Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1970s vs. 1930s-Top Level Talent

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

  • #16
    How are Aaron's 1970's better than Ruth's 1930's?

    But many players like Schimdt and Aaron made their names before or after. Dimaggio is the only player that may not belong in the 1930's. But the 1970's has alot of those players, killing the league strength argument. Maybe the 1970's had more depth but the thread is solely about top level talent in which the 1930's are better at.
    "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

    "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

    Comment


    • #17
      --Okay then;
      C: Bench beats anything the 30s have to offer: 70s 1, 30s 0
      1B: Gehrig and Foxx an unbeatable 1-2 puch: 70s 1, 30s 1
      2B: Morgan arguable the best ever, certainly top 3: 70s 2, 30s 1
      3B: Schmidt clearly the best ever: 70s 3, 30s 1
      SS: Vaughan easily wins (and Cronin/Appling are 2/3): 70s 3, 30s 2
      LF: Lots of very good players in both decades, but nobody had a truely great decade in either: draw.
      CF: Ditto: Lynn had a great half decade and DiMaggio a great 40% of one. Cedeno (or Reggie Smith?) and Berger were probably the best full decade guys. I'll give the 30s a slight edge to even the score.
      RF: Here is the tiebreaker and I think (well I know) most people are going to take Ott over Jackson. I disagree, but its close either way - as is the whole decade.
      --The 30s have a fistfull of great 1Bs, but the 70s counters that with more top 3Bs than any other decade. I think the top stars debate is prettu close and the further down you get the better the 70s look. That is only for position players though. The 70s justs blows the 30s away if you include pitching.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 538280
        Wait, I'll look myself in the mirror. All right, I did it. Are you physically ill?

        Carter was better than Hartnett. He played for longer, was better on defense, and was only a small bit behind on offense. His peak was probably better.
        There might be some disconnect between my view of Carter's defense and other people's (Matt rates him very high in PCA; I view him as the third worst defensive C in the Hall, after Ferrell and Lombardi). As for being a "small bit behind" on offense, I see one guy with a career average of .262 (high of .294) with only a 115 OPS+, and one guy who was a legitimate offensive force, and there's really no comparison. Yes, Carter played for a long time, whoopty do. It's not like Hartnett was Marty Bergen. Hartnett ranks seventh or eighth all time in my top catchers; I don't think Carter cracks the top 20.

        Fisk is way better than Dickey. He played WAY longer, better peak, just as many good years, better offensively becaue Dickey was helped tremendously by Yankee Stadium.
        Yankee Stadium helps left handed pull hitters drag HR's into the short porch, and hurts everything else. Since Dickey was a ground ball-line drive contact hitter, I don't see how YS could have really helped him much.

        Yes, Fisk played longer than pretty much any catcher. No, he was nowhere NEAR as good as Dickey at his peak. If you really want a lot of play, Dickey set a major league record with 13 straight seasons catching at least 100 games (Fisk, for all his longevity, only had 12 such seasons in his career). He had one .300 qualifying season. Fisk had one qualifying season where he topped 140 in OPS+ (1972); Dickey did it three straight times from 36-38. Fisk was better at hitting home runs; Dickey was better at every other aspect of the game. I like Fisk; he ranks in my top 10 catchers. Dickey ranks (among MLB catchers) at number four.

        The McCovey thing.....Maybe when you have one of the best hitting peaks of all time people will rank you pretty high. I personally think James underrates him.

        Hal Trosky.....Please tell me how on earth you can put him over McCovey.
        Trosky had more 100 RBI seasons by age 25 than McCovey had in his career, and had by that time scored 100 twice as many times as McCovey would in his whole career. Four times in his first six seasons, Trosky hit at least .330; McCovey hit .300 exactly once in his career. McCovey was the better HR hitter, but Trosky partially makes up for that by being almost twice the doubles hitter McCovey was.

        Let's do a little though experiment. I'm looking for everyone in history who's put up the following numbers per 161 games:

        .300 BA, .500 SLG, 40 doubles, 25 homers, 100 R, 100 RBI.

        The complete list? Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Albert Pujols, and Hal Trosky. McCovey's massive longevity advantage makes it close, but at his best, he was nowhere NEAR the player Trosky was. Hal Trosky: Yet another legendary, hero-hitter that SABRmetrics doesn't like because he didn't walk much. Yech.

