Ten Best Hitters Ever
Posted: October 13th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 294 Comments »
OK, so, I don’t really have time to do this. But you KNEW when I haphazardly put together a list of the greatest ever hitters in that last blog post, well, I could not leave it there.*
*Yes, I did see the Jon Stewart CNN bit about “Let’s leave it there.” I’m never going to think of those words quite the same way.
So I put together a spreadsheet and using my very special grading system that I only just invented, I came up with a more complete Top 10 list of hitters. In fact, I have a Top 538 hitters — those were be the 538 hitters in baseball history who compiled more than 6,000 plate appearances. The bottom 10, in case you are curious:
10. Roy McMillan
9. Aurelio Rodriguez (but what an arm)
8. Alfredo Griffin
6. George McBride
5. Mickey Doolan
4. Mark Belanger
3. Everett Scott
2. Tim Foli
1. Ed Brinkman
Yes, Ed Brinkman. He hit .224/.280/.300 over a long All-Star career (well he was an All-Star in 1973). He won a Gold Glove, twice got MVP votes, and he was a high school teammate of Pete Rose*. It is also mentioned on his Wikipedia page that he holds the record for most seasons with more than 400 at-bats, a batting average lower than .230 and fewer than 15 home runs. That seems kind of like rubbing it in, no? He also holds the records for most seasons with 450 plate appearances and an OPS+ of 70 or lower. I’m sure he holds a lot of records like that. He had a good glove, though.
*This reminds me, I have not pulled out this link for a while. You could probably tell from the sidebar poll that I have an incredibly cool prize that I’m going to be giving away. Believe me when I tell you: This is a BIG TIME prize. This prize is worth about nine times more than I paid for my first car. And that’s only money. In terms of coolness, this prize is worth, oh, probably a bajillion-shmillion times more than I paid for my first car. I’m just saying … I have not yet decided how to determine the prize winner yet. But you will notice that “Goes to the person who buys most copies of The Machine” is one of the possibilities.
So, the 10 best hitters in baseball history. For the record, I incorporated all sorts of factors — walk to strikeout, runs created, OPS+, length of career, their run scoring environment, their production numbers and so on. I threw in a few personal factors, added 20 points to everyone on the 1975 Reds (for all the obvious reasons), added 20 points to Buddy Bell and Andre Thornton for being my heroes, subtracted 15 points from Ty Cobb because we couldn’t stand the son of a bitch when we were alive so we told him to stick it! Well, you don’t want to know how the sausage is made so, here are the hitters 11 through 20, who just missed the list.
11. Joe DiMaggio
12. Willie Mays
13. Hank Aaron
14. Frank Thomas
15. Tris Speaker
16. Manny Ramirez
17. Mel Ott
18. Johnny Mize
19. Hank Greenberg
20. Alex Rodriguez
And just below them: Frank Robinson, Edgar Martinez (!), Honus Wagner, Mike Schmidt, Ken Griffey, Jim Thome, Todd Helton, Ralph Kiner, Paul Waner, Vlad Guerrero.
Now, remember, we’re just talking about hitting here. So this comes down to the players, though a combination of batting skill, patience, power and the ability to not make outs, are the best who ever lived. There’s no way you can fairly rank the 10 best. But nobody said this blog is fair. Here’s the list:
10. Mickey Mantle
– In 1960, Mickey Mantle struck out 100 times for the fifth time in his career. That was a record and a very recent development. Up until the end of World War II, striking out 100 times in a season was an enormous embarrassment, and it had only happened 13 times. The strikeout pioneer was probably Dolph Camili, who first struck out 100 times in 1935 and then did it three more times before the World War II began.
But what interests me is that another player had done the dirty 100 Ks four times as well … Vince DiMaggio. Now, seriously, how does that happen? His brother Joe was famous for almost never striking out — he had more homers than strikeouts six times and just missed pulling it off in 1950 at age 36. Dom was a moderate strikeout guy. And Vince, wow, he led the league in whiffs six times and he had more strikeouts than CAREER homers in 1938 and 1943.
Well, you can never tell about brothers. The only set of baseball brothers that really made sense to me were the Giambi brothers. You watched them play and you could … both of them wanted to HIT when the family went out to play some ball. You have to figure whichever one wasn’t hitting took a bat with him to the outfield.
9. Ty Cobb
– I love that in 1922, at the age of 35, Ty Cobb hit .401 … and didn’t even come CLOSE to winning the batting title. That was the year George Sisler hit .420. Sisler is a fascinating player in a lot of ways — he hit .340 in his career, but as Bill James has pointed out his career on-base percentage is lower than, among others, Alvin Davis, Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez, Gene Woodling, J.D. Drew, Merv Rettenmund, Tim Salmon, Bernie Carbo and Gene Tenace.
8. Jimmie Foxx
– You might know that Foxx won the Ancient Triple Crown in 1933. He hit .356, hit 48 homers and drove in 163 RBIs. Yeah, a pretty nice year.
But here’s an interesting tidbit: Foxx TWICE had near Triple Crowns. In 1932, he hit .364 with 58 homers and 169 RBIs — he has the most homers and RBIs, but lost the batting title to the much forgotten Dale Alexander, who hit .367 that year. What interesting is that Alexander only had 454 plate appearances that year — if they had the rule then that a hitter needed 3.1 plate appearances per team games played, he would not have qualified for the title. So, we should give Foxx the ATC retroactively that year.
In 1938, Foxx led the league with a .349 average and with 175 RBIs. But he finished second with 50 home runs. This time it was legit though … Hank Greenberg hit 58 homers.
7. Albert Pujols
– I tried all I could to push Albert down because he only just crossed that 6,000 plate appearance limit. But no matter how many points i penalized him, he kept popping into the Top 10. He’s that good. Though it should be noted that after he hit two home runs in Milwaukee in early September this year — that gave him 47 for the season — he was asked about being a home run hitter. And he adamantly said that he’s NOT a home run hitter.
And, sure enough, he did not hit a home run for the rest of the season.
6. Stan Musial
– Bernie Miklasz, my good friend at the St. Louis Post Dispatch, tells a great story about Stan the Man. Albert Pujols’ very first game was April 2nd, 2001 in Colorado. And on that very day, Stan Musial just showed up at the park. He was in town for a card show or something, and for some reason he just decided to go to the ballpark. He did not call ahead or anything … he just showed up and said, “Hi, I’m Stan Musial. I was hoping I might get in to see the game.” Of course, they treated Stan like the royalty he is — asked him to throw out the first pitch and so on — and he was happy to do it. And then he settled into his seat and watched the game.
Now what inspired Stan Musial to go out to the game? It could have been anything, of course. Maybe he just wanted to relax and watch a baseball game — one of those things to do in Denver. But yeah, as much as I love the numbers and as much I try to stay based in reality, sure, I have a little Field of Dreams in me. And, sure, I can feel that maybe Stan the Man was meant to be there to see Albert Pujols start his career.
5. Rogers Hornsby
– You might recall he was the one who called Tom Hanks a “talking pile of pig (bleep)” when his parents had come all the way down from Michigan to see him play. From what I can tell about Hornsby’s personality, that sounds about right. But, he was one amazing hitter. And he also might be a distant relative of Bruce Hornsby. The stuff you learn on Wikipedia.*
*Should there be an adjective called ‘Truthiki?“ We have truth, of course. And Stephen Colbert gave us truthy. Well, what about truthiki — and that is what you call any fact you learn on Wikipedia. It may be true. It may not. It’s probably true. It kind of sounds true. Is Rogers Hornsby really related in some way to Bruce Hornsby? I don’t know. But it sounds truthiki to me.
4. Lou Gehrig
– According to the official Lou Gehrig Web site, the Yankees offered to trade Gehrig to the Red Sox in 1925 for the unforgettable Phil Todt. The site say that this was, at least in part, to make up for the Babe Ruth trade. I fear this is something I should have already known, something everyone knows, but I don’t recall ever hearing this. Seriously, isn’t this in some ways WORSE than the Babe Ruth trade? Shouldn’t it be the curse of Lou Gehrig? I mean, hey, the Ruth deal was awful, but there seem to be extenuating circumstances. And here was their chance to make up for it. This was like the Beatles going back to Pete Best and saying, “OK, look, we’re not going to take you back, but we’ve put in a good word for you with this guy we know, Mick Jagger, who is in this band that might do pretty well, all you gotta do is call.”
And the Red Sox said “No thank you. We are quite happy with Phil Todt.”
3. Barry Bonds
– In case you’re wondering, Barry Bonds from 1986 to 1999, before he, er, “bulked up,” would have ranked somewhere around 14 — on either side of Frank Thomas. And remember, that’s just as a hitter. That Bonds was a great base stealer and perennial gold glove winner. When Bonds comes up for the Hall of Fame vote, I’m sure we’ll try to break this down better, but I would say he was pretty close to a Top 10 player before 1999.
And so it’s weird that his next five years — and the 241 OPS+ he punched up in 3,000 plate appearances; nobody ever did anything quite like it — are what, in the minds of many, will diminish him forever.
2. Ted Williams
– I do think there’s a strong argument to be made for Ted Williams over Babe Ruth. He had the better on-base percentage. He missed three prime seasons because of World War II and most of two seasons in his young 30s when he went to Korea — there seems little doubt that with those years his numbers would have been even better. He walked more than Ruth and struck out a lot less. The main thing that Ruth could do better than Williams was hit home runs. That’s not a bad advantage to have — especially because Ruth was so good at the things that Williams was good at (hitting for average, drawing walks, consistently putting up jaw-dropping numbers).
In the end, I could not quite put Ted at No. 1 — at least not this time. The home run advantage has to count. And Ruth really invented a whole new way of hitting a baseball.
1. Babe Ruth
– You have heard the various rumors about Babe Ruth corking his bat. Well, what would happen if tomorrow someone wrote a book proving that Ruth absolutely used a primitive form of steroids? I’m just wondering — I remember that Leigh Montville, the author of the excellent Babe Ruth book “The Big Bam.” told me once that he thinks Ruth would have taken steroids in a heartbeat. Let’s be honest: The Babe was not a man known for restraint or any romantic notions about fair play.
I’m pretty sure there were no steroids for Ruth to take. But my question is: If we found out that he did, would that change the way baseball fans everywhere view Babe Ruth’s career? Would everyone say: Well, NO WONDER he put up those ridiculous numbers? I mean the guy hit more home runs than ENTIRE TEAMS for crying out loud. We should have known.
Or would a discovery like that just spark yawns of disinterest? Who cares? It was a long time ago. It was a different era.
I don’t know. It’s just something to think about. Then again, Babe Ruth on steroids (and with a better workout plan) might have hit 100 home runs in a season. And Josh Gibson, with no color barrier, might have hit 120. And Walter Johnson with a split-fingered fastball might have struck out 400 in a season. And Zack Greinke, transported to 1968 Detroit, might have had 30 wins and a 1.33 ERA. And Duane Kuiper, in Coors Field, might have hit .300. It’s a great game, this baseball. So many possibilities.
Loading ...
Circle Me Bruce.
Shoulda gone with your gut. Teddy Ballgame is the best of all time.
Where’s Brett? There’s no way Schmidt is a better hitter than Schmidt.
I am a Brett fan, but how can they always say Schmidt was the best 3B hands down. Aside from HRs, Brett is the superior hitter in almost every category.
Brett is a lifetime .305 ave, while Schmidt is .267.
Brett has 3,154 hits, Schmidt 2234.
Amazingly, both have 1595 RBIs.
Homers goes to Schmidt.
It’s a circus on the moon, this baseball
As a stats nerd, and a lover of amazing baseball players, and as a lover of clean, orderly things, I just love Albert Pujols and his baseball-reference page. It just so goddamned clean. He’s only played for one team; he played 161 games in his rookie season, so he’s never played a short season; he’s hit over .300 every year; over 100 RBI every year; lots of home runs and doubles and walks every year; he’s even been hit by pitch between 4 and 10 times every year and has grounded into a ton of double plays each year. There are a few blips – he scored 99 runs in 2007 and OBPed just under .400 in 2002 – but when I remember that those cutoffs are arbitrary, my sense of symmetry returns.
He has got to be at the very top of the intersection of consistent and incredibly good. I bet Joe Morgan just loves the guy, not as much for his production as his consistency. I wonder if you Poz could come up with a consistency metric and help me pronounce Pujols the all-time best.
Really can’t argue with the list. Everything seems to be in order. Not that Mr. Posnanski needed my approval or anything.
How did Stan the man not make the all century team and Pete Rose and Junior did? I do not see them on this list!!!
Stan was jobbed!!!
A small, insignificant nit- Dimaggio played 13 seasons, while Aaron played 23. Yet, they both have a career OPS+ of 155. I know DiMaggio’s OBP is higher- is that why he’s ranked over Aaron? Better peak? I’m too tired to do the whole 5 best, 10 best seasons thing.
I’m sure you know this, but B-R scales Duane Kuiper’s career batting average for the 2000 Rockies to be .325.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kuipedu01-bat.shtml
@Mike -
I dunno… Schmidt has a better career on-base AND slugging, which are far more important than average. Throw in the home runs and I think it’s fairly cut and dry. They were both excellent, of course.
