BBF Post of the Day

[RuthMayBond]

1. Genghis Khan

Babe Ruth

2. Alexander the Great

Ty Cobb

3. Napoleon

Lou Gehrig

4. Adolf Hitler

Sandy Koufax, and we all know how much the two would like to be put together.

5. Julius Caesar

Old school guy? Let's go Christy Mathewson, just for the hell of it.

6. Umar Ibn Khatab

Holds a really important record, so let's say Barry Bonds.

7. Trajan

Supposedly liked drinking a lot and little boys a lot. Mickey Mantle liked one of those two also.

8. Tamurlane

Honus Wagner - intelligent, calculating, intense, legacious. That's the adjective form of legacy, by the way. Both were lame to an extent - Honus was bowlegged and built very oddly.

9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great

Suleiman has a case to be the greatest king/emperor/shah/poobah/guy who's on the top ever. He's too bogged down by economic and social advancements (eww, defense) to be #1 on this list though. Let's give him a terrific two way player like Willie Mays.

10. Peter I of Russia

Once performed surgery on someone having only read a book on it once. That takes some balls. Also cocky as all get out, so how about Ted Williams.

11. Ogodei Khan

Son of a great conqueror, and crushed China and Central Asia, but died before being able to crush Europe. Ken Griffey Jr. was the son of a great baseball player, and won over Seattle and Cincinnati, but melted into mediocrity in Chicago.

12. Charlemagne

Charlemagne forced people to convert to Christianity. Sounds like Branch Rickey, but we need a player. I'll go with Walter Johnson - Charlemagne protected the Pope, and I'm assuming Walter protected his players.

13. William I of England

William I was an illegitimate Duke. Tempted to give him Duke Snider, but let's be honest, William is better than him. So let's give him a guy who conquered

14. Gustavus Adolphus

Sweden, ja? Adolphus was intelligent and benevolent as well as superb. Let's give him Stanislaus Musial. Who's Polish, but Stanislaus, Gustavus? Sort of similar, ja?

15. Attila the Hun

He crushed the greatest empire on Earth, possibly ever. Who else did this? Oh right. Hank Aaron.

16. Tokugawa Ieyasu

The third of the famous Japanese unifiers. In honor of his heritage let's give him Sadaharu (I once accidentally Sekigahara) Oh.

17. Shih Huang Di

Like Ieyasu, he unified stuff. Unlike Ieyasu, he was evil and liked to burn books. Super famous and had a 'tude, so let's go Reggie Jackson. Reggie had the Reggie Bar, Shih Huang Di had the Great Wall.

18. Francisco Pizarro

Pizzaro would be higher if he didn't have a massively superior technology to the Incas in terms of weapons. He would be lower if his legacy was less potent and his army was bigger. As it stands, Pizzaro didn't have too much in the way of raw people but made up for it anyway with hustle. Pete Rose.

19. Caesar Augustus

3rd Roman on the list, and conquered Gaul again. Beating the French substantially more impressive than it was to become. Also took charge of Rome and brought the empire back from the assassination of Caesar. Joe DiMaggio, who took the Yankees back from the ALSination of Gehrig and also demanded to be addressed as the greatest, which is basically what you're saying when you call yourself Caesar.

20. Shaka Zulu

Josh Gibson. Though Zulu gets dissed somewhat due to his accomplishments being in the weaker AL (African League), his tactics were undeniably brilliant and he formed a strong nation pretty much singlehandedly. Gets bonus points for reorganizing the military and society, and died before the age of 40.

SWEET job!
Kinda like my project to compare Japanese Leaguers with major leaguers, and you had a harder job!

[AstrosFan]

I wonder if we should look at a star whose teammates threw him under the bus for a Julius Caesar comp.

For Hitler, Hank Greenberg was also Jewish, had an excellent peak, AND served in World War II.

No complaints about the comps. Amazing job. Just thinking up alternative ideas.

[nerfan]

I wonder if we should look at a star whose teammates threw him under the bus for a Julius Caesar comp.

For Hitler, Hank Greenberg was also Jewish, had an excellent peak, AND served in World War II.

No complaints about the comps. Amazing job. Just thinking up alternative ideas.