        You said at the end the 30s win this positon. Well, how? If the 70s have two top 10 guys and the 30s have only one and outside of that not much else (I can't imagine you like Grich), then how do the 30s win in your opinion?
        Morgan was pretty good, and Carew is one of my favorites. But Charlie Gehringer is Mr. No Weaknesses, the kind of guy who can carry a decade all by himself... a top 25 player who's just a breath behind Lajoie and Collins and worlds ahead of Morgan and Carew. Throw in the fact that Babe Herman was outstanding, and that Tony Lazzeri was a very good hitter whose inept defense kept him from being great, and it's a pretty good time for 2Bmen in the 30's. Not a walk, certainly; two guys like Carew and Morgan can keep it close. But I give the nod to the 30's, largely on the basis of Gehringer.

        Traynor is actually too high IMO.
        Let's please not start this again.

        With Robin Yount, fair enough. If you want to rate him as a CF fine.

        Jim Fregosi's numbers don't look like much but he was actually a very, very good player. 113 OPS+ for a shortstop in that era is very impressive and his peak years are great as well. James rates him about right I think.
        Fregosi was, as Mark said, washed up in the 70's, and even at his best, had no particularly notable offensive skills to speak of. He managed a decent OPS+ because of the sheer luck of park factors, but wasn't really all that much of a player.

        Chick Hafey over Roy White and Lou Brock......You're making me physically ill.
        Lou Brock is an enigma to me; other than base stealing, the guy had basically NO useful skills as a baseball player whatsoever. He wasn't much of a power hitter (though he was an ok doubles hitter), couldn't draw a walk to save his life, was a lousy defender, and wasn't all that much of a contact hitter. Basically, he's a guy who skated by on mediocre contact hitting and good base stealing, and somehow wound up in the Hall based almost entirely on his respectable ability not to get injured. In my opinion, Brock belongs up there with Tommy McCarthy and Freddie Lindstrom on the least deserving Hall of Famers list.

        And Roy White? Seems like your kind of player; he could draw walks and steal bases, and do nothing else particularly notable. No thanks. Say what you want about Hafey, but the guy could hit singles, doubles, and homers like a pendulum, had a decent turn of speed, and only had such a short career because of the advent of night ball. I'd take him over White or Brock without thinking about it.

        Don't want to talk about Jimmy here.....and Cesar Cedeno, Vada Pinson, and Amos Otis are all better than Hack Wilson IMO.
        Last time I checked, Wilson was a fine contact hitter, could draw walks, led his league in HR's four times, could hit doubles and triples and steal bases, and has two of the top 25 RBI seasons of all time. He was basically Hank Greenberg in CF. Doesn't crack my top 10 CF's, mind you, and isn't particularly close to it, but he's certainly worlds better than Cedeno, Pinson, Otis, or Wynn (yes, I know you don't want to talk about him; how about we both agree just not to mention either him or Traynor any more).

        Chuck Klein better than Pete Rose and Reggie Jackson....you're making me physically ill again. Don't even have to say anything else.
        This is easy.

        First off, yes I know about Klein's era and park. That has to be taken into consideration. That being said... From 1929 to 1933, Chuck Klein AVERAGED:

        132 R, 224 H, 46 2B, 36 HR, 139 RBI, .359/.413/.635/1.048.

        Now, keep in mind, this is Klein's AVERAGE over a five year period. To compare, Reggie Jackson's CAREER HIGHS:

        123 R, 158 H, 39 2B, 47 HR, 118 RBI, .300/.410/.608/1.018.

        Please note: In only one of these categories, HR's, does Jackson's career high top Klein's peak average. In most of them, Klein just blows Jackson completely out of the water. Klein's 66 H advantage just makes Jackson look silly. And note: These career high numbers are pretty much spiky peaks for Jackson. Outside of 1969, Jackson never topped 100 R, .400 OBP, .600 SLG, or a 1.000 OPS. Klein was so much better than Jackson at his peak as to render any comparison between the two, even with Jackson's longevity advantage, completely pointless.
        "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

        Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

        Comment


        • #19
          The main thing that gets hidden by the statistics is that the 1970s was the height of the baby boom generation. Atheletes from the 70s/early 80s were competing against a larger pool of other good atheletes at that time than any other period in the game's history. The superstars of the 70s are as a result CONSTANTLY underrated by sabermetricians and historians alike, IMHO.

