|
Post by Rog on Mar 1, 2014 14:03:15 GMT -5
An argument was made here a couple of years ago that because of a lack of superstars, today's game isn't as good as it used to be. The counterpoint was made at that time that as a game evolves, it because harder to stand out by more. Think Wilt Chamberlain. Think Babe Ruth.
Another counterpoint that was made was that we didn't even know some of the guys who would soon become superstars. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty who either already are or seem good candidates to become so. Let's take a look:
Starting pitchers -- Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson might each be in the top 10 of all time. A strong argument can be made that Clayton Kershaw is already the best pitcher of all time for his young age.
Relief pitchers -- Mariano Rivera is the Babe Ruth of closers, and I'm not sure any reliever has ever gotten his career off to the same great start as Craig Kimbrel. Trevor Hoffman wasn't too bad either.
Catchers -- Mike Piazza was likely the best-hitting catcher of all time, and Buster Posey and Joe Mauer may be in the ballpark. Posey and Mauer have been pretty decent defenders, as well. Ivan Rodriguez was pretty good all-around.
1B -- For 10 years, Albert Pujols was among the best right-handed hitters of all time. The same is true of Miguel Cabrera, for an even longer period.
2B -- Robinson Cano will likely rank among the all-time greats. Until suffering through injuries, Chase Utley was also in the ballpark.
SS -- Over the years he played shortstop, Alex Rodriguez might have been the best shortstop every aside from Honus Wagner -- and he appears to have been the better fielder of the two. Derek Jeter will go down with the all-time great shortstops. When healthy, Troy Tulowitzki has about as good a combination of average, power and fielding as any shortstop.
3B -- Unless we consider Cabrera here, not too much happening here in terms of being the best ever. And Cabrera, of course, is limited by his fielding. That said, Adrian Beltre and Evan Longoria are likely to become strong Hall of Fame candidates.
LF -- Barry Bonds might be the best all-around left fielder to play the game. Certainly he is easily the best combination of home runs, walks, stolen bases, Gold Gloves and MVP's.
CF -- I believe Mike Trout is off to the best start of any player his age ever. If he stays healthy, he might ultimately be mentioned with Willie Mays. Andrew McCutcheon might wind up a pretty good all-around center fielder too. I can't remember his name, and I think he will play right field, the top prospect in the minors right now is said to be so good that he might be mentioned as the Mays comparision to Trout's Mantle.
RF -- The guy I mentioned above and Bryce Harper appear to have the potential to among the greats, but they have a long way to go before they sleep.
Others may mention players I have left out. There is likely one or two obvious ones I missed. But the point is, today's game isn't without its stars. Many of the players mentioned above are still playing -- many of them early in their careers -- and all played a fair amount in the 21st century.
This is a good time to be a baseball fan. Not all the guys mentioned above will pan out, but many of them will. And many of them already have.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 3, 2014 22:17:38 GMT -5
It's an interesting argument. I think today's players don't hold the magic of the old timers because they're overexposed. Every game is on tv. You certainly didn't see Mays and Mantle 162 times a year, so it was special when you did. Also very few players have unique styles anymore. Most of today's players are steeped in solid fundamentals, while players like Mays, Clemente, Berra, Marichal, Rose, etc, had their own style. Also, steroids play a big part. It's hard to think of someone as a superstar when you know they've cheated
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 2:02:31 GMT -5
Allen -- Most of today's players are steeped in solid fundamentals, while players like Mays, Clemente, Berra, Marichal, Rose, etc, had their own style. Rog -- Maybe I'm confusing baseball with basketball, but isn't one of the arguments AGAINST today's game that the players don't know the fundamentals? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2uyVh1Oqo
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 4, 2014 10:23:37 GMT -5
I think we're talking about two different things, though they both could be called fundamentals I guess. What I'm speaking of, is that most players have the fundamentals of the swing or pitching motion down. For the most part it's hard to tell one player from another in that regard. Where they lack is knowing the fundamentals of game strategy, when to bunt, what base to throw yo, cutoffs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 12:11:52 GMT -5
Allen -- I think we're talking about two different things, though they both could be called fundamentals I guess. What I'm speaking of, is that most players have the fundamentals of the swing or pitching motion down. For the most part it's hard to tell one player from another in that regard. Where they lack is knowing the fundamentals of game strategy, when to bunt, what base to throw yo, cutoffs, etc. Rog -- Now I understand what you're saying here. My own definition of fundamentals concurs with your second definition. I usually call the first either technique or mechanics. Here's something to think about though. If today's players have better technique or mechanics, wouldn't that contribute to their being better players on average than those who don't have technique that is as good? What I'm saying here is that it's hard for me to think that bigger, faster players who benefit from advanced nutrition and training techniques, scouting and analytics and who have better technique when they play the game aren't better as a group as those who are smaller, slower, less well-nutritioned and trained players who benefit from less sophisticated scouting and analytics, and have less perfect techniques for playing the game. Especially when the game has now become international. We have gone from white players to adding black players to adding Latin American players to adding Asian players. The talent pool has never been as large or -- as you mention -- enjoyed such good technique. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2v0xkpwVG
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 12:19:09 GMT -5
In answer to your question as to when to bunt, two things:
First, I think that is primarily the manager's decision. Second, I can answer that question rather simply with one word: Seldom.
