Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan View Post
    Actually the only three people who have had three seasons better than Mantle's three best were: Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner and they were all with in a win share or two of Mantle's, Bonds probably has too I'm not sure. Of the other men you mentioned only Williams has came close to Mantle's three best.
    well maybe some people place little or no value in 'win shares'. If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by willshad View Post
      well maybe some people place little or no value in 'win shares'. If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.

      He had an OPS+ of over 200 in all three seasons from a CF.
      "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

      "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

      Comment


      • #93
        yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by willshad View Post
          yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.
          Hornsby was pretty sick, I'll give you that, but Foxx and Gehrig were both first basemen, so really all you got is Rogers Hornsby, and Hornsby's leagues were pretty crappy.
          "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

          "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by willshad View Post
            Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.
            I definitely think taking Mantle's best three years is nowhere near the exagerration of saying he's not a top 15 player.

            I'm wondering if you just choose to be divisive?

            Originally posted by willshad View Post
            If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.
            Quality over quantity.

            Originally posted by willshad View Post
            yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.
            Lucky for them having more baserunners on when they came up to bat!
            philkid3
            Registered User
            Last edited by philkid3; 10-19-2007, 01:38 AM.
            Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

            Comment


            • #96
              I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

              From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!

              But his durability was indeed an issue, and for that he gets relegated to the back end of my top ten. Consistency and longevity do count. For example, Mays holds down my #2 slot, but at their respective bests, he wasn't better than Mantle.
              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers.
                See, here's the thing, and I really don't want to re-hash this argument, but, choosing what stats to endorse is not like choosing your favorite color, or what to eat for dinner. It is more like choosing an economic indicator. If your broker used the theories of statistical analysis that use here, to manage your money - you'd be broke quicker than you could say Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

                You want something that adjusts, or at least attempts to adjust, for the contexts in which the events occurred. It's simple supply and demand, the more runs there are, the less valuable each one is. The 1930s was a period of historic offense, the counting stats will always be higher.

                A dollar is worth something different in different countries, the domestic value of a dollar (against "constant dollars") changes over time. You are walking around touting how many dollars you have. But the dollar is just a piece of paper, its value is not inherent; it's determined by what you can buy that dollar for.

                Do you see my analogy?
                digglahhh
                Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
                Last edited by digglahhh; 10-20-2007, 05:47 AM.
                THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
                  See, here's the thing, and I really don't want to re-hash this argument, but, choosing what stats to endorse is not like choosing your favorite color, or what to eat for dinner. It is more like choosing an economic indicator. If your broker used the theories of statistical analysis that use here, to manage your money - you'd be broke quicker than you could say Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

                  You want something that adjusts, or at least attempts to adjust, for the contexts in which the events occurred. It's simple supply and demand, the more runs there are, the less valuable each one is. The 1930s was a period of historic offense, the counting stats will always be higher.

                  A dollar is worth something different in different countries, the domestic value of a dollar (against "constant dollars") changes over time. You are walking around touting how many dollars you have. But the dollar is just a piece of paper, its value is not inherent; it's determined by what you can buy that dollar for.

                  Do you see my analogy?
                  Of course I get it. If more runs are scored in a particular season, than the individual runs are 'worth' less. In a way it makes sense..BUT to me that is basically judging a player based on what OTHER players do. Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx had no control over how the rest of the league hit in 1930 or 1932..they only had control over what THEY did...and they hit about as well as a human being can humanly hit; in Gehrig's case being in the lineup literally EVERY day. If you penalize them for playing in a league with high offense, how is that different than penalizing a guy for a low RBI total in the 1960s..since in each case their stats are dependant on something out of their conrtrol? And another thing, since the offense was overall much higher in the 1930s, then wouldnt that make the 200 OPS+ seasons of Foxx and Gehrig even MORE impressive? To me, it has to work both ways..if you arent going to penalize Mantle for his relatively low RBI totals, due to his era, then you must also give more credit to Foxx and Gehrig for their OPS+, due to their era. Just as it was harder to get high RBI totals in the 1960s, it was hard to get high OPS+ totals in the 1930s.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    [QUOTE=digglahhh;1031101]I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

                    From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!