          Robin Yount, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Roberto Clemente...these guys are constantly being underrated because few realize how hard it was for those players to rise above their league. The classic problem is that people are using OPS+ and saying that guys from the deadball era and the 20s/30s were better because they had higher OPS+ seasons and careers...but that misses a key issue...league difficulty. I am absolutely pursuaded that the league reached its' peak in difficulty between 1972 and 1986...there is still some argument as to where exactly in those 15 year period the league was at its' best...but baseball was never harder than it was in that time period.

          Comment


          • #20
            --If Reggie had played in the Baker Bowl in the 20s and 30s he would have hit 50+ HR pretty much every year and probably would have broken Ruth's single season record a couple times and by a good margin. You could also bump his average up 50 points or so.
            --Jackson played in some of the most extreme pitchers parks and in an era where numbers were down across the board. Klein played in what may have been the best hitters park ever for LH batters (Coors being the only competition) in the most explosive offensive era ever.
            --The era factor also applies to Trosky. 100 RBI was not a mark of particular distinction in the AL of the 1930s. Dickey did benefit greatly from Yankee Stadium. he had very little power until he learned to pull toward the short porch. His home/road HR splits are some of the most extreme in history.

            Comment


            • #21
              The Dickey comment is a plus for Dickey...if you're a good enough hitter to adapt to a park and control where the ball goes when you hit it enough to get an advantage out of where you play...that should count in your favor...

              Comment


              • #22
                --Well its nice that he was able to take advantage of his park. When I am ranking players on an all time scale though, I like to see transferable skills. if Dickey hadn't had that short porch to shoot for he would have been much less valuable. I don't take away all - or even most - of what he was able to gain from his park, but he does lose that skill in most other settings and that detracts from his value IMO. Also, Dickey was a durable catcher (hence the 100 game seasons). He wasn't asked to play much vs LHP though, reducing his in-season contribution vs some catchers who played nearly every day at their peak. It also boosts his rates since he seldom faced the platoon disadvantage. Playing for great teams in a park uniquely suited to his skills leads to Dickey being slightly overrated. I do have him 10th amoung MLB catchers, but behind both Fisk and Carter.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Chris
                  I agree with you that the 1970s had more overall talent that the 1930s. If you include Negro Leaguers I would argue the opposite. Just a couple points though:

                  1) Dizzy Dean isn't on the list above although James ranked him 25th.
                  2) Ruth isn't listed although he played 6 of the 10 years. But you left Aaron on for the same reason so that makes sense.

                  I think that the players of the 1930s are ranked lower overall when it comes to player ratings because many of the players had their careers cut short on the tail end due to something far more important - WWII. So as we look at their lifetime acheivements, some of the players that had their careers during this period would have put up better lifetime numbers and ranked higher.
                  "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

                  Rogers Hornsby, 1961

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 538280
                    I remember maybe about a month ago I got in a debate with ElHalo and Myankee4life about the league quality of the game in the 1970s vs. the quality of the 1930s. I, presented what I think it the key evidence that the average player in the 1970s was WAY better, and gave reasons for why this is true. I also talked about the fact players in the 1970s didn't distance from the pack as much as 1930s players, and used this as a factor that suggested that the average player was indeed much better in the 1970s than 1930s.
                    I agree with you overall because I believe talent develops and improves over time. Plus intergration is a huge factor.

                    However, I don't think your comparison of players is the strongest argument, especially since a lot of the playerse your are mentioning for the 70s, had their peaks before the 70s. You might consider Brooks Robinson the 7th best 3B of all-time, but much that ranking is from the 60s. Another example is Joe Torre. He was done catching by the 70s, so you can't really include him as evidence of superior catchers of the decade.
                    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-25-2006, 04:55 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Before I can really take part in this, I'd like to know if we're talking (as I assume) the actual years that players took part during the 30s and 70s, or players who were just big timers there but looking at their whole career. Because if we're looking at only those parts of their careers that hit those decades, then Trosky and Lynn are absolutely at the top of the lists. Just curious and all.
                      "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Myankee4life
                        I think James is biased towards '70-'80's players.
                        Whoa there. That's a pretty big statement. Do you have anything to base that on whatsoever? Bill James is probably the prominent baseball historian and sabermetrician around. To say he is biased towards a certain era is a very big statement that needs justification.