You mention relay and cutoff plays, and I can't really answer that one for sure. Were the old "fundamentals" truly better, or do we simply remember them that way?
I do know that the two World Series relay plays that come to my mind are the spectacular Derek Jeter relay against the A's, and the impressive Blanco to 2nd cutoff man Scutaro to Posey against the Tigers.
By the way, did you know Roberto Clemente often overthrew the cutoff man? Clearly if anyone was going to be hurt less by doing so, that would be Roberto. While his arm was very strong and accurate, with a very quick release, the arm wasn't very fundamental.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 4, 2014 16:31:49 GMT -5
I don't know. Players who developed their own style seemed to do pretty well with it. Willie's basket catch, and not really using the base coaches, Juan's high leg kick, Musial's stance, Clemente's swing. Alot of these guys learned these traits on their own. Now the coaching and technique seem more uniform. You don't see many players who's technique is just fundamentally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 4, 2014 18:25:21 GMT -5
I don't know. Players who developed their own style seemed to do pretty well with it. Willie's basket catch, and not really using the base coaches, Juan's high leg kick, Musial's stance, Clemente's swing. Alot of these guys learned these traits on their own. Now the coaching and technique seem more uniform. You don't see many players who's technique is just fundamentally wrong. dk...Happy birthday, Mel Ott...Mel was so unorthodox with his swing but he had a manager who knew that the swing fit his body and he refused to let the 17 year old to be sent to the minors because he didn.t want that swing to be changed...people always remark about his high leg kick, but the thing that made it different was how far down he dropped his hands as his leg went up...Posey has a moderate leg kick, but most managers want the hitters to keep their hands quiet...
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 4, 2014 18:41:15 GMT -5
I re seemember the A's making a pretty good relay in the 74 series to nail Bill Buckner at third. Jackson-Green-Bando, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 4:38:42 GMT -5
Allen -- I don't know. Players who developed their own style seemed to do pretty well with it. Willie's basket catch, and not really using the base coaches, Juan's high leg kick, Musial's stance, Clemente's swing. Alot of these guys learned these traits on their own. Now the coaching and technique seem more uniform. You don't see many players who's technique is just fundamentally wrong. Rog -- I believe Boly will tell you that's a GOOD thing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2v4zoqAeV
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 4:46:40 GMT -5
And don't forget Tinkers to Evers to Chance. By the way, the number of double plays they turned is remarkably low for their reputation.
With regard to Don's comment that Mel Ott dropped his hands down as he high-stepped into a pitch, isn't it better to keep the hands ABOVE the ball prior to contact than to have them below it? Kind of the opposite of keeping your glove down on a ground ball?
I have wondered for a while now if old-time batters who hit with their hands low could catch up to today's fastballs. I'm sure Don will give us his take, and I would be curious to get Boly's take as well. Or anyone else, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 11:14:26 GMT -5
With regard to Don's comment that Mel Ott dropped his hands down as he high-stepped into a pitch, isn't it better to keep the hands ABOVE the ball prior to contact than to have them below it? Kind of the opposite of keeping your glove down on a ground ball?
I have wondered for a while now if old-time batters who hit with their hands low could catch up to today's fastballs. I'm sure Don will give us his take, and I would be curious to get Boly's take as well. Or anyone else, for that matter.
---boly says---
the hands MUST be above the ball, or at the very least, at the top of the strike zone NOT to have an upper cut.
From the videos I've seen, Ott DID drop his hands... BUT... he got them into proper hitting position prior to the arrival of the ball, thus avoiding a massive upper cut.
He may have had one of the largest hitches I've ever seen.
boly
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 11:22:59 GMT -5
There are a large number of components that go into being a good hitter.
Balance, hand-to-eye-coordination, weight shift, eye sight, hip rotation, to just name a few.
But the one that always gets left off the list, but, in my opinion, is at least equally important is that the hitter must be COMFORTABLE with what ever stance or approach he uses.