                    So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability? To me Mantle is just a slightly pumped up version of Yaz...2 or 3 outstanding seasons, then playing a long time and having years that were not that great..in Mantle's case due to injuries, and in Yaz's case due to him just not being that good. So their peak value was great due to their 3 great years, and their career value was great, due to playing a long time...BUT, they should lose points because they werent consistent from year to year. Sorry but Id much rather have a guy like Gehrig , who you knew would be in there every day, and have triple crown like numbers every year.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability?
                      If they were as dominant as Mantle at their peaks, and if they still managed to put together as good a resume after their declines, yes.
                      Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                      Comment


                      • Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.
                          Mantle equal to McGwire and Thome?

                          :disbelief:


                          See, dude, this is why I wonder if you say things just to try and stir the pot.
                          Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                          Comment


                          • not equal, but on the sae basic level.....closer to them certainly than to gehrig, Williams, and Ruth.

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=willshad;1031289]
                              Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
                              I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

                              From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!


                              So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability? To me Mantle is just a slightly pumped up version of Yaz...2 or 3 outstanding seasons, then playing a long time and having years that were not that great..in Mantle's case due to injuries, and in Yaz's case due to him just not being that good. So their peak value was great due to their 3 great years, and their career value was great, due to playing a long time...BUT, they should lose points because they werent consistent from year to year. Sorry but Id much rather have a guy like Gehrig , who you knew would be in there every day, and have triple crown like numbers every year.
                              Jose Canseco reached his peak through artificial enhancements and didn't sustain it very long.

                              Davis had a couple of really good season, but he too was unable to sustain it, as a result of game related injuries and debilitating disease.

                              Mantle had an all-time-y peak run, and plenty of other really good seasons around them.

                              As for Thome, Thomas and Mac. Even if I concede that they were all around the same basic level offensively. All three were subpar 1Bs/DHs. Mantle was a very good centerfielder. All three of those guys were liabilities on the bases, Mantle was one of the fastest men in the world in his youth, people say he could have been an Olympic runner!

                              Basically Mantle was all-time level in every facet of the game.

                              15-20 isn't unfair, per se. But, I do think that is moderately underrating him.

                              Some people quibble over a handful of ranking spots; I'm not one to do so.
                              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=digglahhh;1034836]
                                Originally posted by willshad View Post

                                Jose Canseco reached his peak through artificial enhancements and didn't sustain it very long.

                                Davis had a couple of really good season, but he too was unable to sustain it, as a result of game related injuries and debilitating disease.

                                Mantle had an all-time-y peak run, and plenty of other really good seasons around them.

                                As for Thome, Thomas and Mac. Even if I concede that they were all around the same basic level offensively. All three were subpar 1Bs/DHs. Mantle was a very good centerfielder. All three of those guys were liabilities on the bases, Mantle was one of the fastest men in the world in his youth, people say he could have been an Olympic runner!

                                Basically Mantle was all-time level in every facet of the game.

                                15-20 isn't unfair, per se. But, I do think that is moderately underrating him.

                                Some people quibble over a handful of ranking spots; I'm not one to do so.

                                well my actual quote was:

                                Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

                                I give Mantle credit for his positon. I would not put mcgwire or Thome in my top 15 or 20. Thomas, maybe, but still a bit lower than Mantle. He won a total of one gold glove, which hardly qualifies him as a great fielder. I do not really give him credit for his speed, because it doesnt really show in his production. If he was THAT fast, why wasnt he stealing 100 bases a year? Why wasnt he getting a ton of doubles and triples? I think exploits of his speed have been greatly exaggerated. Without trying to sound sound racist, Its hard to believe a musclebound white guy could run faster than any black guy playing. If he was indeed as fast as they say, hed probbaly be the only white guy in the top 100 fastest players ever.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X