Hi Joe.
atta joe joe, keep it up
I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine in ‘95 or ‘96. We speculated the either Barry Bonds of Ken Griffey Jr would break Maris’s home run record and that whichever did it, would probably break Aaron’s all-time HR record too.
We felt McGwire could never pull it off because he was way too injury prone.
Sosa never entered the conversation.
We thought briefly about Canseco, but ehhh no… not quite.
Nice list you got. How far up the list do you think Pujols will be by the time he’s finished?
Was that really 2,200 words? It flowed so well and was so interesting that it felt a lot shorter.
I too am curious as to where Brett ranks on the list. The interesting thing is that of the top three position players in terms of Hall of Fame vote %, only Cobb is in the top 20.
Hank Greenberg at 19 is very interesting. If it wasn’t for Stan the Man, Hank may very well be the most underrated player of the 20th century. I remember the documentary about Greenberg that came out about ten years ago. It was one of the best documentaries I’ve seen.
I doubt I’m alone when I say I’d like to see the whole list if possible.
Mike, Schmidt was a better hitter than Brett and it wasn’t terribly close. His OBP was higher than Brett’s.And, maybe thanks to the home runs, he solidly beats Brett in the slugging arena.
When folks talk about the best 3B, hopefully defense is part of the equation too. Schmidt was the kind of 3B who filled in at SS occasionally when needed. Brett was the kind of 3B who played the last 1/3 of his career at first.
“The only set of baseball brothers that really made sense to me were the Giambi brothers.”
Don’t forget the Molina brothers. I wonder how they decided who had to pitch? Foot race?
I seem to remember reading (in The Physics of Baseball, perhaps?) that corking one’s bat gives no special advantage in terms of hitting balls farther.
I would like to hear your take on Todd Helton’s impact on the city of Denver and the game of baseball, Joe. I believe he is a borderline Hall of Famer. He consistently hits and hits no matter the team around him. I haven’t looked into the stats but i would think his lifetime average is above .300. I was glad to see him in your honorable mention top 20.
Brett v. Schmidt: a 21 point edge in OBP and 40 point edge in slugging seem to indicate the Mike Schmidt was a far better hitter.
Joe, this is all well and good, but now for the big kahuna: who are the best hitters off great pitchers? Let’s say, highest batting averages (with a base amount of ABs) against pitchers in the Hall of Fame (or some other standard: 250+ wins, sub-3.00 career ERA, +150 career ERA+, what have you), then cross-reference those hitters to how they fared against other pitchers who meet the greatness criterion. I read sometime last year that Ryan Howard was a terrible hitter against good pitchers; in the context of the greatest of all time, I want to know what pitchers killed what hitters and otherwise. You have until Monday…go!
PS: I would put in the work, but unfortunately I don’t get paid for my infinitesimal sabermetric acumen. Even if I did do it, no one would read it, simply because I’m not some Kansas City bigshot.
Thanks, guy,
M
By age 29 (Pujols age) Ty Cobb had led the league in:
- runs 6 times
- Hits 6 times
-Batting 8 times
-OBP 5 times
-Slugging 7 times
-OPS 8 times
-OPS+ 9 (!!!) times
-TB 5 times
Sure he was a bad guy, but lets not let that affect what he did on the filed. The man dominated like very few ever have.
Click on my link to see an article comparing the best thirdbasemen of all-time. Brett’s biggest detractor, of course, was his lack of games at 3B. For that reason I ranked Boggs 3rd, ahead of Brett. The notorious #2, Eddie Mathews, who may be more underrated than Musial or Greenberg.
Funny thing about your list is just how UNcontroversial, just how OBVIOUS almost all the names on it are.
Suppose you grabbed a couple of Old School fans or reporters off the street (the kind of guys who think homers, ribbies and batting average are what matters, and who think “VORP” is what frogs say) and asked them to name the greatest hitters ever. Does anyone doubt that their lists would be almost identical to Joe’s? They MIGHT leave off Bonds due to steroids, or they might leave off Pujols because he’s too current…. but otherwise, it doesn’t take Bill James to figure out Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig are right at the top.
Which means the new stats are important, but ONLY at the margins. The cream of the crop? Those guys are readily apparent to the most innumerate fan. The worst of the worst? Them too. It’s only in the borderline cases that the new stats tell us a lot that wasn’t necessarily obvious.
I saw George Brett at the grocery store this week… Never saw Mike Schmidt at the grocery store. George wins!
Where’s TPJ?
“Well, what would happen if tomorrow someone wrote a book proving that Ruth absolutely used a primitive form of steroids?”
Of course it’s not proven, but that story about him injecting himself with pureed sheep testicles does get repeated all the time.
“In the end, I could not quite put Ted at No. 1 — at least not this time. The home run advantage has to count.”
Sure, but if you count the home runs that Williams woulda/shoulda/coulda hit in the years that he missed for the wars then it becomes not much of a numbers advantage at all. Assume 36 a year for his WWII years, another 30 in ‘52 and another 20 in ‘53 and Teddy finishes with 709 HR.
Or course he could have hit more in those years. Or less. Or gotten hurt. We’ll never know. Baseball truly is a wonderful game.
For what it’s worth, I still think you got it right. Ruth’s average season was better than William’s average season. Not by a lot, but still…
Where does George Brett rank?
I know all about the Coor’s advantage but even still is that enough of a knock to keep Todd Helton out of the hall? He’s got a career ops of nearly 1000, good for 10th career and 3rd active with only Pujols and Manny ahead, and even his adjusted stats have him well ahead of many hall of famers and in line with the elite players of today. If he retired today I’d think he has a pretty good case.
What about Larry Walker? Paul Molitor?
#25 Astorian: I must disagree. Though here they seem to agree, I bet you that down the list, conventional belief and stats diverge in their choices. Even disregarding that possibility, advanced statistics show us so much more in almost every instance than the old-school methods.
Yes, we shouldn’t throw away observation and the like, but it is ridiculous to the point of extreme denial to say that the new stats are only important at the “margins”.
Besides, if you asked one of the old-school-baseball types, I am skeptical that Foxx would crack their top ten. He doesn’t have the press.
Is Bobby Abreu on his way to Cooperstown?
Matt…….#17
Thanks for a wonderful early morning belly laugh…………perfect!!
My first instinct is that you have underrated Mantle.
There’s a case for putting him ahead of everyone except Ruth/Williams/Bonds. (There’s also a case for *not* putting him ahead of some of them, like Musial’s superior longevity.)
Here’s something interesting:
Albert Pujols: 172 OPS+ through age 29.
Mickey Mantle: 172 OPS+ through age 36.
First off, Joe, thank you for making me smile with the Field of Dreams quote. That movie and your blog always brighten my day.
Gotta say, I myself am a big supporter of Teddy Williams for greatest hitter ever. He may fall short in career numbers to Ruth, and I’m not going to insist people do something unpredictable like assume the stats he would have had without the missed time for service. Just look at the numbers he’s already got.
Yeah, Ruth’s got him in SLG–he probably would with or without those lost seasons–but oh my god look at that OBP. Williams was the best in game, ever, at not getting out. That alone almost makes up the gap in SLG and places him a close second in OPS+. Williams had a lot more AB/K, as well. I concede that I am picking and choosing stats, but I have a hard time labeling the greatest hitter ever at getting on base who was also a damn good power hitter who didn’t strike out a whole lot and took his walks, anything less than the greatest ever.
#26 – the “new stats” are what prove the rule – yes, most can say “Babe Ruth” or “Ted Williams,” but most say that Joe Dimaggio is a better hitter than Mickey Mantle because they *don’t* take into account OBP or put too much stock into striking out.
Also – I thought Babe Ruth took horse semen as a kind of, well, “adrenaleine enhancer.” Wasn’t that *identical* to taking steroids. Babe Ruth pushed the limits of *everything* – if he did take horse semen, whose to say he didn’t take anything else? And we read a case in IP that concerned cornering adrenaleine artificially before WWI – so there may have been all kinds of enhancers available to the Babe. Knowing his personality, wouldn’t we jump to conclusions – like we do about today’s players – that the Babe was juiced?
I agree with David at #33. I especially think Mays is on most every list of the top ten hitters and probably often cracks the top five.
Who was the 7th worst hitter in history? He was omitted from your list, Joe.
I’m betting that the 7th worst history is….. Duane Kuiper
Don’t forget, the Babe lost a few seasons worth of at bats himself while pitching for the Red Sox.
“Joe, this is all well and good, but now for the big kahuna: who are the best hitters off great pitchers? ”
Do it, Joe! You know you can’t resist.
Joe, Todd Helton among the top 30 hitters of all time???? (Coors Field), Paul Waner and Vlad are ranked to high as well.
Mantle is tremendously underrated and by Yankee fans oddly enough.
I have to take away a few points for players who played before integration.
How do you put Barry Bonds on the list and omit Mark McGwire? To me, either both are on the list or they’re both off.
Where’s Shoeless Joe? Dan Brouthers? Dick Allen? Jeff Bagwell?
Here’s my top 27, Peak & Career, Only offense, no defense, Must have played in the Majors (no Negro leaguers):
1-Ruth
2-Williams
3-Ba. Bonds
4-Mantle
5-Gehrig
6-Hornsby
7-Musial
8-Mays
9-Cobb
10-F. Thomas
11-Aaron
12-Ott
13-Mize
14-J. Jackson
15-Dimaggio
16-McGwire
17-D. Allen
18-D. Brouthers
19-Frank Robinson
20-M. Ramirez
21-J. Foxx
22-Greenberg
23-J. Bagwell
24-Tris Speaker
25-Edgar Martinez
26-Alex Rodriguez
27-Chipper Jones
28-Ralph Kiner
29-Willie Stargell
30-Jim Thome
If you don’t want Bonds or Mcgwire on the list, push everyone down and put Schmidt and Sheffield on the list.
Thomas, Bagwell, Allen, and Chipper Jones are tremendously underrated when it comes to all time rankings. I think people forget that Jones has a career line of .307/.406/.541.
Bagwell played in the Astrodome a couple of years and Allen played during the 60’s. Thomas for some strange reason gets no respect.
Pujols hasn’t played enough to be ranked fairly.
I don’t think the data for “best hitter off great pitchers” exists before the ’50s, so it’s not really a topic that Joe can whip up a blog post on in a few days.
Hank Greenberg isn’t even the most underrated player Joe lists within one spot of #19. Johnny Mize is a carbon copy of him, and had to get into the Hall via the Veterans’ Committee. (Greenberg’s raw totals are more impressive, but the AL was much, much higher-scoring than the NL during the ’30s; in context, Mize was a little better.)
Joe, where does Pete Rose rank on this list?
Brinkman and Rodriguez were the left side of the Tigers infield for several years in the mid-70s. Aurelio’s arm was an absolute rocket. He would field the ball, look at the seams, and then just launch it across the diamond. I seem to remember him being a “reliable” (reliably bad) .240 hitter with about 10 homers and 50 RBis every year.
How does Ichiro get snubbed here? He’s arguably the best hitter of the past decade.
> Brinkman and Rodriguez were the left side of the Tigers infield for several years in the mid-70s.
They were the left side of the *Senators* infield in 1970, until the worst trade in history, which sent them to the Tigers for the washed-up Denny McLain in 1971, where they were the left side through ‘74. Aurelio stayed in Detroit through ‘79, but without Eddie after ‘74.
I lived in D.C. from ‘67 to ‘74, and went to a lot of ballgames in ‘69 and ‘70. Aurelio (the first A-Rod, right?) hit 19 homers in ‘70, and I swear I saw him hit at least half of them. He was a hell of a great third baseman and a very infectiously enthusiastic player in general. He was one of my very favorite players of the time, and definitely my favorite Senator. Too bad his BA wasn’t a little higher. . . .
My favorite Aurelio story came when he was with the Yankees in ‘81. He had been on the DL for some time. I was living in Seattle at the time and saw the Yankees play the Mariners in A-Rod’s first game back from the DL.
First time up: Homer.
Second time up: Homer.
Third time up, I forget for sure, but I think I remember it as a long-ish fly that didn’t quite fly away.
I gave him the old cry from the D.C. days: “au-REEEEEEEEE-LI-oooooo.” I think he heard me.
He only hit two homers that year, and I saw both of them.
So those of us who remember Ed Brinkman and Mark Belanger can visualize what the Royals might have at shortstop if Yuni could play defense.
For peak value, I think Honus Wagner probably should be on your list. His career OPS/BA/SLG numbers are hurt by the fact that he didn’t retire at age 35 like all the other guys in his era did.
I might note that George Brett would probably do better against Mike Schmidt if you lopped off the last 3 or 4 years from his career too, he hung on for a few years when he was a merely average hitter whereas Schmidt did not.
Some others have brought this up already but I am kind of curious where the low powered, high average guys like Ichiro, Rose, Boggs, Carew etc. rank on Joe’s list.
Forget about steroids, what if the old-timers had had access to our current information about weight training and nutrition?
Joe, you wrote that pre-bulk Barry is a borderline top-10 player “and so it’s weird that his next five years — and the 241 OPS+ he punched up in 3,000 plate appearances; nobody ever did anything quite like it — are what, in the minds of many, will diminish him forever.”