Hahaha, we could have Dick Allen for Caesar. Came on strong even as a rookie, then continuously thrown under bus by a vast majority of teammates. Or Alex Rodriguez, who was backstabbed by his own manager and captain. Jordan Schaefer's HGH use was tattletold, but he's not a very good player (yet). Buck Weaver was certainly thrown under the bus by his teammates; Joe Jackson probably was as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

nerfan!

OZZIE & JUAN
A short play by Nerfan.

Characters:

Juan Pierre - an aging player who isn't very good at baseball
Ozzie Guillen - a man who likes to curse
Kenny Williams - the worst General Manager in baseball


Ozzie: Juan, you [expletive] [expletive], what's up?
Juan: I got caught stealing three times today and missed two cutoff men?
Ozzie: [expletive] [expletive], Juan! That's [expletive] hustle right [expletive] there.
Juan: I'm worse than Scott Podsednik.
Ozzie: [expletive] Podsednik? That man's wife was [expletive] hot.
Juan: What was Kenny Williams thinking?
Ozzie: [expletive] Kenny [expletive] Williams? Kenny [expletive] Williams is an [expletive]! He was thinking we needed a leadoff man who could steal some bases!
Juan: My on-base percentage is under .300.
Ozzie: [expletive]! Get the [expletive] out. Don't say that [expletive] stat.
Juan: On-base percentage.
Ozzie: [expletive] You're one of the [expletive] Knights who say OBP!
Juan: OBP OBP OBP OBP OBP
Ozzie: [expletive] [expletive] Juan! I'm going to show you MY [expletive] stats.
Juan keels over at the hideous BB rate.
Ozzie: [expletive]
Kenny Williams: Can I fetch you another leadoff hitter, Mr. Guillen?
Ozzie: This [expletive] corpse probably has a better arm than he did in real life. It'll [expletive] do.
Kenny: Yes, sir.
Ozzie: [expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive].

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bravos with an excellent point.

As 64Cards illustrated, Paul Brown deserves a ton of praise for his insistence on playing the best players he could find.

It's interesting that underdog leagues so often were havens for guys who wouldn't have gotten much of a chance. Brown was coaching in the AAFC, which was looked down on by the NFL (until the Browns showed up there in '50 and turned the whole league into their own personal hand puppets for 5-6 years) and the AFL in the '60's had many more high profile African American players than the more established NFL.

Those situations aren't exactly analagous to the AL-NL split we've talked about before, but the impluse (the establisment's feel that they already have a brand and don't need what they view as cheap gimmicks) is very much the same

[sandlot]

Not so sure about the high ranking for Hitler, even at his so-called peak. I think he goes a whole lot lower. Whom did he actually beat, how many titles did he hold and for how long? The Nazis never finished Number One much less perform a repeat. They never defeated the British. The Austrians were happy to be back in the Germanic League and welcomed reassignment. Czechoslovakia had little army to speak of, ditto Hungary, and elsewhere the Germans had a large fan base. Their army never occupied all of France, even though actively assisted by local minor-league officials. Spain was an ally, also Italy (jokes about the French army's success rate pale in comparison). The Dutch and the Danes were not major powers (but proved good at small-ball) and the Finns were the first to teach the Nazis about playing in snow. The Greeks drove the Germans crazy (some things never change), as eventually Tito did in the future (now past) Yugoslavia. Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Way stations rolled over by the Germans on their way to compete in the Soviet League -- and we all know how that pennant drive ended. It looks to me like Hitler's most enduring victory is over the History Channel. He's not a patch on Genghis Khan's bootie.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What's wOBA? It sounds like a tuba with a cold.

[Seattle1]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...y-change-teams

Can one realistically change teams?


I am a lifelong Yankee fan who now hates the Yankees.

I am the type who avoids what the crowd is doing and pursues his own way. So when I was a kid in the late '80s, and all my friends here in NJ were Mets and Phillies fans, I deliberately chose to be a Yankee fan. I had read enough as a child to know the Yanks were historically the strongest franchise, but at the time they were clearly the #3 team here. So they became my team, and I was the only one in my class who liked them.

I suffered through the collapses of '87 and '88, endless mocking by my friends in '90 (watched or listened to nearly every game that year), the continual meddling of the principal owner, and all the various hijinks of a team in disarray from '87-'92. '93 brough hope, '94 heartbreak. '95 I still consider the year I had the most fun as a Yankee fan. Finally a pennant race for the first time in my baseball-conscious life! Clinching the wildcard against Toronto was a highlight of my youth (to that point). Of course I went nuts when they finally won it all in '96.

