rather have clemente, attitude counts for a lot. how many championships did williams win with his might bat? while clemente had solid production and won WS, and had a great team attitude
happy
I would rather have Ted Williams BY FAR, not even close.
Defense matters, but not even close to as much as hitting. Sure you can come up with a situation where he saves a few runs, but Williams was MUCH better than Clemente.
August 07, 2004 at 05:25PM View BBCode
And i think you guys are both morons.I would rather have Ted Williams BY FAR, not even close.
Defense matters, but not even close to as much as hitting. Sure you can come up with a situation where he saves a few runs, but Williams was MUCH better than Clemente.
ME
That statement is meaningless.
More Championships = He was on better teams. Championships are a very poor measure of indivdual ability. Todd Hollandsworth also has more championships than Ted Williams, and he sucks.
Attitude - Who's to say Clemente had a great attitude and Williams didn't? Even if Clemente did, how did that transfer into winning more games? The Bronz Zoo had little chemistry and they were a great team. Attitude plays a very small (if any) role in how many games a team wins. Of course, players tend to be in better moods when they are on good teams.
August 07, 2004 at 05:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by arodtoo
i would rather have clemente, attitude counts for a lot. how many championships did williams win with his might bat? while clemente had solid production and won WS, and had a great team attitude
That statement is meaningless.
More Championships = He was on better teams. Championships are a very poor measure of indivdual ability. Todd Hollandsworth also has more championships than Ted Williams, and he sucks.
Attitude - Who's to say Clemente had a great attitude and Williams didn't? Even if Clemente did, how did that transfer into winning more games? The Bronz Zoo had little chemistry and they were a great team. Attitude plays a very small (if any) role in how many games a team wins. Of course, players tend to be in better moods when they are on good teams.
whiskybear
For the record, Williams created 2357 runs to Clemente's 1630. The objective IS to score more runs than the other guy, and Williams had a hand in scoring about 700 more than Clemente. Sure, Clemente's range and arm had a hand in saving some runs, but not 700. Your Jeter scenario w/ Clemente v. Williams is a little best case/worst case. There's a chance Clemente gets the first out, then Sheffield and Giambi go back-to-back, or that the pitcher settles down with Jeter on second and gets the next three out. And again, most balls to the outfield are routine fly balls, or hits that would be out of anyone's range. On very few plays will there be a measurable difference between a Williams and a Clemente.
I love Roberto. He was a sensational player, and I think a more exciting player than Williams. But he was not more valuable.
August 07, 2004 at 06:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Williams put more runs on the board, but Clemente took a way a whole lot--and in the end it's about scoring more runs than the other guy, no matter how you manage it.
For the record, Williams created 2357 runs to Clemente's 1630. The objective IS to score more runs than the other guy, and Williams had a hand in scoring about 700 more than Clemente. Sure, Clemente's range and arm had a hand in saving some runs, but not 700. Your Jeter scenario w/ Clemente v. Williams is a little best case/worst case. There's a chance Clemente gets the first out, then Sheffield and Giambi go back-to-back, or that the pitcher settles down with Jeter on second and gets the next three out. And again, most balls to the outfield are routine fly balls, or hits that would be out of anyone's range. On very few plays will there be a measurable difference between a Williams and a Clemente.
I love Roberto. He was a sensational player, and I think a more exciting player than Williams. But he was not more valuable.
Oak_qx2
I would much, MUCH, rather have Williams over Clemente.
August 07, 2004 at 07:10PM View BBCode
My quick but not very eloquent opinion:I would much, MUCH, rather have Williams over Clemente.
el_Tigre
August 07, 2004 at 07:52PM View BBCode
And what about this much more pertinent question...........Princess Leia or Queen Amidala???
whiskybear
August 07, 2004 at 08:28PM View BBCode
Actually, the best player of all time is Boba Fett.
JLlamas
August 07, 2004 at 09:15PM View BBCode
Clemente, attitude counts for a lot more than people think, it can bring the whole teams morale up and get them to rally and win more games.
whiskybear
3-for-5 with 2 RBI and a run scored, on the other hand...