It’s not weird at all, really…the point is that he went from being one of the elite players of all time for a long stretch, to THE BEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME for a short stretch. Look at MVP voting. By my unofficial count, for the 2001-2004 seasons (at the ages of 36-39 years old) he received 113 first place votes in winning 4 straight MVPs…and EVERYONE ELSE received 14. Total. His OBP for those years ranged from .515 to .609, and his SLG from .749 to .863. And this is from age 36-39!
Nobody has ever had four consecutive seasons like that (and if they have, please correct me). Nobody has ever made the jump from all-time great to unquestionably the greatest of all time…at age 36.
I mean, he’s essentially 2 different players. One is a hall of famer, an all-time great, and one is as if Superman got sick of fighting crime and played pro ball, simply toying with the mere mortals around him.
The three most exciting players I’ve ever seen were Gooden, Pedro, and Barry. Gooden burned bright, and then out. We’ve seen that. That’s a cultural archetype. Pedro was very good, then hit an apex of insane brilliance, then faded out. We’ve seen that..it’s what the life cycle of greatness is supposed to look like. Barry transformed himself (and his body) from a great to THE ALL-TIME best, in the twilight of his career. So it’s not weird that he is defined by that jump, and those years…we’ve never seen that. It’s like if Jordan came back with the Wizards and dropped 50 per game for four years. What he had done previously had been seen before (e.g., Willie Mays was a better “Skinny Barry”)…but what he did during that epic stretch? Never before, and probably never again.
Think about describing the Two Barrys to your grandkids. Skinny Barry? I can describe him. But Bulky Barry? Words would fail me. He was a mythical creature, a non-human. You had to see it to believe it.
Brett VS. Schmidt I’m a fan of both players, but Brett was the better pure HITTER of the two. Schmidt’s power threat helped him draw a lot of the walks that give him a higher OBP than Brett. If your life depended on one of them getting a hit in one at-bat, who would you want up there? I’d take George, now and forever. BB P.S. LOVED “The Machine” AND “The Soul of Baseball”!
For the Brett fans (and I am one), here are his best 10 OPS+ seasons vs. Schmidt’s:
GB: 203, 178, 158, 153, 149, 148, 144, 144, 142, 141.
MS: 199, 171, 161, 158, 156, 155, 154, 152, 151, 150.
George’s best 2 seasons (1980, 1985) are better than Schmidt’s, but after that Michael Jack has a clear advantage in the next 8.
I acknowledge that OPS+ isn’t the only way to measure a hitter and maybe George would do better in another measurement, but Schmidt clearly has an advantage.
Put Cobb at #3, Pujols at #10 (he may get there, but not there yet), take Bonds and Musial out of Top Ten and insert Aaron and Mays and you will have it about right
If we’re going to assume that Ted Williams would have compiled bigger numbers had he not missed the war years, don’t we have to assume the same for Ruth had he not spent the first five years or so of his career as a pitcher? Granted it’s not quite the same – after all, Ruth still got to hit back then. But how many more at bats would Ruth have gotten had he began his career as an everyday player? Would he have hit 800 homers? 900?
Apologies to kermit, who already beat me to the punch on the point I raised.
I moved to DC in the spring of 68 and the Senators with Eddie Brinkman were a terrible offensive team, even for 1968. Bob Lemon was replaced by Ted Williams and proceeded to add 200 OPS points to Eddie Brinkman’s career. 1969 was the career high for Eddie Brinkman, and I expect the career high for many of those Senators. I have no idea if Ted was responsible or the change in the mound from 68 to 69 was responsible but from a little kids perspective he made all the difference in the world. That 1969 Senator team was a motley group of players but with Ted leading them, they made 1969 a golden summer.
I’m surprised Joe ranked bonds so high. His career numbers are definitely tainted by all those intentional walks.
When Bruce Hornsby played with the Grateful Dead he kept a small bust of Rogers Hornsby on top of his piano-I don’t know if this means they are related but it probably means something.
Lists are okay but they are sort of like a-holes and opinions…We all have them and they can get to be a bit tedious….
@60:
Yes, without looking it up, ‘69 was definitely the best year for very many of the Senators. Definitely for Howard, Epstein, Brinkman, A-Rod, Unser, and other hitters; and how about the pitchers? I believe that must have been the year Bosman led the league in ERA, and other pitchers also had what must have been career years.
TW was really inspired that year, and it rubbed off on the team. This was his first year back in baseball after he retired at the end of ‘60. After ‘69, he didn’t seem to care nearly as much, and his team’s performance reflected that.
BTW, ‘69 must have been the year (or else it was ‘70) that the following trifecta happened:
Day A: I didn’t go. There was an unassisted triple play, I believe by Ron Hansen.
Day B: I went. Nothing particularly memorable happened.
Day C: I didn’t go. Nixon decided to go to the game on the spur of the moment.
BTW, speaking of unassisted triple plays, I saw Rick Auerbach of the Mariners *almost* pull one off. All he had to do was tag the runner from first (which he easily could have done) instead of throwing to first, but he wasn’t thinking quite fast enough.
I think one problem with rating these players is that sometimes, we are giving some players an advantage over others by looking at the career numbers in the averaged stats, but then not looking at the career numbers in the aggregate stats.
For instance, let’s compare Joe Dimaggio (Joe’s #11) to Honus Wagner (presumably somewhere in the 20s for Joe.)
Wagner’s career averaged stats don’t stand up to JoeD’s:
HW: .327/.391/.466 OPS+150
JD: .325/.398/.579 OPS+ 155
Slightly better for JoeD.
But what if Wagner hadn’t played 5 more seasons after the age 38 (which, btw, was pretty much unheard of in the dead ball era) and retired after the 1912 season.
Then his averaged stats are:
.341/.406/.493 OPS+ 160
Now, if we say JoeD had retired after the 1950 season, then his averaged stats are:
.329/.401/.589 OPS+ 158.
Of course, you might say that we should include all the stats and we shouldn’t worry about Honus being downgraded just because JoeD had the decency to realize he was done and the Flying Dutchman didn’t.
That’s fine, but then you have to take into account the extra 1200 hits Honus has on JoeD too.
You cannot have it both ways, in my opinion.
Nice field of dreams quote indeed. I knew i had the right roommate the other day when watching the phillies game there were two high and tight pitches in a row and i said, not even really full referencing it, just saying it to say it, “The first two were high and tight, so where do you think the next one’s gonna be? ” and my friend said without blinking,”He’s not gonna wanna load the bases, so look low and away. But watch out for in your ear.”
Does your system include an adjustment for the quality of major league baseball in each era relative to other eras?
John Q.
You can’t dock Pujols points for not playing enough but keep Shoeless Joe. Albert actually has more plate appearances than Jackson (and isn’t too far off from Allen and McGwire, among others.)
If you want to argue decline phase, Pujols just completed his age 29 season and Jackson never played beyond his age 30 season.
Also, if you’re going to eliminate Bonds and McGwire for PED use (which you didn’t do in your list, but suggested that others might want to do) then you also have to remove A-Rod and Manny (at the very least – who knows who’s clean and who’s dirty in this era?) and certainly couldn’t replace them with Sheffield on the list.
Great list, and I really can’t complain with your top 10. I’m glad you left Mays and Aaron out – on a list of all-time greatest PLAYERS, they’re both top-10 guys, but I don’t think they quite stack up on a purely offensive level.
Imagine how good Mantle could have been without all the injuries? We’re talking about a guy who tore up his knee as a rookie and probably never played at 100% again, and the guy still put up mind boggling numbers. His walk numbers are insane, especially when you consider the lineup he was batting in was the deepest in the league.
I love the fact that 3 of your top 7 are Cardinals (Pujols, Musial, Hornsby), but how do you not have Willie Mays and Aaron in the top 10? I would kick Bonds out just based on the steriods—his numbers are tainted. With all due respect to Jimmy Foxx, I would have to rate Mays and Aaron’s career over Foxx. Foxx had a fantastic 8-10 year run but didn’t do it over 20 years like them.
Also, people seem to be confusing the so-called “pure hitters” with hitters in general. Yes, Brett would probably be a better guy than Schmidt to have at the plate if you needed a single in a given at-bat, but if you need someone for a SEASON (or several,) you’d win more games with Schmidt.
Likewise, guys like Ichiro, Gwynn, Boggs and especially Rose aren’t as good in terms of overall impact to the guys at the top of Joe’s list, either because they don’t walk, don’t have power or both.
Having said that, with all the talk of “what if Ruth had these modern advantages” and so on, I’d love to see what some of the pure batting average guys would have done 80+ years ago, with (generally) bigger parks, worse field conditions, lesser defenders and (generally) lesser pitchers.
I have to think guys like Ichiro, Gwynn, Boggs and Carew would probably be pretty consistently above .400.
any way we get to see the complete list of 538?
Joe — out of curiosity, why does my all-time favorite Edgar merit an exclamation point?
Schmidt is way too low. Todd Helton a better hitter then Schmidt for instance. I think not unless you are talking about hitting singles.
I agree with Ruth over Williams. You have to go with concrete numbers, not what ifs. The tremendous what if for Ted, isn’t what if he had those war years back, it’s what if he played home games at Yankee Stadium and tailored his swing to it.
Also, imagine if the Babe had the greenies Mantle was taking to get over those NYC hangovers.
Peace
I have to go on some more about Mike Schmidt after reading all these comments and some people’s lists besides Joe’s. Hitting is everything. A single is worth no more then a walk the large majority of the time. When you adjust for era there is just no way Mike Schmidt isn’t one of the twenty greatest hitters in the history of the game. A strong case can be made for him in the top ten. The guy got on base more then a lot of the people in front of him in these lists and he hit for more power then them too. Why is Mike Schmidt so consistently under-rated? What is annoying is that a lot of you people claim to be stat geeks. Mike Schmidt was awesome.
The winds a Candlestick park’s Mays, short porch Yankee Stadium’s Ruth – short same SF park’s Bonds (and medicinal assists his), Aaron’s high altitude “Launching Pad” ATL, Ted Williams lost war years…all of them the modern and yesteryear players: advantages & disadvantages, variously.
All considered, Ruth is the best ever – he is to baseball as Halas to football, Naismith to basketball. The rest? More so as Al Gore is to the internet…pretenders in comparison.
joe – first time reading one of your articles and found it very entertaining – that is until i saw barry bonds name listed so high – please, save his name for your top ten listing of players who must be thinking “did i really do that” – then mays and aaron would be closer to being in the top ten hitters list where they belong!!!
You are pathetic. How can anyone put together a greatest hitter list and not include Pete Rose. Do they really pay you to write?
Poor Mantle. Even in death, people are wondering when he’s going to finally reach his potential.
The man was the sum total of what he did. Asking what he might have accomplished without injuries is like wondering what would have happened to Larry Bird if he didn’t have a bad back. They both earned their injuries.
I find #79 hilarious, not only because it is silly, but because Joe obviously does this for free.
I noticed that 7 of your top 10 hitters played prior to integration. I wonder how some of these hitters would have fared against pitchers like Bob Gibson, Doc Gooden (during his prime), Juan Marichal or even CC Sabathia?
Or, how many hits would have been taken away by a defense that included Ozzie Smith, Ken Griffey, Roberto Clemente, Andruw Jones, Curt Flood, Ichiro Suzuki or Willie Mays?
I would guess that their averages wouldn’t be quite as high.
How do you even bring up a conversation about the best hitters and not once bring up 8 TIME BATTING CHAMPION Tony Gywnn?!?!
Joe you are a moron
“…And Zack Greinke, transported to 1968 Detroit, might have had 30 wins and a 1.33 ERA…” Of course the guy who actually had the 31 wins had 41 starts and pitched 336 innings – about 2 years work for Greinke!
HOW CUD U LEAVE OUT DEREK JETER?!??! HE IS TEH BEST!
GET A BRAIN YOU MORAN!
Again on Brett vs. Schmidt:
Yes Schmidt wins OBP and slugging, but do you ignore:
Brett is a lifetime .305 ave, while Schmidt is .267. (almost 40 points higher)
Brett has 3,154 hits, Schmidt 2234. (920 more hits)
Both have 1595 RBIs.
Brett is one of the BEST clutch hitters of all-time. To say that it’s not even close is very ignorant.
I’ll take Brett up with the game on the line any day of the week.
P.S. They each won one World Series, Brett on a far more inferior club.
Mick,
Joe’s not a moron and doesn’t deserve that kind of insult.
He left off Tony Gwynn because the list wasn’t “players that have finished the season leading in batting average” it was the top ten hitters.
Tony Gwynn’s career line: .338/.388/.459
.307 EQA, with a 132 ops+
That ops+ of 132 ranks him about 131st all time.
Just for comparison that’s almost .80 points less slugging and .18 less on base percentage than Chipper Jones.