I continued as a loyal fan from '97-'01. I was genuinely saddened when Mo actually blew it against Arizona. But something had happened the prior offseason that deeply rankled me: they signed Mike Mussina. Now, I had spent half my life despising Mike Mussina for killing my team; suddenly I was compelled to root for him? This was not what baseball was about for me.

But then the last straw came in the '01-'02 offseason: they signed the odious Jason Giambi. A homegrown product of a small market team, set to begin the steep downslope guys of his body type are known for, and obviously on steroids, he represented everything I never wanted to see in a Yankee uniform.

And of course along the way the Yankees had become an empire, a team of all-stars, a virtual lock for postseason. No drama, no pain that usually accompanies growth, just machine-like dominance funded mainly by massive TV revenue.

This is not why I became a Yankee fan.

So since then I haven't rooted.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

^^^That's a good BBF! ^^^

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This is brilliant!

I had a dream, a vision of the future of baseball. Let's contract all of MLB except for the Yankees and the Washington Nationals. Let the Yankee players inject all the steroids they want, maybe hire Jose Canseco as Strength and Conditioning Coach. Test the Washington players rigorously, to ensure none of them are juicing. Hire Tony LaRussa to manage the Yankee squad, I guess Riggleman can stay on as the Washington manager, it doesn't really matter who the Washington manager is. Assemble an umpiring crew: Crew Chief "Cowboy" Joe West, Tim McClelland, Phil Cuzzi, and Ed Rapuano. Change the Yankees' name to the Bronx Globetrotters, change the Nats to the Washington Generals, and send them out to tour all the Major League parks. The pro-steroids fans can root for the Globetrotters, and the anti-steroids fans can root for the Generals. Everybody's happy!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Pretty funny response from CCN.

2. The Midwestern teams didn't DO anything! From 1920 to 1994 the White Sox won a single pennant and didn't have any Hall of Famers who weren't banjo-hitting middle infielders or Sunday starters. The Cubs have gone 102 years without a series. The Indians and Reds got their bits. The Cardinals got plenty of treatment - Rickey, the 1926 team, the Gashouse Gang, Bob Gibson, Curt Flood. This all generally revolves around "STAN MUSIAL!" and Musial got his piece, it was just awkwardly placed.

I guess "bits" are good enough and what we meekly deserve.
"Here, you rubes, have a cookie, we mentioned Hank Grenberg in passing. Now MARIO CUOMO PLAYED MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL!"

Burns did a fine job overall, and deserves kudos for everything he dug up and presented. But his critics have very legitimate points of contention against what has been presented as the story of the American pastime. America's a bit bigger than what we got.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Good post from willshad.

And Ive seen Barry Bonds strike out many times and look like a total fool. Doesn't mean much, really. The fact is that Piazza held the catcher's spot for 14 seasons and mostly on successful teams, with pitching staffs that didn't give up many runs. If he was hurting the team THAT MUCH, some manager somewhere along the line would have moved him, or at least attempted to do so. He could field the position well, handled pitchers, called games, did everything else a catcher needs to do. Of course it isn't good that he threw out so few runners, but he DID throw out 23% of the runners , which isn't exactly nothing. If stolen bases need to be successful 66% of the time in order to be beneficial, then it says that the team was not really being hurt a LOT by Piazza's bad throwing. And the fact is that if he WAS good in that department, he would pretty much be universally regarded as the best catcher ever, and a top 20 all time player. So no shame in 'only' being a top 40 or 50 player instead.

Jorge Posada really has just been a tiny bit better throwing out runners, but you don't see him get anywhere near the bad rap that Piazza gets. Overall, Piazza was better defensively than Posada, probably.

[RuthMayBond]

Good post from willshad.

Well, it's a unique opinion, anyway

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well, it's a unique opinion, anyway

I suppose we all have unique opinions. I just happen to agree with willshad on this issue of Mike Piazza's "defense".

[RuthMayBond]

I just happen to agree with willshad on this issue of Mike Piazza's "defense".