                        I still think that the BEST players of the '30's are better than the BEST of the 70's. I will concede however that there were more GOOD players during the '70's.

                        Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Dimaggio, Gehringer, Simmons, Cochrane...

                        Bench, Morgan, Jackson, Schimdt, Mccovey, Yastremski......
                        I would disagree with you that those 30s players you list above are better than the 70s players you list. I could see how you could say the 30s group is better though.

                        Personally, I think you (and others) are being fooled a bit by big offensive numbers. The 70s were more of a pitching era, the 30s more of a hitting era, so obviously the 30s are going to look better by raw numbers, and also more of the 70s stars came from defensive positions while more of the 30s stars came from offensive positions. Gehrig, Foxx and DiMaggio were expected to hit a lot more from first and CF than Morgan, Bench, and Schmidt were from catcher, 2B, and 3B.

                        And nowhere do I hear anything about the huge difference in pitching stars. The 70s had Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Perry, Jenkins, Ryan, and Niekro, all of them HOFers and well deserving. The 30s had Grove and Hubbell, and, well not much else.

                        Also alot of these players James ranked higher due to their accomplishments in other decades. Mccovey, Schimdt, Yount, Yaz, Allen, Brett etc all made their names in a different era. If thats the case then the 30's should get Ruth added to them or Williams for that matter.
                        Out of those guys you listed, McCovey and Yaz played the entire 70s decade. Although they did both have big years in the 60s as well, they should be included in discussions of 70s stars. Allen's career was pretty much a clean split between the 60s and 70s. He was still a huge 70s star though, winning an MVP. Schmidt had some of his best years in the 70s and 80s. He should be considered a star from both decades. Brett is more of an 80s player, but still was a great player for a little more than half of the 70s. Yount I'll agree wasn't really all that great in the 70s.

                        All those guys except arguably Yount were more 70s stars than Ruth was a 30s star. If you're counting Ruth for the 30s you absolutely have to include Aaron and Robinson for the 70s. Ted Williams only played one year in the 30s and really has no claim to be a 30s star. The 70s deserve Willie Mays before the 30s deserve Williams.
                        Last edited by 538280; 02-04-2006, 05:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 538280
                          Personally, I think you (and others) are being fooled a bit by big offensive numbers.
                          We have to realize that a lot of times, the reasons one particular era is considered a "pitcher's era" or a "hitter's era" is because of the talent distribution. Yes, things like the raised mound in the 60's or the dead ball had an obvious, deleterious effect on offense. But in a lot of cases, whether an era is considered "offensive" or "pitching" has a lot to do with whether there are a lot of good hitters or pitchers. Sure, it's probably a bit easier to put up mammoth offensive numbers in the National League in 1930 than in 1975. But a very large part of the difference in numbers being seen just had to do with the fact that there were a lot more great hitters in the era, rather than anything endemic to the periods that just kept 70's stars from truly showing that they were as great as their 30's counterparts.

                          And nowhere do I hear anything about the huge difference in pitching stars. The 70s had Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Perry, Jenkins, Ryan, and Niekro, all of them HOFers and well deserving. The 30s had Grove and Hubbell, and, well not much else.
                          This is true, but you also have to remember that the stars you're mentioning aren't really mega-pitching stars themselves. There was a lot greater depth of talent in the 70's than in the 30's, but that's largely to the 30's detriment rather than the 70's credit... whoever the third best pitcher of the 30's was (I'd go with Red Ruffing) was barely an above average pitcher in most eras, and so it's not all that impressive to be better than that. All the guys you mentioned are fine pitchers, but they all would have been second tier stars in most eras. Seaver and Carlton are great pitchers, but they're not as good as the 90's best (Pedro, Randy, Rocket, Maddux), or the deadball's best (Matty, Big Train, Grover Cleveland, Brown, Walsh, Waddell, etc.) or the 50's-60's (Spahn, Ford, Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, etc.). There were a lot more of them in the 70's, but none of them (despite what I know you're going to say about Seaver and Carlton) were truly all timers.