If the hitter isn't comfortable, everything else is moot.
As a kid, my coaches and step father tried to beat into me to "find one stance and stay with it."
But I couldn't. Whatever stance I used, after a while, it simply wasn't comfortable. I wanted to change, but they discouraged that.
It wasn't until Rod Carew ADMITTED how often HE changed stances because he wasn't comfortable, that it became an "okay" thing to do.
Thus, Musial's "looking around the corner" set up was comfortable for him.
Willie's hands down, hands up and back, was comfortable for him.
Some guys can find one stance and stay with it, but not everyone.
Thus, I've come to the conclusion that the stance is irrelevant so long as the hands, bat, eyes and body are in a good hitting position when the ball gets there.
Problem is, some of the techniques used to GET the bat into position are difficult to maintain as a hitter gets older. Yaz, for example, and thus, hitters have to adjust to age.
boly
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 12:31:00 GMT -5
And don't forget Tinkers to Evers to Chance. By the way, the number of double plays they turned is remarkably low for their reputation. With regard to Don's comment that Mel Ott dropped his hands down as he high-stepped into a pitch, isn't it better to keep the hands ABOVE the ball prior to contact than to have them below it? Kind of the opposite of keeping your glove down on a ground ball? I have wondered for a while now if old-time batters who hit with their hands low could catch up to today's fastballs. I'm sure Don will give us his take, and I would be curious to get Boly's take as well. Or anyone else, for that matter. dk..Ott dropped his hands before his swing, his hands were back up when he made contact...many long ball hitters were known to uppercut their swing...place hitters chopped down....
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 13:34:29 GMT -5
dk..Ott dropped his hands before his swing, his hands were back up when he made contact...many long ball hitters were known to uppercut their swing...place hitters chopped down....
---boly says---
I think that, in general, most hitters have a 'tad' of an upper cut, especially power hitters.
It creates backspin upon contact, and 'can' cause the ball to travel further.
I say "can" because too much of an upper cut causes useless pop flies or simply lazy fly balls.
you don't find many guys today who hit like Matty Alou in his prime. The Harry Walker, chop-down-on-the-ball style.
I'm guessing young players don't see 'big bucks' in the future for a ground ball hitter.
boly
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 14:32:23 GMT -5
I think the batters of my youth...'30's and '40's... varied their stances and swings to match the pitchers they faced, or the circumstances of the game....Hitters moved up in the box against slower pitchers and back against fast ball pitchers...hitters opened or closed their stances, etc....the thing rarely seen today was the hitter moving his rear foot when the pitcher goes into motion in order to hit to the opposite field...or opening his stance to pull...
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 15:45:46 GMT -5
Boly -- There are a large number of components that go into being a good hitter. Balance, hand-to-eye-coordination, weight shift, eye sight, hip rotation, to just name a few. Rog -- Not because of our Bonds/DiMaggio discussion, but man, when I read the above, Barry Bonds immediately sprung into my mind. I would be intrigued to hear you critique Barry's swing, since IMO it was the best I have ever seen. He seemed to excel in EACH of the five components you mentioned above. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2v7hKdAmd
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 15:57:11 GMT -5
Getting back to the super stars of this century, it's really something when stats indicate that for their age, both the top position player (Mike Trout) and pitcher (Clayton Kershaw) are playing today. I wonder if there has ever been another time since the beginning of the game when both a hitter and a pitcher could make the same claim.