Again just for comparison other players with a career 132 ops+ or higher who didn’t make the list:
Bobby Abreu-132
Mo Vaughn-132
Ken Singleton-132
Joe Morgan-132
Al Simmons-132
Jackie Robinson-132
Tommy Henrich-132
Jim Edmonds-132
Rocky Colavito-132
Rico Carty-132
Jose Canseco-132
Juan Gonzalez-132
Danny Tartabull-133
John Kruk-133
Billy Williams-133
Orlando Cepeda-133
Boog Powell-134
David Ortiz-134
Fred Mcgriff-134
Al Kaline-134
George Brett-135
Frank Baker-135
Arky Vaughn-136
Bill Terry=136
Gene Tennace=136
Sherry Magee-136
Ken Griffey-136
Brian Giles-136
Dolph Camilli-137
Reggie Smith-137
Pedro Guerrero-137
Will Clark-137
Jack Clark-137
Daryl Strawberry-138
Carlos Delgado-138
Reggie Jackson-139
Norm Cash-139
Larry Walker-140
Duke Snider-140
Eddie Collins-141
Mike Piazza-142
Kevin Mitchell-142
Frank Howard-142
Eddie Mathews-143
Albert Belle-143
Jason Giambi-144
The names start to overlap with the names on my list or Joe’s list.
I demand Paul O’Neill be added to this list.
Not the outfielder, the former treasury secretary.
I’m very surprised that Rickey didn’t crack to top 30 even.
I think it would be interesting to normalize the data of left-handers hitters vs. right-handers hitters to see where they ended up if you took that out of the equation. It is probably too simplistic to simply find the difference between a left-hander’s avg/obp/slg/whatever and a right-hander’s, and adjust accordingly, but surely someone out there with a big brain and a big computer can figure it out.
JKey@82:
Of course there’s no good way to ever account for the impact the talent of colored players would have had on the players who’s careers largely preceeded integration. But I do think there’s a not insignificant measure of that taken in the rankings, as they’re at least partly based on normalised contextual figures like OPS+. Again, don’t mean to imply that this even comes close to making up for that difference of context, but it is a statistically relevant step in a meaningful direction.
I agree with Mick, I think Tony Gwynn should have made the list. I could see him falling out of the top 10 due to the fact that he hated taking a walk and rarely hit a homer – but I was suprised he didn’t make the top 20. The guy hit .338 for his career and from 1987-1997 he won 7 batting titles, including a .394 average in 1994.
I don’t agree with Mick that Joe is a moron though, the list is good and I enjoyed the read.
Word around the clubhouse is: When Hornsby laid into Hanks (despite Hank’s family coming down from Michigan to see him play the game), Hanks didn’t even cry. I can’t remember why he didn’t but I’m pretty sure about it. (maybe someone else knows)
True story.
Too, the ‘modern day’ hitters (black, white, or polkadot ) never had to face the likes of Walter Johnson…Christy Mathewson…Cy Young…Bob Feller and on and on.
If the thought is black pitchers never faced would’ve reduced the stats of white players yesteryear had they, then converesly it can just as easily be claimed ‘modern era’ black players (or, any color) would also have had their stats reduced had they faced those old-time pitchers I referenced.
Any person can speculate subjectively but that’s what it is/all that it is – ‘fact’ trumps any “yeah buts” every time.
#44 With the list thing,
Maybe you should consider replacing “(no negro leaguers)” with (omitting negro leaguers even though they were major league talent excluded from the major leagues on the sole basis of their skin color because of the inconsistency of statistics from that era) I think most negro league players saw enough signs telling them no.
I wonder where Josh Gibson would be on the list?
Yesterday was better?
Okay, so let’s omit the pitchers although I still think Gibson would have shut down some of the best hitters in that time.
Anyway, prior to integration, MLB baseball never had the great athletic fielders such as Mays, Clemente, Jones, Griffey, Guerrero (when he was healthy) or Suzuki. These players routinely take away hits and discourage players from taking extra bases.
And athletic shortstops like Smith, Vizquel or even Jose Reyes didn’t exist during that period.
You can’t make a serious or logical argument that the inclusion athletic players changed the way the game is played in post integration baseball.
Yeah, you cannot discount Tony Gwynn on one stat. He still won eight batting titles, which may be second only to Cobb. And the list was supposed to be about hitters, not power numbers. Gwynn’s problem was mainly that he played for a crappy club and didn’t get as many RBIs as he should.
In the battle of the singles hitters, I would take Wade Boggs over Tony Gwynn every day of the week. Both wonderful hitters, but Boggs was better both considering both just prime years and overall body of work. When you’re basically a singles hitter, OBP becomes an ever better yardstick for performance, and Boggs was nearly 30 pts higher for his career.
But neither would sniff my top 20. There are too many guys who got on base nearly as much or more but also knocked the cover of the ball a heck of a lot more.
There seems to be a continuing concern that Tony Gwynn is not recognized as one of the best hitters when he was clearly good at getting hits (Where’s George Sisler?). The title of the list should be 10 best offensive players just so people who clearly missed the point of the article won’t be so easily confused. Maybe there should be another list of 10 best “batters” with the complicated formula being comprised solely of lifetime batting average adjusted for park and era.
Just to build on that, Gwynn racked up batting titles, but he led the NL in OBP exactly once. Boggs led the AL 6 times.
Heck, Bobby Abreu has more seasons with over a .400 OBP (8) than Gwynn (6). And I don’t hear anyone screaming for his inclusion.
Tony Gwynn was a great hitter if you just consider BA, a very good hitter if you consider OBP, and a well above average hitter if you bring power into the equation. But a top-10er he ain’t.
Yesterday was better?
Conversly, let’s have hitters like Aaron, Mays, Bonds, Pujols, Rodriguez, Jeter, Banks, Clemente, Ramirez, McCovey or even Guerrero hit against some of those slow footed, non-athletic fielders in that time. Some of those guys would still be rounding the bases.
Babe Ruth is a great player but how many balls did he run and catch in the outfield gaps?
There is no logical or sane argument to deny the fact that the game was dramatically changed by integration.
jkey?
“I still think Gibson would have shut down some of the best hitters in that time.”
- I still believe the yesteryear pitchers that were referenced would have done the same to modern era batters, 6 of one half a dozen the other: speculation, yours, mine and/or whomevers, & worth every penny internet paper said is written on.
“MLB baseball never had the great athletic fielders . . . ”
- reiterating, your suppositions cannot be measured beyond imagination so equate to subjectivity…we can just as easily claim the players today are not facing the very best as well due to an proliferation sports avenues – not only football but basketball, soccer, etc. In other words great athletes ‘today’ just as yester’s played outside of MLB for different reasons each – but, the end result is still the same… the ‘best’ athletes have NEVER nor will they EVER compete in total against one another due to varying reasons.
The best players yesteryear would likely still be the best players of today & vice versa.
Of note, more the modern era tho different sport (& there are other examples too), the bigger, stronger and faster teams LOST the first three Superbowls in football. Not until Superbow 4 did the bigger, stronger, faster team win…the KC Chiefs.
Athleticism does not in and of itself equate to greatness.
Did you ever watch a Michael Jordan “try” and play baseball? ‘Bo’ may have known, but finished (outside subjective bias) ‘not’ one of the best ever in baseball or football… no more than ‘what might have been’, like hundreds of other players/fans could claim for themselves/their guy(s).
Yesterday was better?
Your argument rambles to the point of making no sense.
Like I said, you can’t make a sane or logical argument against the changes produced by integration.
Anyway, I am not talking about just great athletes. I am talking about great baseball players.
Michael Jordan is a basketball player. Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were baseball players.
jkey?
Your argument has no legs as it were and is as solid as a foundation built upon shifting sand…that you’re unable to understand the argument mine is an indictment of you and not the argument itself.
“Anyway, I am not talking about just great athletes. I am talking about great baseball players.”
- anyway, Jim Thorpe played many sports… football, basketball & baseball – all of them at the professional level. Guess we cannot talk about him either as such, huh.
Keep trying… best of luck.
Huh? What?
You’re right I don’t understand what you’re saying because it’s not logical.
Anyway, I’ve got to go. This is taking up too much of my time.
I hope you enjoy the baseball playoffs.
Something from The Past:
http://thesoulofbaseball.blogspot.com/2007/07/live-from-milwaukee.html
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/06/29/the-fabulous-babe/
Too, the claim that today’s players are so much better than yesteryears flies in the face of statistical analysis. The reason(s) (translation: ‘excuses) be many – but the statistics tell the tale.
Evidence is to the contrary, for many, many of yesteryear’s records remain as yet untied & unbroken by modern superduper pooper-scooper variety athletes.
Speed – strength – athleticism – nutrition – video study – training assists (illegal ones too), superior training regimen, blah blah, blah blah blah, ad nauseam.
No cigar whippersnappers…yesterday was better – & – was so via playing less games.
Sacre bleu, how can this be? No typo, fact.
Ted Williams .407 season…Joe DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak…Hack Wilson’s 191 rbis in a single season…and Cy Young’s 511 victories career are but a few.
Also, 8 of the top 10 all-time pitchers with the most victories played between the 19th century and no later than 1965. As well the last 30+ game winner MLB was in 1968.
‘If’ today’s players were in fact truly better they would not merely tie or better, they’d blow out of the water all the records past – not just some but EVERY ONE OF THEM.
They have not, and so the case for their superiority too is ‘naught.’
How can Enzo Hernandez not be in the worst 10 hitters of all time? He was a MUCH worse hitter than Alfredo Garcia. So were Ray Oyler, Don Wert and Al Weis, incidentally.
I’ve cited the at bats argument before and it has merit. At a similar # of at bats Ruth and Bonds, Ruth had 714 and Bonds only 619*.
*this with any medicinal/steroid assist that Bonds may have (wink) partook of. Should have taken more – alot more, appears
All Bonds ended up doing was to run past a finish line to a race that Babe Ruth already won many years (and at bats) before – 837 extra at bats to even ‘tie’ Ruth in hrs at 714. Aaron too didn’t match Ruth; at a similar # of at bats he had only 493 hrs to Ruth’s 714.
Both Ruth & Aaron are legitimate, whereas Bonds is faux as well immaterial, my opine.
You lost me when I saw Willie Mays at #12. You seriously believe that there were 11 hitters who were better than Mays? No way.
@ Yesterday Was Better
Did you even read the articles?
@Yesterday was Better –
I once scored 453 points in a 4th grade girls basketball all-star game. With no three-point line. And 8 minute quarters. Now granted I was 20 years old and 6′1, BUT NO ONE HAS TOUCHED THAT RECORD.
How about ichiro
Re: What if Babe Ruth took steroids, injected himself with pureed testicles, etc.
I remember when I visited the Hall of Fame with my Dad about ten years ago, there was a photo of the Babe and Lou Gehrig in the locker room without shirts. Babe looked like a regular guy, but Gehrig was a hoss – he was solidly built even by today’s muscled standards. And yet, playing side by side, Babe was the better hitter and had more power. Whatever his advantage was, I don’t think it came from being the strongest guy in the room. Compare that to the Before and After pictures of Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc. I did a quick google search for the photo I’m thinking of but could not find it. Anyone else see it?
Also, argystokes, you’re missed at ATBC.
Yesterday Was Better,
One of the problems with your argument is that baseball is a head-to-head sport. If the calibre of players overall improves, it actually makes it more difficult to dominate in the way old-time players did.
As baseball has widened its talent pool, adding black players, Latin players and more recently, Asian players, the net level of play has improved.
Also, consider the advances made in athletics in general – back in the olden days, the four-minute mile was considered an impossibility, the top 100-metre runners would lose races against today’s Olympians by 10 metres.
Hell, even more recently, the 1972 Dolphins went 16-0 with a team that had linebackers that would get tossed around like rag dolls by some of the behemoths who play today. Athletes have gotten bigger, stronger and faster.
In the 80s, I remember crowds oohing and aahing on rare occasions when a pitcher would hit the mid-90s. These days, every staff seems to have a couple of guys who can do that with regularity.
The AVERAGE player is better today that the average player of yesteryear, and that’s on both sides of the ball. Pitchers face better hitters and hitters face better pitchers, which is why you don’t see guys lapping entire teams in home runs.
As for pitcher wins, that’s a ridiculous argument given the way the game has changed (you can lament the change if you want, but you can’t say the pitchers are worse). Guys make 34 starts a year, so they’d have to be damn near perfect (and lucky enough to have run support and bullpen support) to win 30. To challenge Cy Young’s wins record, a pitcher would have to be perfect and win every start for 15 years.
If you’re still not convinced, then I’ll put forth this argument – how come no one has ever broken Young’s record for career losses? Wow. No one’s ever been as bad as THAT guy, and by extension, players today are all so much better than players back then.
The changes to the game have also made it harder for players to dominate. How often did Ruth face a lefty specialist? How often did he face a tough closer in the ninth, as opposed to a fatigued starter? How often did he face 98-mile-an-hour heat, or a slider, or a splitter?
As for athleticism, no, it doesn’t make for a great ballplayer on its own, but if you had two guys with the same skill set – bat control, eye at the plate, baseball smarts – you’d be a fool not to take the guy who has better speed, agility and overall range in the field.
Where’s Dan Brouthers?
@Josh in DC: “Poor Mantle. Even in death, people are wondering when he’s going to finally reach his potential.