August 07, 2004 at 09:24PM View BBCode
Sure attitude counts. But not in the box score.3-for-5 with 2 RBI and a run scored, on the other hand...
Duff77
So I stick with Mays, who did it all.
August 08, 2004 at 12:42AM View BBCode
Damn you people. You always do this to me. Okay so Williams is more valuable than Clemente. That wasn't my point. My point was defense is too highly undervalued, and it's undervalued because you can't prove negatives. I'm not saying you can't send out eight terrible fielders who hate each other and win. You can, especially if those eight guys hit a ton. I'm saying the benefit of good defense doesn't show up easily in the stats, and is undervalued in these types of discussions.So I stick with Mays, who did it all.
ME
Name one study that shows that attitude plays any factor in teams playing better. I could argue that it doesn't because with a team of jerks they try harder in order to outplay their teamates whom they hate.
Defense - it is quantifiable, although it is difficult to do so. In Moneyball they describe how they created a program which emulates ball velocity and player ranges in order to determine what value defense has. There are also range factors, which determine how many balls players get to. Range factors are flawed, but give a good estimate of how good a player is at defense. In the end, offense is much more important than defense, especially at corner outfield positions.
August 08, 2004 at 01:04AM View BBCode
Originally posted by JLlamas
Clemente, attitude counts for a lot more than people think, it can bring the whole teams morale up and get them to rally and win more games.
Name one study that shows that attitude plays any factor in teams playing better. I could argue that it doesn't because with a team of jerks they try harder in order to outplay their teamates whom they hate.
Defense - it is quantifiable, although it is difficult to do so. In Moneyball they describe how they created a program which emulates ball velocity and player ranges in order to determine what value defense has. There are also range factors, which determine how many balls players get to. Range factors are flawed, but give a good estimate of how good a player is at defense. In the end, offense is much more important than defense, especially at corner outfield positions.
arodtoo
August 08, 2004 at 01:06AM View BBCode
attitude adds to chemisty and chemistry can overcome talent(case in point lakers vs. Detroit) also clemente's career was cut short. Williams's attitude was documented, hje started to soften up later in his career, but he was usually stand offish from team mates, and was kind of a jerk earlier in his career. none the less he is still one of the top 10 players to eve grace the earth. Best player ever is satchel paige! he could pithc when he was 50 and still get MLB hitters out, amazing
ME
Clemente was 38 when he died, so he had at most a few good seasons left in him. Williams fought in world war 2 during his prime so both lost a few years from their overall potential had nothing else inteferred.
August 08, 2004 at 01:26AM View BBCode
Basketball is a different game, it involves far more teamwork than baseball. In baseball there isn't much teamwork, most plays are ones that you have to do, such as a SS throwing to first, the SS is gonna do it even if he is black and Ty Cobb is covering first.Clemente was 38 when he died, so he had at most a few good seasons left in him. Williams fought in world war 2 during his prime so both lost a few years from their overall potential had nothing else inteferred.
Duff77
As far as attitude, clutch, etc... My personal belief is that it is the deciding factor in ten or less games over the course of a season. Most of the time, raw talent is going to do the job. But in a few games it might make a difference, and in certain situations a few games make the difference. This is especially true during the playoffs. It's not to say a team with lousy attitude can't win it all. Even the Braves won a World Series. But I still believe it makes a difference, however small it might be.