                          All those guys except arguably Yount were more 70s stars than Ruth was a 30s star. If you're counting Ruth for the 30s you absolutely have to include Aaron and Robinson for the 70s. Ted Williams only played one year in the 30s and really has no claim to be a 30s star. The 70s deserve Willie Mays before the 30s deserve Williams.
                          Aaron had two truly outstanding years in the 70's, 71 and 73. Ruth was better than either year from 30-32, and was better than any other of Aaron's 70's years in 33 and 34. I wouldn't count Ruth for the 30's, but he was much, much, MUCH better in the 30's than Aaron was in the 70's.
                          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            --EH, your arguments are a little contradictory. You argue both that the 30s had high offense because it had more great hitters and then go on to say that there were only two significantly above average pitchers in the whole decade. If the pitching sucked then maybe the hitting wasn't that great. OTOH, if you are right about the large number of great hitters, then maybe the pitching was better than it looks.
                            --I'd agree that some of the difference in hitting/pitching in eras might be attributed to talent distribution. This is more likely to be the case when conditions haven't changed much, but the balance shifts anyway. However, conditions did change dramitically around 1920 and it took a decade and a half or so for the balance to start returning. Pitchers had to adapt to the live/clean balls and banishment of trick pitches. Batters had a field day while pitchers were learning to adapt and adding new pitches to replace the spitter/shine/emery balls. That is all about conditions and little to none about the talent level of hitters/pitchers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ElHalo
                              There might be some disconnect between my view of Carter's defense and other people's (Matt rates him very high in PCA; I view him as the third worst defensive C in the Hall, after Ferrell and Lombardi). As for being a "small bit behind" on offense, I see one guy with a career average of .262 (high of .294) with only a 115 OPS+, and one guy who was a legitimate offensive force, and there's really no comparison. Yes, Carter played for a long time, whoopty do. It's not like Hartnett was Marty Bergen. Hartnett ranks seventh or eighth all time in my top catchers; I don't think Carter cracks the top 20.
                              Now, first off, why don't you think Carter was anything special on defense? He had a great defensive reputation, stats have confirmed this, what more do you want? Gary Carter was one of the best defensive catchers of all time.

                              With my thoughts on league quality and the fact that Carter played longer, I think his 115 OPS+ really isn't too far behind Hartnett's 126.

                              Yes, Fisk played longer than pretty much any catcher. No, he was nowhere NEAR as good as Dickey at his peak. If you really want a lot of play, Dickey set a major league record with 13 straight seasons catching at least 100 games (Fisk, for all his longevity, only had 12 such seasons in his career). He had one .300 qualifying season. Fisk had one qualifying season where he topped 140 in OPS+ (1972); Dickey did it three straight times from 36-38. Fisk was better at hitting home runs; Dickey was better at every other aspect of the game. I like Fisk; he ranks in my top 10 catchers. Dickey ranks (among MLB catchers) at number four.
                              Fisk did have some great peak years to go along with that longevity, mostly the great peak is because in his younger years Fisk was one standout on defense, and for a catcher was also standout on offense. Look at 1972, 1977, and 1978. Every one of those years he was A)Trmendous on defense, B)Great with the bat, especially for a C, and C)Caught pretty much every game. He had 30 Win Shares or more every one of those years, which is outstanding for a catcher.

                              Dickey's pretty good, I like him, but his peak isn't quite as good as Fisk's IMO and he doesn't have near the longevity. Dickey was helped tremendously by Yankee Stadium. This has been documented many times, I remember Bill James writing about it somewhere. I'll try to find the quote sometime. Going with park effects (Park Factors will just be so tremendously off in Dickey's case), league quality and longevity I don't see how Dickey tops Fisk.

                              Trosky had more 100 RBI seasons by age 25 than McCovey had in his career, and had by that time scored 100 twice as many times as McCovey would in his whole career. Four times in his first six seasons, Trosky hit at least .330; McCovey hit .300 exactly once in his career. McCovey was the better HR hitter, but Trosky partially makes up for that by being almost twice the doubles hitter McCovey was.

                              Let's do a little though experiment. I'm looking for everyone in history who's put up the following numbers per 161 games:

                              .300 BA, .500 SLG, 40 doubles, 25 homers, 100 R, 100 RBI.