The man was the sum total of what he did. Asking what he might have accomplished without injuries is like wondering what would have happened to Larry Bird if he didn’t have a bad back. They both earned their injuries.”
That’s not really true though – Birds back was bad because his back was bad. He never tripped over a drainage system and busted it up as a 21 year old. Mantle, on the other hand, did. I don’t think it’s degrading to Mantle’s legacy to wonder what he could have done had he not been in the wrong place at the wrong time in his rookie season and suffered a freak injury that affected him the rest of his career. Or at least no more degrading than wondering what Williams could have done without the war, or Roberto Clemente without the plane crash, or Len Bias without the drug overdose, or Magic Johnson without HIV.
Will always have a soft spot in my heart for Ed Brinkman. When I first started collecting baseball cards (the old fashioned way, one pack at a time) back in 1968, and finally completed my set (by trading with my brother for a Duane Josephson card), I had more Ed Brinkman duplicates (27) than any other card. I swear there must have been an Ed Brinkman card in every pack I bought.
What strikes me about this list is the number of Cardinals on it. Of course, it would’ve been nice if someone had brought a bat to the NLDS.
Justin
Play today has NOT inproved, my opine – and fundamentals too are the worst that I’ve seen since I started watching 1950s.
90 mph pitchers have been common since the earliest days 1900’s if not afore: Steve Dalkowski is still recognized by more than folks than not as ‘fastest pitcher’ ever, and he was a 1950s/60s era player. ‘Evolution’ being the case modern players where is the guy who can top Dalkowski’s 105-115 mph fastball? He hasn’t been born…yesterday again rules.
“I’ll put forth this argument – how come no one has ever broken Young’s record for career losses? Wow. No one’s ever been as bad as THAT guy, and by extension, players today are all so much better than players back then.”
- conversely, as recently as 2003 the Detroit Tigers lost 119 games – merely, the WORST RECORD over a 162 game schedule in MLB HISTORY. So much for the claim of ‘better’ via evolution modern day player, team, etc.
MLB draws pitchers from a larger pool now than they did in Ruth’s time. Larger pool = more talent, according to some. I disagree.
More opportunities exist today: there were fewer teams back then – and thus players – which suggests that to win a precious few(er) roster spot(s) and play then was far harder an endeavor to accomplish than today, i.e., a larger pool now has begat more teams (expansion), more opportunities (players) & in fact a watered down level of competition, pitching wise especially but as well hitters – this is without even visiting beyond mention the fact that the strike zone today is smaller (easier for hitters, harder for pitchers) & the pitching mound as well is lower than yesteryear (also a boon to hitters which was why twas implemented in 1969 to boost offense – worked, but at a price less pristine stat(s).
Despite all of this ballyhooed overflowing talent suppossedly in effect today there be very few good teams & more subpar ones compared with the good teams yesteryear, these latter ‘good teams’ being the ‘norm’ more so then than now. While yesteryear had a smaller pool those that played were the creme de la creme of that pool so that many players today – indeed entire teams – would not exist – that has to weigh heavily in consideration, to deny said specious.
Those who argue that because player X was absent (whether due to his color, preference in vocation, other etc.) the best players did not play MLB has same relevance today’s like argument: athletes who once would’ve been MLB players now embrace different endeavors, sports and vocational outlets – football, basketball, soccer, etc.
MLB has acknowledged for example that black ballplayers presence today is far less than in the past, while others (whites & latinos) are better represented; as some fans plead ‘Ruth didn’t play against the best black athletes’ – who’s to say likewise Bonds too hasn’t as they’re playing elsewhere and or avail themselves of other options?
Too, who’s to say a Sadaharu Oh wouldn’t have also dominated MLB had he played it? Any era can claim its best as the ‘very best ever’..however, shy all stars being placed in an incubator nee time machine at their peak & competing equally under ideal if it were possible similar conditions, a subjective nee biased preference is all that exists, nothing more.
I take yesterday’s once more, evermore…
Mick@83, if you’re going to just go for batting average, then there’s no discussion needed. Ty Cobb is number one, Rogers Hornsby two, Shoeless Joe Jackson three, and so forth. Tony Gwynn on that list is 20th, and there’s no reason to write an article because those numbers are all there for anybody to look up online.
But Joe didn’t want to just go batting average. I mean, we all know that on base percentage means more than batting average. Where is Gwynn on the all time list of OBP? 111th, because he didn’t walk, not close to a guy often compared to him, Wade Boggs. Not even the top Padre, if you’re going to call Brian Giles a Pod (which I would). And we all know that OPS means more than batting average. Where is Gwynn on the all time list of OPS? 177th. Adjusted OPS+ is even more accurate, since it accounts for park effects (Gwynn played pretty much his entire career in a pitcher’s park) and league effects. And OPS+ moves Gwynn up over 40 places over OPS, still behind Brian Giles (and I hate to say it, but there’s another guy who probably deserves some HOF votes but won’t get many).
What’s wrong with Joe’s list? Leaving Gwynn off isn’t part of it. By your argument, then Wade Boggs deserves consideration. But Boggs spent most of his career in a great hitter’s park. Is Boggs better than Gwynn? OPS+ says Gwynn was a little better. But if you go to OPS+ then you still have both those great hitters not in the top 100.
No, what’s wrong with Joe’s list is it’s pretty damned close to OPS+ with some minor tweaks that don’t make much sense to me. Ty Cobb has the best batting average of all time, and he had an enormous decline phase. Take away his last six seasons and his career batting average is over .370, career OPS+ probably moves to third place all time. Think I’m cherry picking his retirement year? Take away Cobbs’s last TEN years and both numbers get even better, and he’s still way over 6,000 PA to qualify. He even led the league in homers once (with nine). Is it his fault he played in the dead ball era? I think not.
Is it Josh Gibson’s fault to never get to play in the major leagues, or Ichiro’s that he was born in Japan, not the USA? Again, I think not.
Now if you wanted to come up with some hybrid akin to the power speed numbers Bill James used to play around with, call it hitting/good guy numbers, then okay, Gwynn does pretty well on the good guy side of things. Mind you, such a list would be very arbitrary. I think my list starts out Gehrig, Musial, Jackie Robinson, and Pujols. Maybe Gwynn deserves to be fifth. But on hitting alone, not hitting for average, but total hitting, Gwynn doesn’t deserve consideration. Neither does Mike Piazza, who I’m sure I appreciate as much as you appreciate Gwynn, nor any other Dodger. Top OPS+ Dodger is a tie between Frank Howard and Mike Piazza (and others) at 61, unless you call those two not Dodgers because they played for multiple careers, in which case it’s Duke Snider, at 73. And that’s much better than Gwynn.
Joe is irrationally fond of Snuggies, Pixie Food, long blogs, and Kuiper, but he’s not an idiot for leaving out Gwynn.
Joe- While my list would be a little different (and so would everyones- that is why there is discussion) It is obvious you spent some thoughtful time on this and an interesting read.
Some guys don’t seem to understand that this is hitting only, so great fielders and base stealers are a little lower than they might otherwise be.
I get tired of people discounting older players, (because of today’s athletes or the color barrier) or younger players. (because of bad fundamentals or steroids) Each player is compared to his time. Who is to say that, for example, Jimmy Foxx, (well done for putting him in your top ten) in today’s era, wouldn’t be a workout fiend, (because everyone works out now) and be a graduate of a 12 step program instead of a drunk, and be the best player in baseball?
I do understand the color barrier argument, but more in regards to players who might crack the list if we could fairly compare them. I long to compare Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Hilton Smith and Satchel Paige to the greats of their day, (and even to each other). It would not, however, somehow make Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig worse.
I wish you had gone with 5000 plate appearances so that Neifi Perez would rightfully show up as the worst hitter ever
To me, the accomplishments of the pre-Robinson era are even more suspect than those of the steroid era. Which do you think skewed performance more drastically: players taking PED’s, or a talent pool watered down by a ban on black players?
Hey, don’t poke fun of duaner kweepee (duane kuiper)!
KNBR fans know what i am talking about!
I’m still wondering about the casual comment that of course fielding is much better now.
You could argue that today’s fielders are more accomplished, maybe… but way back when, you had a number of parks with 450+ center fields, the infields weren’t immaculately-groomed, and the opposing players left their mitts at their positions when they went in for their turns at bat – and those mitts were often just that, mitts, that provided a minimum of protection, and pretty much no help at all in actually catching the ball. They may even have been a hindrance, akin to trying to catch a line drive in an oven mitt. Look at outfielders’ gloves today – they look like jai-alai baskets.
I think it’s a disservice to the great fielders of the past to simply say that Ruth, Gerhig, Mays, Musial, et als never had to face an Ozzie Smith or an Ichiro. They did have to face Tris Speaker, and Jackie Robinson, and Roberto Clemente – and Mays, for that matter. And the earlier you go, the harder their jobs were.
Where is Duke Snider on this list? He led the majors in HRs and RBIs in the 1950s, a decade in which many of the higher up players were active. In addition, he managed to bat .312 and .308 in 58 and 59 with very reduced playing time due a bad knee. Mantle got alot of press for time lost to injury, but still managed more than 900 official at bats more than Snider. An objective look at his numbers in the mid 50s would show that he was the top hitter in the game in that time period. The Dodger PR machine hyped up his “crybaby” image while boosting the character of some of the other players on the team. Nevertheless, there are few players who top him in slugging, OBA, and BA. He may not rate in the top 10 but I would take Duke over Schmidt’s mediocre average and high rate of strikeouts anytime.
Regarding “Yesterday was better”
In every sport where records are objective — say, track & field or swimming — the athletes today absolutely crush those of Babe Ruth’s era.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_100_metres_freestyle
Johnny Weissmuller set the world’s record for that race in 1924 with a time of 57.4 seconds. Today, that record is held by César Cielo at 46.91 seconds. I don’t give a damn about swimming (and I’ve never heard of either of these gentlemen), but it is absolutely preposterous to suggest that Weissmuller would somehow defeat Cielo if they raced today. “Yesterday” essentially makes that argument.
I agree with everything except Babe Ruth over Ted Williams. I think that the greatness of Ted Williams is that he hit 521 homers while missing 5 years. What if he had hit an average of 35 dingers? All of a sudden he retires with 696. That is only 18 less than Ruth. What if he averages 120 rbi in those 5 years? He is suddenly at 2439, which would obliterate anyone else. What if he gets 180 hits per year over those 5 years? He’s suddenly at 3579, good enough for 3rd all time when he retired. And didn’t he retire because he didn’t think that he could play anymore? Don’t you think that he might have held on to beat all of the records that existed?
RE: #124
I don’t think the argument is that the fielders or yesteryear where necessarily less talented. The argument is that fielders today are more effective at limiting base hits (i.e. turning more batted balls into outs), precisely because of the factors you mention in your post (poor infields, smaller gloves, etc.). If you take this as true, and of all the comparisons between eras I think this is one of the generalizations that is easiest to swallow (not to mention that I suspect that it is bore out in the league BABIP over the years although I’m too lazy to look it up), then it follows that batting averages would be lower in modern times because of it. Of course, stats that normalize for time like OPS+ or ERA+ explicitly account for this, which is why these stats are so much more useful for comparing players across time than the more traditional batting average or ERA.
With regards to yesterday’s athletes vs. today’s (and I think this was touched upon above by someone else but I wanted to elaborate), the difference in the abilities of the best players vs. their peers has lessened.
The truly great athletes in baseball from yesteryear were able to dominate their sport more because of their superior athletic ability vs. their peers as opposed to today.
Not that size is the totality of athletic prowess (but in general in almost every sport good big player beats good small player), but Ty Cobb was 6′1″ 175, Walter Johnson was 6′1″ 200, Christy Mathewson was 6′2″ 195, Babe Ruth was 6′2″ 215 (this is presumably the young fit Babe’s weight), Honus Wagner was 5′11″ 200. In their time that was big for a ballplayer. Is it any surprise that they dominated smaller, athletically inferior players?
If you could time travel back to 1915, you could pick out the superstars of baseball simply by their size in comparison to the other players on the field.
Nowadays, you cannot do that. All of the sizes listed above is an average sized player today. None of them would stand out.
Just so I can show that I am not pulling b.s. out of the air, here are the BR.com listed sizes of the starters for the 1914 Miracle Braves: C: Gowdy, 6′2″ 182; 1B: Schmidt, 200 lbs; 2B: Evers, 5′9″ 125; SS: Maranville, 5′5′ 155; 3B: Deal/Smith, 6′0″, 160, 5′11″ 165; LF: Connolly, 165 lbs, CF: Whitted, 168 lbs; RF: Mann, 5′9″ 172.
Heck, even their pitchers weren’t that big: Dick Rudolph weighed 160 lbs and Bill Tyler was 175 lbs (Bill James was a big guy at 6′3″ 196 lbs.)
The biggest guys on that team would be among the smallest on one of today’s teams and there aren’t any 125 lb players in MLB today, let along one who plays at a HOF level.
Stan Musial better than Joe D ,Hammerin Hank and the Say Hey Kid? I hope you recover from your stroke.
It appears Yesterday Was Better is not going to be swayed, and I’m similarly unconvinced by his arguments.