August 08, 2004 at 01:47AM View BBCode
Well, I still disagree about outfield corner defense. What no stat can quanity is what would've happened in any particular inning had a certain play not been made. A leadoff double in front of a big slugger completely changes the dynamic of the whole inning. You're not just talking about a single guy at second base. You might be talking about five or six runs. There's no real way to know.As far as attitude, clutch, etc... My personal belief is that it is the deciding factor in ten or less games over the course of a season. Most of the time, raw talent is going to do the job. But in a few games it might make a difference, and in certain situations a few games make the difference. This is especially true during the playoffs. It's not to say a team with lousy attitude can't win it all. Even the Braves won a World Series. But I still believe it makes a difference, however small it might be.
skierdude44
The Bronx Zoo didnt get along very well but one of the reasons they won was ATTITUDE. Reggie wanted to prove that he was better than Thurman Munson and that he was more of a leader. Thurman was the leader and didnt want to be out done by Reggie. Billy Martin also refused to lose and didnt want to be undermined by his players or by George Steinbrenner. Steinbrenner wanted to prove that he was in charge and wanted to win more than anything. None of the players on the team wanted to look foolish or be out done by their other teammates so for example when Munson went up and hit a homer Reggie came up wanting to do the same and out do Thurman if possible.
I believe that attitude has a lot to do with how good a team is, but I am not a big believer in chemstry. I think that as long as a team can function even if the teammates dislike eachother, much like the Bronx Zoo situation, they can still win. But I think that a "winning" attitude is what makes winning teams. One of the greatest all time "winners" is Derek Jeter (and know Im not making a case for him to be the best ever). In 1995 he came up and the Yankees made it to their first playoffs in Mattingly's time with the team. In 1996 they won their first championship since the late 70's or early 80's and continued to win. He was the reason they won the July 1st game against the Red Sox because his teammates refused to lose when the saw him make the game saving catch and then dive into the stands and I think he fired them up even more when he told them that he was gonna play the very next day as he was being helped off the field. The game before that Sheffield delivered a game winning double. He got down in the count 0-2 but fouled off 7 or 8 pitches and swung at everything from pitches over his head to ones at his ankles. He was up there hacking and was determined not to strikeout, and you could tell it. There was a man on third and he was determined to bring him in. After fouling off several pitches he ripped a double down the left field line. You could tell that he wasnt going to strikeout, he just wouldnt allow himself to. Things like that separate good teams and good players from great teams and great players.
Also there are many little things that dont show up in the boxscore that can make the difference in a game and in many games throughout the season. Things like going from first to third on a single or just very simple things like knowing when to let a ball roll foul and when to pick it up and make a play can be the difference in the game. I would rather have a player that is good in all or most dimensions of the game over a player that can only do one thing well, even if that player is the best at that one thing he does well. Its simple really, baseball is not a one dimensional game so why fill your team with one dimensional players?
August 08, 2004 at 02:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
The Bronz Zoo had little chemistry and they were a great team. Attitude plays a very small (if any) role in how many games a team wins. Of course, players tend to be in better moods when they are on good teams.
The Bronx Zoo didnt get along very well but one of the reasons they won was ATTITUDE. Reggie wanted to prove that he was better than Thurman Munson and that he was more of a leader. Thurman was the leader and didnt want to be out done by Reggie. Billy Martin also refused to lose and didnt want to be undermined by his players or by George Steinbrenner. Steinbrenner wanted to prove that he was in charge and wanted to win more than anything. None of the players on the team wanted to look foolish or be out done by their other teammates so for example when Munson went up and hit a homer Reggie came up wanting to do the same and out do Thurman if possible.
I believe that attitude has a lot to do with how good a team is, but I am not a big believer in chemstry. I think that as long as a team can function even if the teammates dislike eachother, much like the Bronx Zoo situation, they can still win. But I think that a "winning" attitude is what makes winning teams. One of the greatest all time "winners" is Derek Jeter (and know Im not making a case for him to be the best ever). In 1995 he came up and the Yankees made it to their first playoffs in Mattingly's time with the team. In 1996 they won their first championship since the late 70's or early 80's and continued to win. He was the reason they won the July 1st game against the Red Sox because his teammates refused to lose when the saw him make the game saving catch and then dive into the stands and I think he fired them up even more when he told them that he was gonna play the very next day as he was being helped off the field. The game before that Sheffield delivered a game winning double. He got down in the count 0-2 but fouled off 7 or 8 pitches and swung at everything from pitches over his head to ones at his ankles. He was up there hacking and was determined not to strikeout, and you could tell it. There was a man on third and he was determined to bring him in. After fouling off several pitches he ripped a double down the left field line. You could tell that he wasnt going to strikeout, he just wouldnt allow himself to. Things like that separate good teams and good players from great teams and great players.