I'm not implying this will still be the case at the end of their careers. The odds would seem that would be unlikely for EITHER of them, let alone both. But what intriguing starts.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 17:29:20 GMT -5
Not sure what you're getting at here. At any point in time there are a top hitter and pitcher. From Cobb/Johnson to Mays/Koufax to (if you want to sully the argument) Bonds/Clemens.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 20:00:46 GMT -5
Allen -- Not sure what you're getting at here. At any point in time there are a top hitter and pitcher. From Cobb/Johnson to Mays/Koufax to (if you want to sully the argument) Bonds/Clemens. Rog -- Sorry I didn't make the point more clear. What I'm saying is that there is stastical evidence that for this point in their respective careers, Mike Trout is the best player EVER and Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher ever. Forgot to mention that there is also strong evidence that for this point in his career, Craig Kimbrel is the best reliever ever. I mentioned that may well (probably?) not be the case by the time their careers are over, but can we point to any other point since the beginning of baseball history where that has been true for even two of the three categories? I don't think we can. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2v8j9L4yF
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 23:59:39 GMT -5
Already anointing Trout and Kershaw as the greatest ever stretches the definition of premature. I also think you could have made the same statement about Cobb and Johnson at similar stages of their career, say 1912 when Johnson at 24, went 33-12, 1.39, and Cobb at 25, hit .409,topping .400 for the second year in a row.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 6, 2014 18:01:33 GMT -5
You could have also made the case for Tim Lincecum after winning the Cy Young award in each of his first two full seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 6, 2014 23:28:41 GMT -5
Allen -- Already anointing Trout and Kershaw as the greatest ever stretches the definition of premature. I also think you could have made the same statement about Cobb and Johnson at similar stages of their career, say 1912 when Johnson at 24, went 33-12, 1.39, and Cobb at 25, hit .409,topping .400 for the second year in a row. Rog -- That's a really good one, Allen. They may have remained at the top level for several more years. I would say when they retired that they were the best ever at their positions. And just think: Back then when one made such a statement and pointed out how highly they ranked, he would likely have been called premature. Actually though, if he merely pointed out they were the best ever at their respective ages, they wouldn't have been premature; they would merely have been identifying recent history. What I don't understand here is when it is pointed out how well players have performed in early stages of their careers, some posters seem to think they have been "annointed" for all time. When someone points out how well someone has played and points out if they continue that over their careers, they'll make the Hall of Fame or make an argument for the best ever or whatever, usually he's simply pointing out how well someone has played and identifying what could happen IF the player continues at the same level. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2vFPcoyFd
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 6, 2014 23:33:26 GMT -5
Boagie -- You could have also made the case for Tim Lincecum after winning the Cy Young award in each of his first two full seasons. Rog -- One couldn't reasonably have made the argument that he was the best pitcher ever at his age. It was fact that he was the first pitcher to win the Cy Young Award in each of his first two full seasons. But it wasn't fact that he had posted the best performance of any pitcher ever at his age, and I doubt he posted the best first two full seasons ever. I'm guessing Herb Score might have that honor. Fernando Valenzuela. Dwight Gooden. Others I'm probably not even thinking of. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=1&scrollTo=19131#ixzz2vFRIS2Z6
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 6, 2014 23:54:46 GMT -5
Boly -- I'm guessing young players don't see 'big bucks' in the future for a ground ball hitter. Rog -- I think it would work wonders for Gary Brown, although it didn't work out so well for Manny Burriss. Remember how you wanted Manny to hit the ball on the ground, Boly? In reality, he hit it on the ground about as much as anyone in baseball. He simply didn't do so well enough. As infielder's arms and range have improved, I think it's harder to hit well with a lot of ground balls. Manny has put 61.2% on the ground of the balls he hits in play. Anyone know of anyone who has hit a higher percentage of ground balls? Manny hasn't struck out much either, which means he has hit ground balls in over half his at bats. I doubt that has happened much in the past 50 or more years. I wonder if Maury himself hit the ball on the ground in over half his at bats. Despite his speed and lack of really hard-hit balls, he grounded into 92 double play, so he just might have. He had 29 sacrifice flies, so if he hit three times as many ground balls as fly balls, and he had the average 20% line drive rate, he would have been in the Burriss range for ground ball percentage both in at bats and on balls in play. Matty Alou was a guy who hit the ball on the ground a fair amount. He grounded into 101 double plays and hit 29 sacrifice flies, so he may have hit the ball on the ground even more than Maury. Then again, he had far more extra base hits than Maury, which might indicate he hit fewer. Speaking of Matty, anyone else see his bunt double over the third baseman's head? He may have done so on more than one occasion, but I know he did it at least once. Good way to slow down the charging third baseman. Going back to Maury, except for his last full season, Maury never played a full season in which he stole fewer than 28 bases. In addition to his record-breaking 104 steals in 1962, Maury -- the thief of bags, dad -- stole 94 in 1965. Best base stealer ever? Tim Raines was quite a bit better. Tim stole 222 more bases while being caught 62 fewer times. Tim was better than even Maury, and it wasn't even close. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=1&scrollTo=19132#ixzz2vFSRlxnd
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 7, 2014 11:03:13 GMT -5
Rog -- One couldn't reasonably have made the argument that he was the best pitcher ever at his age. It was fact that he was the first pitcher to win the Cy Young Award in each of his first two full seasons. But it wasn't fact that he had posted the best performance of any pitcher ever at his age, and I doubt he posted the best first two full seasons ever. I'm guessing Herb Score might have that honor. Fernando Valenzuela. Dwight Gooden. Others I'm probably not even thinking of.
Boagie- What happened to the theory that the best way to compare players from different eras is to compare them to their peers of the same era, or do you only use that when it agrees with your point?