You're the one who put it in quotes, not me

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You're the one who put it in quotes, not me

Toche RMB!

I put "defense" in quotes because no one has yet defined for me what catcher "defense" really is.

[RuthMayBond]

Toche RMB!

I put "defense" in quotes because no one has yet defined for me what catcher "defense" really is.

catch-er de-fense [kach-er] [dee-fens] - noun.
defn. - Mike Piazza doesn't know the definition either

If you don't know what it is, how do you know Piazza was doing it?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

catch-er de-fense [kach-er] [dee-fens] - noun.
defn. - Mike Piazza doesn't know the definition either

If you don't know what it is, how do you know Piazza was doing it?

I have my own ideas of what catcher defense can be defined as. But I ask the question to see whether others really have a well thought out definition of their own. At the very least I have yet to see a generally agreed upon description of what good catcher's defense entails. The whole "Piazza has awful defense" meme is always reduced to his poor throwing arm.

"Pizza's throwing arm sucked! Therefore Piazza's entire defense sucked!"

Do other people really reduce catcher's defense to just throwing out runners? I find that odd.

[RuthMayBond]

I have my own ideas of what catcher defense can be defined as. But I ask the question to see whether others really have a well thought out definition of their own. At the very least I have yet to see a generally agreed upon description of what good catcher's defense entails. The whole "Piazza has awful defense" meme is always reduced to his poor throwing arm.

"Pizza's throwing arm sucked! Therefore Piazza's defense sucked!"

Do other people really reduce catcher's defense to just throwing out runners? I find that odd.

willshad has a good definition, I'm just not sure how he proves that Piazza did it. Perhaps his pitching staffs whose homes were Shea and Dodger Stadium kinda helped them give up not many runs?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

willshad has a good definition, I'm just not sure how he proves that Piazza did it. Perhaps his pitching staffs whose homes were Shea and Dodger Stadium kinda helped them give up not many runs?

The things that willshad mentioned (" He could field the position well, handled pitchers, called games, did everything else a catcher needs to do") can at least be studied by going to the game film and scouting reports to see how adept Pizza was at other aspects of defense. We can study comments by the pitchers that Piazza caught to see how they viewed Pizza in terms of calling a game and how good or poor Pizza was at helping pitchers get out of jams. From the polls I have seen Pizza takes such a massive hit on defense that he gets consistently rated behind all the other all-time catchers. In terms of just hitting Piazza absolutely destroys all the other all-time catchers. It's not even close. For 10 seasons Pizza hit like a HoF first baseman. From 1993-2002 he averaged .322/.389/.569, 154 OPS+. That's basically Johnny Mize in terms of hitting. Now if Pizza's other defensive skills were poor along with his throwing then rating Pizza behind Bench, Berra, Cochrane, etc. is probably correct. But if Pizza's other defensive skills were good or great then I think Pizza is getting short changed in the catcher polls IMO.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Good post from SHOELESSJOE3. I like cheering ofr the Rays because of their success despite being a poor team that doesn't draw many fans. If they recent the 2011 postseaons i will adopt them as my team to cheer for.

A new stadium sure as hell can't *hurt*. It can never make the attendance go down - only up. So it can never hurt to try.

How will it help after the novelty wears off and attendance goes back down, all those millions spent for nothing.
Lets try it again.....Your tied for the wild card spot....two games left in the season...the Yankees are in town, and you draw 19,000. The interest is not there.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In response to the White Sox hiring Robin Ventura as their new manager.

I think Kenny Williams just chose the first man who walked past his office.

[Dick Groat's syndrome]

I think at least three of us in the "ESPN.com" thread have loved this one from Blackout:

"It's may 5th...Yankees play the Sawx but first lets go over to Mel Kiper and Todd McShay for a Miller Light cold-hard-facts and break down the St. Louis Rams 5th and 6th round draftpicks"

[Honus Wagner Rules]

willshad with an astute observation.

Raines, along with most of the other late 80s stars, really suffered from the influx of talent that emerged in the early to mid 90s. Guys like Raines, Clark, Canseco, Mcgriff, Murphy, Ripken, Eric Davis, Strawberry, Gwynn, Mattingly, Boggs, and to a lesser degree Puckett and Henderson, all started to decline at the start of the decade. Some of them declined steeper and/or more rapidly than the others, but all of their declines were seen as being steeper due to the great numbers that other players were putting up. As a result, their star faded, and they needed to reach milestones that assured them of the hall, in order to be elected. Puckett is the only one who made the HOF without reaching 3000 hits.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A retro POTD.