Also there are many little things that dont show up in the boxscore that can make the difference in a game and in many games throughout the season. Things like going from first to third on a single or just very simple things like knowing when to let a ball roll foul and when to pick it up and make a play can be the difference in the game. I would rather have a player that is good in all or most dimensions of the game over a player that can only do one thing well, even if that player is the best at that one thing he does well. Its simple really, baseball is not a one dimensional game so why fill your team with one dimensional players?
ME
August 08, 2004 at 02:51AM View BBCode
because not all "dimentions" are equal. hitting is way more important than defense or speed. a player's total value is the combination of all these things, but some carry far greater weight than others.
happy
August 08, 2004 at 03:53AM View BBCode
Anyone who picked Clemente over Williams is about to get added to my "moron list." Dont be sad, im probably on it too.
FuriousGiorge
August 08, 2004 at 05:49AM View BBCode
Clemente over Williams definitely goes on the old "tard list". Come on, use your brain, that's what it's there for.
arodtoo
August 08, 2004 at 05:52AM View BBCode
okay, better question, paige or any other pitcher who ever lived. i woudl take paige, he could still mow down mlb hitters at 50, and was marvelous in the negro leagues, and mlb scouts and players said he woudl of been a star in the majors
whiskybear
August 09, 2004 at 01:21AM View BBCode
Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Koufax for sheer dominance, however brief, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux. That is the best five-man rotation of all time.
arodtoo
August 09, 2004 at 01:23AM View BBCode
take paige over maddux, no question, paige over grove also.
whiskybear
:lol: Have you seen Grove's numbers at the dawn of the live ball era?
Satch was great (none of us will ever know how great). We'll also never know how well he would have done against major league hitting while still in his prime. And we'll never know how Grove would have done in an integrated league--but at least we know how he did in the majors of his time.
To say that Paige mowed guys down when he did arrive in his 40s is a bit of a reach. He put up good numbers while pitching primarily as a reliever, but he wasn't unbelievable.
http://www.baseballreference.com/p/paigesa01.shtml
Satch is top ten. Hell, he even gets a spot as the closer on my Legends staff. But I'll take the known quantities over the scouting reports.
And Ted Williams is still better than Roberto Clemente. :D
August 09, 2004 at 01:46AM View BBCode
Originally posted by arodtoo
take paige over maddux, no question, paige over grove also.
:lol: Have you seen Grove's numbers at the dawn of the live ball era?
Satch was great (none of us will ever know how great). We'll also never know how well he would have done against major league hitting while still in his prime. And we'll never know how Grove would have done in an integrated league--but at least we know how he did in the majors of his time.
To say that Paige mowed guys down when he did arrive in his 40s is a bit of a reach. He put up good numbers while pitching primarily as a reliever, but he wasn't unbelievable.
http://www.baseballreference.com/p/paigesa01.shtml
Satch is top ten. Hell, he even gets a spot as the closer on my Legends staff. But I'll take the known quantities over the scouting reports.
And Ted Williams is still better than Roberto Clemente. :D
arodtoo
August 09, 2004 at 01:51AM View BBCode
at 47 years old he had a 3.53 era, and the year before a 3.07, if he can put those numbers up at 46 and 47, i am willing to stake my life that he could of thrown better than grive or maddux ever did or will. yeah they might of been in relief, but i bet that grove or maddux won't be able to get that kind of era when they were/are 47. even major leaguers who played exhibitions said he woudl be a star includong mlb scouts. personally by seeing what he did earlier in life, i am willing to believe the scouting report. him over maddux is an easy choice, over grove it gets a bit harder, but i still owuld give paige the edge in his prime