As for Herb Score..his ERA in his first two seasons was 2.85 and 2.53. Lincecum's was 2.62 and 2.48. Compare the numbers, it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 7, 2014 11:48:38 GMT -5
Bob Feller won 93 games in his first four full seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 8, 2014 11:03:28 GMT -5
Rog -- One couldn't reasonably have made the argument that he was the best pitcher ever at his age. It was fact that he was the first pitcher to win the Cy Young Award in each of his first two full seasons. But it wasn't fact that he had posted the best performance of any pitcher ever at his age, and I doubt he posted the best first two full seasons ever. I'm guessing Herb Score might have that honor. Fernando Valenzuela. Dwight Gooden. Others I'm probably not even thinking of. Boagie- What happened to the theory that the best way to compare players from different eras is to compare them to their peers of the same era, or do you only use that when it agrees with your point? Rog -- Where above was it that I DIDN'T compare players with the average pitcher of their era, park adjusted? You seem to be looking for a fight, rather than asking what methodology was being used. Boagie -- As for Herb Score..his ERA in his first two seasons was 2.85 and 2.53. Lincecum's was 2.62 and 2.48. Compare the numbers, it's not even close. Rog -- You're right, especially since Tim pitched in a higher-scoring era and AT&T at that time wasn't playing as such a pitchers' park. Then again, you're wrong, since Tim's ERA in his first season was 4.00. You're speaking about his first two full seasons, which I'm pretty sure is what you meant. As for Score, he didn't pitch quite as well early on as I remembered. But he was pretty darn good. He may have been the hardest to hit. He yielded only 6.3 hits per nine in his rookie year and 5.8 in his second season. Actually, as far as being hitable, I guess he WAS as good as I remembered. His 5.8476 was just off Sandy Koufax's best of 5.7915, and his 6.2551 ranks as the 58th most unhitable season ever. He also lead the major leagues in strikeoutst those first two seasons. His 245 whiff's as a sophomore were far ahead of the 210 for Bob Turley, and his 263 as a rookie truly dwarfed Billy Pierce's 192.. Anyway, I was just going from memory. It was right as I was beginning to follow baseball, and I followed the National League more closely than the American (for obvious reasons). Although his ERA didn't completely reflect it, mostly because he was wilder than a March hare, Score did get off to one of the greatest starts ever. He was extremely hard to hit and very difficult even to get a bat on. When we compare his first two seasons to his peers, and depending on how we weight factors, Herb might indeed have had the best first two seasons ever. I'm sure one could easily argue for others, especially given Herb's 6.5 and 4.7 walk rates. It was early in his third season when Gil McDougald hit him in the eye with a line drive, and while Herb came back to pitch, he was only a shell of his original self. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2vO07A8Re
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 8, 2014 11:38:33 GMT -5
Rog -- Not because of our Bonds/DiMaggio discussion, but man, when I read the above, Barry Bonds immediately sprung into my mind. I would be intrigued to hear you critique Barry's swing, since IMO it was the best I have ever seen. He seemed to excel in EACH of the five components you mentioned above.
---boly says---
And rightfully so. Barry had all of the above. That's why for Allen, myself and others, the idiot's venture into steriods is so baffling.
Everything a hitter needs, including 'smarts,' which I left out, he had.
But even if he hadn't used steriods, I can't pick him over Joe D. or even Ty Cobb or maybe Rogers Hornsby.
Was Bonds a better hitter than Cobb? Or Hornsby, or even Musial?
Stan couldn't throw very well, but in a era when guys played EVERY DAY, and without modern medical techniques, what all 3 accomplished was incredible!
And that doesn't even consider how pitchers pitched with scuffed, or doctored baseballs, which is much tougher to pull off today.
Now throw in that today, ballplayers train all year long. They have so much video to watch and study.
Taken IN CONTEXT, that makes what Stan and Ty and Rogers accomplished, in my eyes, much larger than what Barry did.
It's my opinion that people, today, who pick top 10 or 50, or 100 lists are way toooooooooooooooooooooooooo influenced by modern day accomplishments.
boly
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 8, 2014 12:19:11 GMT -5
Boagie- What happened to the theory that the best way to compare players from different eras is to compare them to their peers of the same era, or do you only use that when it agrees with your point?
Rog -- Where above was it that I DIDN'T compare players with the average pitcher of their era, park adjusted?
Boagie- Tim won the Cy Young two years in a row, which means he was the best pitcher in baseball for those two years. If the other pitchers mentioned were the best in their first two full seasons shouldn't they too have won the CY? Clearly all the pitchers were good, but only in Lincecum's case can you say he was the best.
|
|