                              The complete list? Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Albert Pujols, and Hal Trosky. McCovey's massive longevity advantage makes it close, but at his best, he was nowhere NEAR the player Trosky was. Hal Trosky: Yet another legendary, hero-hitter that SABRmetrics doesn't like because he didn't walk much. Yech.
                              Your failure to adjust for era is a glaring oversight. McCovey played in a huge pitcher's era, Trosky played in a huge hitter's era. Look at McCovey's peak 1968-1970 when he led the leauge in SLG and OPS all three years, home runs and RBI twice, and OBP once. He was by far the best hitter in the game during that period. Trosky was one of the top 10 hitters in the league, maybe in 1936.

                              The only major offensive category Trosky ever led the league in was RBI in 1936. McCovey trumped that easily in just those three years. Trosky never finshied hiigher than 7th in MVP voting, and is 391st all time in MVP shares. McCovey won the MVP in 1969 and was top 10 four times, good for more than 250 spots ahead of Trosky on the MVP shares all time leaderboard.



                              Morgan was pretty good, and Carew is one of my favorites. But Charlie Gehringer is Mr. No Weaknesses, the kind of guy who can carry a decade all by himself...
                              Gehringer had no weaknesses, but he didn't have any real great strenghts and not nearly as good a peak as Morgan. You also must remember 2B in the 30s was an offense first position, and thus Gehringers' numbers can't be placed on equal footing with Joe's or Rod's.

                              Fregosi was, as Mark said, washed up in the 70's, and even at his best, had no particularly notable offensive skills to speak of. He managed a decent OPS+ because of the sheer luck of park factors, but wasn't really all that much of a player.
                              He had no notable offensive skills to speak of, but he also was good at every offensive skill. Actually kind of like a mini Gehringer.


                              Lou Brock is an enigma to me; other than base stealing, the guy had basically NO useful skills as a baseball player whatsoever. He wasn't much of a power hitter (though he was an ok doubles hitter), couldn't draw a walk to save his life, was a lousy defender, and wasn't all that much of a contact hitter. Basically, he's a guy who skated by on mediocre contact hitting and good base stealing, and somehow wound up in the Hall based almost entirely on his respectable ability not to get injured. In my opinion, Brock belongs up there with Tommy McCarthy and Freddie Lindstrom on the least deserving Hall of Famers list.
                              I agree about Brock, he is very overrated and is a marginal HOFer. But pure longevity can put him over Hafey easily. And he was a very good contact hitter a few years and was better than Hafey ever was.

                              And Roy White? Seems like your kind of player; he could draw walks and steal bases, and do nothing else particularly notable. No thanks. Say what you want about Hafey, but the guy could hit singles, doubles, and homers like a pendulum, had a decent turn of speed, and only had such a short career because of the advent of night ball. I'd take him over White or Brock without thinking about it.
                              I do like Roy White, of course. I think Bill James may like him a bit too much, but he was a very good player who was underrated because he was the best player on the Yankees when they weren't very good.

                              Last time I checked, Wilson was a fine contact hitter, could draw walks, led his league in HR's four times, could hit doubles and triples and steal bases, and has two of the top 25 RBI seasons of all time. He was basically Hank Greenberg in CF. Doesn't crack my top 10 CF's, mind you, and isn't particularly close to it, but he's certainly worlds better than Cedeno, Pinson, Otis, or Wynn (yes, I know you don't want to talk about him; how about we both agree just not to mention either him or Traynor any more).
                              Wilson had a much shorter career than Cedeno, Pinson, and Otis, and his big numbers are entierly a function of his teammates, his park, his era, and the lineup structure. Place Cesar Cedeno in that exact same situation he probably drives in 190 runs. Plus Wilson was a bad defensive CFer while the CPO trio were all fabulous defenders.

                              Please note: In only one of these categories, HR's, does Jackson's career high top Klein's peak average. In most of them, Klein just blows Jackson completely out of the water. Klein's 66 H advantage just makes Jackson look silly. And note: These career high numbers are pretty much spiky peaks for Jackson. Outside of 1969, Jackson never topped 100 R, .400 OBP, .600 SLG, or a 1.000 OPS. Klein was so much better than Jackson at his peak as to render any comparison between the two, even with Jackson's longevity advantage, completely pointless.
                              Yeah, Mark summed it up pretty well-If Reggie played in the same era and park as Klein then he would probably hold the all time home run record for life time and single season.
                              Last edited by 538280; 02-04-2006, 07:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                EH...you think Carter is the third worst defensive catcher in the hall??? WOW! Where on EARTH did you get THAT impression??

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X