Of course Clark isn't as good as McCovey. But he was better than Garvey.

Garvey had 2,599 hits, 272 home runs, 1,308 RBI, 479 BB and 83 SB. His BA/OBP/SLG was .294/.329/.446 and he accumulated 3,941 total bases in his career. His career numbers are as much a product of his longevity (19 seasons, 9,466 plate appearances) as they are his ability. He made 6,672 outs in those 9,466 plate appearances, creating just 1,307 runs (or 5.29 per 27 outs).

Garvey's batting average was 15% better than league average, his OBP just 2% better and his slugging 19% better. Garvey's runs created represented 163 over league average, but only 57 above the average for 1Bmen in his era. Garvey's secondary average was 8% below the league average.

Garvey accumulated 279 win shares in 19 seasons (14.7 per). However, it was really from 1974-80, a period of just 7 years, that Garvey performed at an "all star" level. The other 12 years of his career never saw a seasonal win share value over 17. During those 7 "peak" years, Garvey averaged 24 win shares per year (as opposed to the 9.25 he averaged throughout all those other seasons.) Garvey managed "just" a 116 OPS+ in almost 10,000 plate appearances. A terrible level for a post-1920 first baseman.

Garvey's hardware is more a testament to his popularity, not his greatness.

Clark had 2,176 hits, 284 home runs, 1,205 RBI, 937 BB and 67 SB. His BA/OBP/SLG was .303/.384/.497 and he accumulated 3,562 total bases in his career. His career numbers were accumulated in spite of serious injury in mid-career. Clark nevertheless saw 8,283 plate appearances, making 5,259 outs and creating 1,369 runs (or 7.03 per 27 outs).

Clark's batting average was 16% better than league average, his OBP 16% better and his slugging 24% better. Clark's runs created represented 473 over league average, 294 above the average for 1Bmen in his era. His secondary average was 30% better than league average.

Clark earned 331 win shares in 15 seasons (22.1 per). However, it was really from 1987-92, a period of just 6 years, that Clark performed at an MVP-caliber level. During those years, Clark averaged 32.2 win shares per season, leading the National League in 1989 (when he should have won the MVP Award). The other 9 years of his career were productive, though certainly not at the same level. Clark averaged 15.3 win shares per season outside his peak years. Furthermore, the end of Clark's peak seasons correspond with the elbow injuries Clark suffered in 1992-93, robbing him of his power.

Clark finished his career with an outstanding 138 OPS+. Among first basemen with at least 8,000 PA (of whom there are 41), Clark's 138 OPS+ ranks #7 all-time, behind only Gehrig, Foxx, Thomas, Connor, Bagwell and McCovey.

Clark was a 6-time all-star and finished among the top 5 in MVP voting four times from 1987-91 (compared to Garvey who finished in the top 5 only twice.)

Clark was as good a post-season competitor as Garvey. As good a fielder. And a much better hitter. Clark had a much bigger prime and more career value, despite playing 4 fewer seasons and playing the second-half of his career in a diminished capacity (versus Garvey who simply aged over time.)

One thing I often see mentioned in regards to Garvey's candidacy is his string of 200-hit seasons. In point of fact, Garvey only led the league in hits twice during those seasons. The ability to collect 200 (or near 200) hits on a regular basis is certainly a valuable one, but reaching that "magic" number is the product of ability and opportunity. Garvey led the league in games played and at bats several times each, facilitating his run at those 200-hit seasons.

Garvey's 2599 career hits, moreover were 462 over the league average. Clark's 2,176 hits were 436 hits above league average. A discrepancy of just 26 hits. Using ratios to compare their career hits to league average, Clark comes out on top, 25% above league average to Garvey, 22% above league average. Another way to look at it? Garvey collected 137 hits per season played while Clark collected 145 hits per season played. As a "hit machine" Garvey was more like Mark Grace than Pete Rose.

In fact, I can't see anything about Garvey's career that doesn't point directly to Mark Grace without the awards and pageantry. Clark, on the other hand, is like a modern (but better) George Sisler.