Would the best players of the early 20th century be able to play in today’s game? I suppose, with some time to get up to speed and adapt, they could. I refuse to believe, however, that they would dominate the way they did or, as Yesterday seems to assert, be even better.
Guys like Feller and Johnson were revered for their fastballs, when the best estimates I’ve seen (which are hardly conclusive, given the technological limitations of the time) show that they threw anywhere from 94 to 98 mph. That made them absolute legends in their day, but isn’t terribly rare these days. In today’s game, pitchers who top out at 91 have to be almost perfect command-wise because they have what’s now considered a sub-par fastball. A guy throwing 95 doesn’t even raise an eyebrow anymore.
They, like Dalkowski, were massive outliers – the best of the best when it came to firing a fastball. If you can use outliers as an accurate reflection of the general population, then by extension people today are shorter than they were 70 years ago. After all, no one’s matched Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) in terms of height.
Once again, it all boils down to the level of overall competition – if you put a world-class heavyweight into a boxing league with a couple of hundred semi-pros and flyweights, he’ll probably clean up. In a league where everyone’s a talented and technically sound heavyweight, he’s far less likely to go 200-0.
Guys train year-round to be the best they can at baseball these days – there’s huge money in it if they have the talent. That’s a far cry from the days where guys would spend the offseason working on farms or at other jobs because an average player’s salary wouldn’t pay the bills.
yesterday was better–if you started watching ball in the 1950s, that probably puts you in your 60s or so. there’s a reason that advertisers pitch nostalgia so much to age cohorts (usually past their 30s)–it’s because most people think that what was best in the time when it meant the most to us–music, sports, entertainment, literature, etc.–is the best, period. so for all your stylized analysis, of course you’re biased as all hell. i think you’re wrong as all hell, too. but i’m biased. that’s why it’s fun to have these arguments–but there’s no right answer.
is a 1969 mustang better than a 2010 one? it depends. mostly on who you ask.
@130
It isn’t Joe’s fault that 1. Stan is one of the most criminally underrated players of all time, or that 2. You apparently haven’t read previous entries covering said underrated amazingness of Stan the Man
Just as a quick and dirty statistical response to your complaint:
Stan- 22 seasons, .331 BA, .976 OPS, 159 OPS+
JoeD- 13 seasons, .325 BA, .977 OPS, 155 OPS+
Hank- 23 seasons, .305 BA, .928 BA, 155 OPS+
Willie- 22 seasons, .302 BA, .941 OPS, 156 OPS+
Those other guys were obviously and undeniably some of the greatest to ever play. However, Stan was too. And as a hitter…he probably was a little better (highest BA, exact same OPS as Joe over NINE MORE SEASONS, highest OPS+ of the bunch). Close to be sure, but certainly no need for this site to devolve into baseless, Deadspin-style name-calling (especially when directed at Joe)
No Mark McGwire? He has a much better resume than Thome or Helton.
Also, I think this list overrated players who played before World War II.
There’s a good arguement to be made for Bonds over Ruth:
Once you adjust for park and era Bonds and Ruth come out with basically the same rate stats, but that’s not the whole picture, consider: Bonds played in a vastly deeper talent pool and hit in home parks that murdered his raw numbers, while Ruth played in a very thin talent pool, in a hitting dominated era, and in home parks the were extremely favorable to his skillset.
The other thing to remember when looking at Ruth’s era is this: There was not only no opportunities for men of color, but there were plenty of quality WHITE players denied opportunites. Why? The reserve clause.
There was no draft. No free agency. No way to re-distribute talent. Good organizations hoarded players. So that young hitter raking in the PCL but who just happens to have his position taken in the majors by established star? He’s not getting the opportunity.
The competitive balance was just not there like it is today. Of course, Ruth was a great hitter, but it’s easy to dominate when the other teams are so bad. And of course there’s the specialization, the depth of talent, the inclusion of minorities that make the numbers of the past difficult to compare to the present.
Basically, I take any numbers accrued before the color line with a huge grain of salt. Ruth was an obvious talent. But in today’s environment, is he hitting 714 homers? Nope.
Oh and for the earlier poster dissing Stan Musial. He probably is the most underrated great hitter out there. Go look at his numbers. If he were a Yankee, you never stop hearing about him.
I know this means little, but thought I’d share. My grandfather (1903-1993) saw plenty of old-time and modern-age baseball. His pick for greatest hitter he ever saw? Stan Musial. And no, he wasn’t a Cardinals fan either. Next two picks for him would probably be homer picks (Pete Rose and Frank Robinson).
For all of those who comment that the lack of minorities makes the stats of old time players at least suspect, no doubt you are correct. More talent would have had an impact on them.
Of course, then you have to go the opposite way, cause if they are going to use today’s standards and allow all those players, no doubt they would have had the positives as well. Things like better conditioning, no need to go away for a few years to war, and better medicine (not to even mention better pharmaceuticals) would have all let their numbers actually get better.
To some extent there is an evening out of expectations that way I think.
As for my personal #1 it is Stan Musial. After all I became a cardinal fan despite living in Panama at the time I picked a MLB club to follow and never living in StL because of Stan. There is no 0ne I’d pick over The Man for my team
I imagine someone else mentioned it, but incase I wanted to point out just incorrect this actually is
By 25: astorian
“Suppose you grabbed a couple of Old School fans or reporters off the street (the kind of guys who think homers, ribbies and batting average are what matters, and who think “VORP” is what frogs say) and asked them to name the greatest hitters ever. Does anyone doubt that their lists would be almost identical to Joe’s?
Which means the new stats are important, but ONLY at the margins. The cream of the crop? Those guys are readily apparent to the most innumerate fan. The worst of the worst? Them too. It’s only in the borderline cases that the new stats tell us a lot that wasn’t necessarily obvious.”
If you were to poll the average old school fans and reporters, I can guarantee you that their lists would not look like Joe’s. Most notably, Mays and Cobb would be the most likely to break the top-3 plain, where they are 12th and 9th here (respectively). Also, if you were to have people fill out the top-30, I can guarantee you that so many recent names would not be on the list. Jim Thome, Edgar Martinez, Todd Helton, Vlad Guerrero? All these guys made it where I would be shocked to hear the average old-school guy list even one or two – but missing from this top-30 is a more recent guy who could very well end up in the Top-10 to those old-school guys. That person being Tony Gwynn! And the biggest thing, everyone would argue like crazy about who was better then who for whatever reason.
Which means the new stats are important to SHOW the bias we internally hold. The best of the best are usually obvious of course – but that doesn’t mean we all recognize them. And preference will play a bigger part in everyone’s list then concrete logic or facts would. What these “new stats” do is prove what we are unable to factor with our limited mind capacity. It removes what we perceive to be true, and interjects cold hard facts. It takes away things we romanticize and replaces them with reality.
Case in point. Realistically, I cant imagine too many people would say Frank Thomas was a better player then Frank Robinson. Luckily we have advanced stats which actually show it to be a strong argument to make.
Just want to point out that Joe Jackson had an OPS+ of 170 for his career.
Josh in DC
Partly because human body has limitations (which have been reached in several cases), players today are NOT better and negligible are newer records set, the grand scheme of things in sports.
Pitchers today throw no harder (Dalkowski 1950s & back earlier guys 1900s 90+ mph) , athletes run no faster or negligibly as a Bob Hayes 9.1 100 yd dash 1964 attests), players hit baseballs no farther (Mickey Mantle the exhibit A, severally (below)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricaRosenthal.shtml)
And all of this DESPITE the advent of PED/ steroid use – the records yesteryear STILL stand as evidenced, posts afore mine.
All the huffing & puffing, gnashing of teeth and ringing of hands & “yeah but” minority exclusion and evolution advances etc. etc. blah blah blah cannot change the facts.
No one has been excluded for decades now and yet, yesteryear still dominates severally, different categories.
Jim Brown 5.2 career yd per carry average NFL (Brown had almost 1850 more carries than a Bo Jackson so the latter is not even in the discussion, although, Jackson was much faster than Brown – so how come Brown was the better player. Oh, Brown joined the NFL in 1957 – so much for the 52 years since pretenders to his greatness since.)
As ‘better’ a baseball sense is not measured size or girth, as stated the names DiMaggio, Williams, Wilson & Young still sit atop the accomplishment lists – UNMATCHED BY ANYONE STILL be they minority, modern-age PED addled or otherwise.
Again, anyone can ‘claim’ whatever it is they like which is bias/suybjective ‘yeah but’, ad nauseam – the record book however speaks the LOUDEST and of the BEST.
Keep trying whippersnappers…
_____________
As far as track Josh, here’s some records that still stand in said, now some 45 years ago:
* The “2 Hours” race, where men run for 2 hours & see who goes farthest. Jim Alder (GBR) set the record in 1964 at Walton-on-Thames (he ran 37,994 m in his 2 hours or 23.75 miles!).
*Longest held record: Bill Toomey (USA) in the Pentathalon, set in 1969 in London.
* The 4×1500 m Relay, set by the Federal Republic of Germany team, 1977, Cologne.
32 years, 40 years, 45 years – and still unbroken.
______________
Like I said, yesterday “rules.”
@ Yesterday Was Better
Can you list all the records of the past that have been broken, too?
Don’t be shy – you go ahead boy! Alas, as so many have not ever been topped, your task will be so much easier… Godspeed.
@ Yesterday Was Better
A guy just ran the Chicago Marathon (26.2) in 2:05 the other day…maybe he should have stopped at 20 just to shut you up.
Your examples are often inane, usually era-dependent (e.g., Jim Brown ran against his era’s defenses, Ted Williams hit off his era’s pitchers), and always written as if you ate a notebook’s worth of acid in the ’60s and are still mentally twitching.
You made your point. Twenty times. It’s like when my grandfather would go on and on about how Oscar Robertson was better than Michael Jordan. Shrug. Whatever, dude. Let’s move on.
okay, that was kind of mean-spirited. talking about punching joe buck in the nose left me an angry man. my bad.
“okay, that was kind of mean-spirited. talking about punching joe buck in the nose left me an angry man. my bad.”
It may have been mean spirited, but it was also true. His posts were not only illegible but also full of the bias, the “yeah but’s”, the exaggerations, and the cherrypicking he seems to be arguing against. And he had been about as big of an arrogant ass as he could have possibly been in his idiotic rants. In the end, he pretty much asked for a response like you gave so you were not out of line for giving it.
Also, to Joe with regards to this:
“I’m pretty sure there were no steroids for Ruth to take. But my question is: If we found out that he did, would that change the way baseball fans everywhere view Babe Ruth’s career? Would everyone say: Well, NO WONDER he put up those ridiculous numbers? I mean the guy hit more home runs than ENTIRE TEAMS for crying out loud. We should have known.”
You know, it didn’t dawn on me to mention it before. There were rather widespread PEDs in baseball dating back to at least the 50s though, and players were injecting chemicals (Monkey Juice!) as early as the 1890s to try and gain an edge. Specifically, (as it pertains to our list) Mays had his Red Juice (widely believed to be an amphetamine) and it has been publicized that Mantle was really hospitalized in 1961 for an infection which developed from an injection of what is believed to be an amphetamine in the range of speed. The more public story to this, of course, is that the infection was developed from a cortisone shot. There was also even a story that Mantle had a cold and was sent to a Dr Feelgood type by Mel Allen to get over it, eventually resulting in the infection though. Who knows for sure, but 2 of the 3 popular beliefs center around questionable activity which kind of makes the more publicized look iffy at best (read, “media friendly”, with regard to a time where things like this were often swept under the rug).
We will never know for sure who used what and to what extent. Reports were so sketchy as people didnt want to believe, much less publicize things which would bring down an icon. But it is almost ignorant to dismiss their existence and influence prior to recent names. PEDs, in a huge range of chemicals, have been around as long as the game itself. And we know for a fact players were using them all along the trail as well.
Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never harm you … nor (similarly) will namecallers who resort said a last resort their faux arguments have been bludgeoned to a bloody pulp via scrupulous clarity & the unassialbale facts be.
So it is affirmed: Yesterday Was Better… unquestionably!
OK sore losers, back to your only device… namecalling – heh heh heh!
One thing I never see anyone mention when they talk about the talent pool being weaker in the old days: until the mid-50’s, baseball was really the only Major League. I mean, arguably there were some very good athletes who played other sports prior to 1950, but I’d wager that upwards of 75% (and I’d guess it’s closer to 85%) of the top professional athletes in the world played Major League Baseball. The game just didn’t have the competition it does today.
I know athleticism isn’t the only determination in baseball – it’s a game that requires tremendous skill, but I have to imagine that there are a fair number of athletes in the NFL & NBA today who would be fantastic baseball players if that was the sport they chose to play. So in a sense, the talent pool is more diluted today, because there are way way WAY more sporting options than there were in the 1920’s.
I just think it’s ridiculous to say “oh, Babe Ruth wouldn’t have been able to compete today” – the fact is that he was born when he was born and he dominated the people he played against. In 100 years people will be bigger, stronger, and faster than we are today – it doesn’t mean that Barry Bonds wasn’t an absolutely awesome baseball player.
“nor (similarly) will namecallers who resort said a last resort their faux arguments have been bludgeoned to a bloody pulp via scrupulous clarity & the unassialbale facts be.”
You know, I’m surprised to see someone act so confident in their argument when half the “facts” given are either incorrect, assumptions, irrelevant, or just make no sense to begin with. Case in point, you keep bring up records as your proof but ignore that 18 of the 32 positive result single season hitting records tracked by B-R.com have been set in the last 10 seasons. Thats 56% of the records set over the last 10 years and 44% set over the 100+ years prior. Or another case in point – one of your arguments:
“- conversely, as recently as 2003 the Detroit Tigers lost 119 games – merely, the WORST RECORD over a 162 game schedule in MLB HISTORY. So much for the claim of ‘better’ via evolution modern day player, team, etc.”
Problems?
1) More Losses:
134 by 1899 Spiders
120 by 1962 Mets
2) Worse win percentages:
.130 by 1899 Spiders
.232 by 1916 Athletics
.248 by 1935 Braves
.250 by 1926 Mets
.252 by 1904 Senators
.257 by 191 Athletics
.260 by 1898 Browns
(this is post-1890 though, pre-1890 it was common for teams to have a sub 300 record.
3) What would a team record ever have to do with player abilities of the time? All a horrific team record would prove is that it was the lowest accumulation of talent, but would have no baring on the talent level of the league.
Yet that is the type of thing you use to try to “prove” your point? And you act like an arrogant ass while doing so?
Really, sorry to say man but you seem to have some serious issues.
.
@ Chris M
“I’d wager that upwards of 75% (and I’d guess it’s closer to 85%) of the top professional athletes in the world played Major League Baseball. The game just didn’t have the competition it does today.”
What percentage of the world do you think took part in athletics? And of those, which ones took it seriously enough to think they could realistically make a life out of it? And of those, how many of those were ever discovered? And of the ones discovered, how many were able to get the training they needed to be the best they could be when the minor leagues were such a small part of the game? Or of those discovered, how many were able to overcome injuries which are now considered to be fairly routine? And of the ones that did get all the way through that process, how many were really given the chance to play fulltime in the majors on their controlling teams? It isnt like there were rules set up to ensure young players got an opportunity somewhere if one wasnt available with their club like today. There were no minor-league FAs and Rule-5 drafts drafts back then.
EDGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
Martinez is so underrated thanks to playing most of his career as a DH.
Someone make a compelling argument why Martinez and his 147 OPS+ doesn’t belong in a Hall of Fame that also honored Tony Perez and his 122, Orlando Cepeda and his 133, and Jim Rice and his 128.
Then again, also the Hall of Fame that won’t elect Ron Santo, so I’m not putting anything past them.
Oh yeah, Ed Brinkman finished 9th in AL MVP Voting in 1972.
Here’s what he did to “deserve” this:
.203/.259/.279, 6 HR, 49 RBI, .207 EqA, 1 FRAA, .9 WARP-1, .2 WARP-3.
Worst top ten MVP finish ever? Possibly.
BTW Baseball Prospectus changed their hitting stats to positional numbers on their DT cards. Confused me.
I’ve given up on trying to parse half the circular and/or faulty logic being used by Yesterday Was Better. The guy’s either a troll or simply set in his ways to the point where he won’t accept any information that dissents from his predetermined view and, either way, it’s not worth wasting any more keystrokes fighting him over it.
As for Chris M., I don’t think anyone would argue that Ruth, Johnson or the elite players would be useless today, but I think they’d take some time to adapt to the modern game and they wouldn’t be as dominant as they were in their own time. Similarly, if Barry Bonds circa 2003 were to somehow travel through time and rejoin the majors a century from now, I don’t assume he’d be head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the league, as he was during his (post-prime) prime years.
Joey O fails to refute the MLB RECORD 119 losses ‘modern day’ team over 162 games… so much for ‘evolution’ & ‘ better’ teams or players. FAIL. Like I said, no cigar.
And STILL, NO ONE can refute or has refuted the ascribed facts every mine: Yesterday Was Better.
: )
Mike @ #3
Convert Brett and Schmidt’s careers to a 750 run context and get this:
Brett:
12,062 PA, 3,399 H, .317/.382/.505, 336 HR, 124 RC / 162 games
Schmidt:
10,616 PA, 2,493H, .285/.402/.561, 610 HR, 130 RC / 162 games
So Schmidt created more runs per season than Brett, and that doesn’t even factor in that Schmidt was better at not using up outs. Schmidt > Brett.
Gwynn, Boggs and Rose don’t make the Top 30?
The argument of Williams vs. Ruth is a good one, but the truth is in OPS+.
No one dominated his peers more than Ruth. The most dominant athlete in the history of sports.
just a quick note on Babe’s dominance:
When he hit his 600th HR, no other player active or retired had more than 300.
Ruth the most dominant player in the history of sports? Maybe but it’s not obvious when you consider Gretzky and Pele.
@ Yesterday Was Better
Please turn off your computer and use a telegraph instead.
Chipper Jones should be recognized as a top 25 all time, if not 11-20.
Quiz based on this article…
http://www.sporcle.com/games/notsodirtypop/20greatesthitters
7 minutes, have at it!
Patrick @161, if you’re the author of the quiz, you need to fix some of the dates. DiMaggio’s first year was 1936, not 1932; and the following people didn’t play at all in the following years: Foxx ‘43; Musial ‘45; Mays ‘53; Mize ‘43-’45; and Greenberg ‘31-’32 and ‘42-’44.
@160:
Chipper cracks the career top 25 in one major category (OPS, where he’s exactly 25th…but he does drop to 56th on OPS+). He’s a fantastic player–and probably underrated by the average fan, but the stats suggest he doesn’t belong on the list. Maybe cracks a top 50 list, though.
Although he’s regarded as perhaps the ultimate Met-Killer (and he’s been great against them), he’s actually been even better against a couple of other teams (Phillies, Rockies) and nearly as good against some others. Thinking of Chipper and the Mets brought this question to mind:
What players are the ultimate banes of existence for certain teams? Who are the greatest single-opponent killers in history?
I’d love to read that list.
“What players are the ultimate banes of existence for certain teams? Who are the greatest single-opponent killers in history?
I’d love to read that list.”
Jeff Blauser.
The career .262/.354/.406/.706 hitter managed to post an astonishing .351/.413/.611/1.023 line against the Cubs. That is an OPS difference of +.317 for Blauser v. Cubs, and I imagine it is one of the highest differentials you will come across. (BTW, it was done in 299 PA. About 6% of his career total, which is the normal range for a non-divisional opponent)
Anyway, it’s just unreal. Like everyone else faced Delino DeShields but the Cubs somehow saw him turn into Barry Bonds.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar….
get your hands out my cookie jar
And ‘STILL’ no one has refuted the facts as presented by Yesterday Was Better…and so it was and e’er shall remain so.
Joey O fails to refute the MLB RECORD 119 losses ‘modern day’ team over 162 games… so much for ‘evolution’ & ‘ better’ teams or players. FAIL. Like I said, no cigar.
@ Yesterday Was Better
You cant be serious, can you?
I mean, you arent bothered by the fact your argument isnt correct? And even if it was, it doesnt bother you that it doesnt make any sense, at all, what so ever?
Anyway, want me to give you a modern team with more loses and a worse percentage?
I already did dumbass.
The 1962 Mets. They were on a 162 game schedule. They have one fewer game in the record books because of a rainout. And even playing the one fewer game, they still lost more games and had a lower win% then the 03 Tigers.
Under your theory, this makes the 60s the worst period in baseball history, correct? *rolls eyes*
All I can say is-
For 6 straight years, the Babe averaged a .350 BA, 50 HRs and 150 RBIs.
DiMaggio- 361 HRs, 369Ks.
Think about it.
Reiterating … Joey O fails to refute the MLB RECORD 119 losses ‘modern day’ team over 162 games – so much for ‘evolution’/‘ better’ teams or players. FAIL. Like I said, no cigar.
Today is the WORST era ever in MLB, and has been for at least the last 25 years, minimum…
: )
“Reiterating … Joey O fails to refute the MLB RECORD 119 losses ‘modern day’ team over 162 games – so much for ‘evolution’/‘ better’ teams or players. FAIL. Like I said, no cigar.”
Just want to be 100% clear on this.
1962 Mets go 40-120-1-1 (last 1 being the rain-out), and they arent a “modern team”?
2009 Cubs went 83-78-0-1
2009 Pirates went 62-99-0-1
So they are not “modern team(s)” either?
Anyway, your ‘team W/L record creates era success’ theory (under a 162 game schedule) leaves us with only one outcome:
1960’s = “WORST” era ever because the Mets went 40-120-1-1
2000’s = “BEST” era ever because the Mariners went 116-46-0-0
its the only possibility you leave under your asinine theory. Glad you pointed it out though, I guess.
Let’s give the ‘O’ face some help (he needs it)…
2003 = ‘modern’
1962 = ‘naught’
Keep trying whippersnapper(s)…
: )
@Yesterday Was Better,
Pardon me for saying so, but I have real, REAL trouble understanding any of your posts. And I’m not referring to your conclusions, which are IMHO non-understandable enough in their own right: but I’m referring to your *grammar,* your *sentences* (if they could actually legitimately be called “sentences”), your *word choices,* things like that.
In fact, about the only things in your postings that I am able fully to understand are the ad-hominem personal insults and attacks — which I really don’t think have any place at all in a forum like this. (Although of course I’m expecting a few from you after you read this.)
So please either get your act together or stop it. You’re really, seriously — and I say this sincerely — wasting everybody’s time here. You’re not adding anything at all to the discourse: you’re only adding noise. Pure, unadulterated, worthless noise.
Oh, and speaking of whippersnappers, just how old are you? You go first; then I’ll tell you how old *I* am. I am absolutely certain I’m not what you would call a whippersnapper.
“Let’s give the ‘O’ face some help (he needs it)…
2003 = ‘modern’
1962 = ‘naught’”
Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? And really, like the last poster asked, how old are you? 12?
Anyway,
1) “modern” = about 1900/01-present. Yes, 1962 falls between those years.
2) team record still does not equal era success, no matter what you arbitrarily decide to call “modern” in your bizaro-world. So fine, call “modern” the seasons from 2002 to 2004 if you like, it still doesnt mean the Tigers are the “WORST ever” – it would merely mean they are the “WORST between the years 2002 and 2004″.
Want to know why that is? “WORST ever” means “ever” – and that means 120 years of history, not 3 or 10 or 15 or whatever you decide to make it.
“WORST ever” = 1899 Spiders.
“WORST modern” = 1962 Mets
Arbitrary “WORST” you randomly used to try and make some back-assward point off of = 2003 Tigers
end of story.
And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better!
: )
@175,
I thought I asked you to cut it out. (“It” being the refusal or inability to make any sense at all.)
Come on, how old are you? I *dare* you to tell me.
2-1/2 hours without a post. I think he *is* twelve, and he’s slinking away with his tail between his legs now that he’s been found out.
Oops, sorry, I hadn’t noticed that the time zone this blog uses isn’t *my* time zone.
So it’s only been a half hour without a post, and I provisionally withdraw everything I said.
Time will tell.
But now, to beat a dead horse, it’s been ~16 hours, if my math is correct, without a post from our favorite nonsense-writer.
Just wanted to point out, for those of you who continue arguing with him, that Yesterday Was Better’s original post said “All considered, Ruth is the best ever – he is to baseball as Halas to football, Naismith to basketball.”
I’m pretty sure he’s saying Naismith is the best basketball player ever. I think you should stop arguing with this gentlemen.
@180,
1. I’m not *arguing* with him so much as trying to get him to (a) start making sense, if possible, or, alternatively, (b) cut it out.
2. He’s also saying, then, by analogy, that George Halas was the best football player ever. Well, one for three often wins you a batting championship in baseball. . . .
I guess I can go along with Pujols as most consistant, though Del Ennis was consistant longer than Pujols so far. It’ll take three or four more seasons to seal the deal.
“And STILL no one has or can PROVIDE A fact PROVING that Yesterday Was Better!”
Fixed that for you man.
180: Josh
“Just wanted to point out, for those of you who continue arguing with him”
Oh yeah, think he has shown himself to clearly be clueless. But you have to admit that his eternal skirting around the facts with regards to his idiotic “2003 Tigers proves worst era ever” theory is pretty funny.
Realistically, there is no need to argue with him on the subject because he is so blatantly incorrect from the very start – but there is also my curiosity of how one could come up with such an asinine theory in the first place. The fact he (in his hysterical illegible ways) does everything but explain his idiotic claim leads it into an argument type conversation as he tries to change reality or run around facts to keep himself from having to accept he is wrong to the 1+2=12 degree. I realize I am then arguing in the “kid with his hand in the cookie jar stomping his feet and holding his breath to divert attention” vain, but sometimes that is fun and if I get insight into the thought process along the way, then all the better.
Wheres Dick Allen?…He was very similar to Mize and he isnt top 30?
And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better!
Keep trying whippersnappers…
: )
I apologize to Joe for resorting to this but …
Yesterday Was Better, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
YWB – “… ‘the fact that’ is a worthless phrase that should be revised from every sentence in which it occurs.” Strunk and White, The Elements of Style.
Professor William Strunk originally wrote that advice nearly a century ago. Take your own advice, kiddo.
As far as “refute” is concerned… the word does not mean what you think it means. I suspect all of English doesn’t mean what you think it means, actually. If you were to say “delusion” instead of “fact” in your rantings you would at least be accurate: nobody can really refute a delusion. You just gotta snap out of it, man. Quit being That Guy.
@188,
> I suspect all of English doesn’t mean what you think it means, actually.
Priceless!!!
And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better!
Keep trying whippersnappers…
: )
YWB:
a) the concept of Y-W-B is, by definition, an opinion, not a fact.
b) simply stating “no one can refute something” doesn’t mean no one has. You just haven’t bothered to listen. An impartial observer would say that others have made their case a lot better than you, but we’ve already discussed that.
which leads me to c:
c) you are a fucking idiot. I don’t like using profanity. but you are one. Actually, I need to revise that. you are a FUCKING IDIOT. If you get off by posting stupid things and annoying people who are here to enjoy (and in some ways, to endorse) the Joe’s writing, well, it’s a free country. Fire away. But I hope that from this point on, no one even reads your stuff, or acknowledges your presence.
d) it would be appropriate if these were the last words anyone posted to you, so did I mention that you are a FUCKING IDIOT?
oops, Joe–I just called you “the joe”…as in, “the fonz.”
“Keep trying whippersnappers…”
Are you too stupid to even realize that no one has tried to “refute” the argument you never gave?
Well I mean, I provided facts disproving two of your blatant lies – which clearly debunked the early theories you attempted to force down peoples throats using said falsities – but my original post wasnt directed to you (it was instead my talking to someone else who recognized you as the fool you are) and otherwise no one has said a damn thing to you with regards to a discussion. Couple people told you to provide evidence of your claim (you ignored, apparently unable to do so) and everyone else just told you to shut up and called you out as the troll you are.
But this isnt a surprise. After all, why would anyone even try to hold a serious conversation with you? You clearly dont know what you are talking about, you cant seem to type legible sentences to save your life and you seem unable to recognize a fact from your foot. But to top it all off – when you are proven wrong you try and make shit up, add illogical “yeah but” type stipulations or ignore the fact completely and instead go into a state of delusional denial as if you are an 8 year old with his fingers in his ears humming to drown out reality.
Seriously, if you are an indication of the teenage mentality of today, then our future is screwed.
But we know, “And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better! Blah blah blah” and some other shit that makes no sense…
*sigh*
Anyway, keep it up man, there might yet be one person out there who hasnt noticed what a moron you really are. Repeating that sentience a few more times will surely put him in the same situation everyone else is in though – not respecting a single thing you say. And thats what it’s all about, isnt it? Getting to a point where your name becomes lives in infamy as one of the biggest idiots to ever visit a location? Don’t worry, its pretty clear everyone recognizes and considers you that already.
hum, interesting… Seems someone somehow deleted your last post. Which is good, but it made my post seem out of place…
Is a mod reading? Are these boards monitored? And if so, can we please just remove all his posts for the greater good of all? No point in leaving trash lying around for others to see – only brings down the integrity of the place.
And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better!
Alas, the ‘moderne’ angst your remains… enjoy!
Keep trying whippersnappers…
: )
He’s like something out of the Twilight Zone…
(anyway, Mods, can we please get a delete?)
Actually, I take that back – the Twilight Zones were always good and sometimes fantastic. Maybe the Outer Limits is more like it – they were less effective and often didnt make sense. That makes a better fit.
As ‘he’ makes the ‘O’ face yet again…indeed,
Yesterday Was Better, without question!
heh heh heh!
Concerning the whole “yesterday was better” business….read this.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=4268999
“As ‘he’ makes the ‘O’ face yet again”
What doth this meane?
The records DiMaggio, Williams, Wilson & Young remain unbroken – so much for the ‘modern’ eras bigger, stronger, faster AND alas, ‘lesser’ players every, et al…
Keep trying whippersnappers…
: )
I love how the records have names like people. I also love how your sentence just trails off into nothingness, despite the absence of any rational thought from the beginning. Bravo, sir.
And when you have them as I do, you know you really have them… heh heh heh
Game, set, match: Yesterday Was Better
: )
Cherry picking is awesome…..
No old-timer will ever hit 73 homers in a season (with or without horse testosterone injections). No old-timer will ever get 4,192 hits. No old-timer will ever steal 130 bases in a season without counting defensive indifference (cheaters!). No old-timer will ever steal 1,406 bases in their career. No old-timer will ever throw 59 consecutive scoreless innings. I can go on and on and on…
Ok fine, here; I will “refute” your “opinion”
“The records DiMaggio, Williams, Wilson & Young remain unbroken – so much for the ‘modern’ eras bigger, stronger, faster AND alas, ‘lesser’ players every, et al…”
Yet the records of Aaron, Brock, Carlton, Maris, Jim Barr, Gehrig, Cobb, Sisler, and countless others have – and a couple of those players have seen multiple records fall…
Mentioning a few unbroken records doesn’t actually mean a single thing unless you put it into perspective. The only thing you have done to try to make your argument is point to a microscopic portion of a whole and give an illogical theory. Just like I cant point to the three yellow cars on the corner and say yellow cars are better or more popular or whatever, you cant point to 4 out of thousands of records and say anything of substance.
Realistically, more “unbreakable records” (as they were previously considered) have come to their final resting place over the last 15 or so years then at any time in the past. When you expand it to “unbreakable record” breakers who played part of the last 15 years, players like Oral Hershier come into the picture. As far as discussions of greatest players ever (which is always subjective, but…), Bonds and Pujols (already) have strong arguments. Expand it out to other sports and you have Rice and Sanders right up there at the top for football plus Montana is still only about 15 years past. Then there is Tim Tebow making his argument right now in college forum. In the NHL few probably argue against Gretzky, although a case can be made for Lemieux. Jordan seems to have a lock for most in the NBA, but Kobe is doing what he can to push that and Lebron is threatening them both with Shaq having an argument to be made himself. Tiger Woods in Golf, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer in tennis, Zinedine Zidane in soccer. Its just hard to argue with the sheer number of greatest ever seen playing their particular sports over the last 15 years.
Now, a person has three options really;
1) They can recognize that today very well could be one of, if not the best for sports ever
2) They can claim such an argument impossible and choose not to take part
3) The can dismiss fact and instead argue their bias, like you have done.
You of course somehow seem to think Bias is an argument. News flash, it isnt. Which is one of the main reasons no one takes you seriously. (they also don’t take you seriously because you cant write legibly, have an inability to show any form or reasoning or common sense, cant show respect for others, cant come to grips with (so you ignore) your errors and faults, desire to troll others, and countless other reasons to some degree – but the bias aspect is way up there.)
But because of your inability to admit error, bias, lack of common sense and your overall desire to troll, you will almost certainly give some meaningless dribble like a five year old unable to say anything other then “I win” in the face of failure. And possibly the funniest thing – you cant seem to recognize that your fighting it the way you have only proves you have no real argument to begin with. Every time you type anything you might as well be saying “I never had a point, but I really want to troll”.
Or, as you would probably put it…
Hist! I haveth but wood desire; sans validity, reason, lackaday. Pauso nary anon.
The best ever at their own device – sports et al – baseball, football, basketball endeavors theirs, yesterdays heros. They’re endless as well UNMATCHED – and ALL of them from that era that be – “Yesterday Was Better”
Joe DiMaggio – 56 straight games
Ted Williams – .407 average
Cy Young – 511 wins
Hack Wilson – 191 rbis in a season
Steve Dalkowski – 105-115 mph fastball
Yesterday nee yesteryear’s finest also STILL retain the all time records in more than 100 separate MLB categories … yup. You do the legwork whippersnappers.
Wilt Chamberlain – 100 points in a single game – 50.4 scoring average in a season – and Wilt also holds an ADDITIONAL 70 NBA records – so much for a Jordan & an O’Neal & yadda yadda yadda et al; you can do the legwork yourself, whippersnappers.
Jim Brown – 5.2 yards per carry average for his career, highest ever all qualifiers (sorry Bo, you don’t know) – Brown also averaged 104.3 yards per game over his 9 years – NO ONE can match that either, not a Sanders, not a Smith, nor a Payton – NO ONE – and Jim also holds several other records; again whippersnappers, you can do the legwork.
Only lack internet paper prevents the listing of the hundreds of other sports records that STILL stand today, affirming that yesterday was better as it endlessly beats the moderne day pretenders to a bloody pulp.
Yes, without question: Yesterday Was Better
heh heh heh!
: )
Yes, without question: Fuck off
And when you have them … you know you REALLY have them- Yesterday Was Better does
Heh heh heh!
What is this “have them” of which you speak?
Old potty mouth just can’t get enough, keeps comin’ back for more…he loves those Dutch rubs Yesterday Was Better – heh heh heh!
“The best ever at their own device – sports et al – baseball, football, basketball endeavors theirs, yesterdays heros. They’re endless as well UNMATCHED – and ALL of them from that era that be – “Yesterday Was Better””
Yes, we know you Opinion. But, like was previously stated, pointing to a microscopic amount of records proves nothing but the fact you can find a microscopic amount of records held by people in the past. Oh, and so you know, the last one isnt even substantiated, its assumed by a very small few and dismissed by the majority.
Anyway, you go on to give more opinions and cherry picked stats/records to try and suport that opinion, yet you still dont have an argument. All you are proving is that there were good players in the past, which everyone already knows. That still doesnt mean the players today arent better though.
But most important – you missed the argument. See, the “what era is better” argument was never taking place. If you were able to read or comprehend, you would realize I have never given my opinion on the situation. I have nothing to prove, because nothing can be proved – this is an entirely subjective argument that only fools really partake in. Hence the reason I was giving you the run around, its fun to watch fools think they are superior because they were able to form an opinion – and even better when said fools dont realize how idiotic they are actually being.
That said, the only argument that is open here is… why are you trolling? See, that is what you should be replying to. Prove to us that you are anything other then a troll! And if you can somehow prove you are anything other then a troll, then maybe someone will respect anything you say enough to reply in conversation. But as it stands, you are obviously just a troll, leaving us with only real outcome…
“And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better is merely a TROLL!”
P.S. “keeps comin’ back for more”
If you are referring to me, I come back solely for two reasons. First, you are hysterical with your bias and ignorance. Second, your obsession to have the last word. I am intrigued how long you will continue to show up just to repeat the same nonsense in your eternal quest. How strong is your obsession?
Oh, and to once more make sure you realize the important equation here:
And STILL no one has or can refute the fact that Yesterday Was Better is merely a TROLL!
anyone can claim to have won a debate, but it’s not up to them to decide–it’s up to observers. so just ignore ywb’s claims of victory–it’s like if the 35,124th place finisher at the NYC marathon claimed to have won, presented him/herself with a medal, and conducted delusional “interviews” with imaginary reporters.
and using another NYC metaphor, there’s one thing you don’t do to a crazy babbling dude on a subway car, and that’s sit down next to them and start talking. which is exactly what we’ve been doing with this troll.
And the silence “theirs’ is deafeaning… for indeed, Yesterday Was Better!
Keep trying whippersnappers – heh heh heh!
: )
Indeed!!! I believe in yesterday…
“Old potty mouth” is back, he will not be silenced!
Yup, Yesterday Was Better…and still is
heh heh heh!
: )
today is tomorrows yesterday…yesterday is getting further and further away….one day todays records will be as meaningless as yesterdays….People who think yesterdays records mean anything are in the minority…..Wearing yesterdays records like a badge of honor is akin to being proud you are old…..Theres no honor in yesterday…its only today that counts….Yesterday is for those who have no today accomplishments….Yesterday is a dinosaur
“Progress is the injustice each generation commits with regard to its predecessors.” – EM Cioran
Yup, Yesterday Was Better…and still is
heh heh heh!
: )
@ Yesterday Was Better
What time zone are you in?
He’s in the Twilight Zone.
@ electric
Rather Dan, what’s the frequency Kenneth?
Unquestionably Yesterday Was Better… and still is
heh heh heh!
: )
What?
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright… and still is
Last Word Wars
Yesterday Was Better
: )
Not so, I quoth.
Verily…Yesterday Was Better.
Does anyone remember laughter?
Yesterday, hitters were better far & away, so much better than these frauds today … oh I believe in Yesterday.
Suddenly, modern day’s not what it used to be, this steroid era’s stats do bother me, oh I believe in Yesterday.
Why it had to go I don’t know, it should’ve stayed…now there’s something wrong how I long for Yesterday.
Yesterday, authenticity ruled everyday, now the Benjamins do- it’s a shame, oh I believe in Yesterday.
Why, it, had to go I don’t know it should’ve stayed…it’s clear, something’s wrong how I long for Yesterday.
Yesterday, it was such an easy game to play,
now Scott Boras types are here to stay – oh, I believe in Yesterday.
Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that song before …
Try removing your finger from your… ear
Yup, Yesterday Was Better
Sarcasm = great tool
Yesterday Was Better
Lou Gehrig was never offered to the Red Sox for Phil Todt. I’ve been studying this rumor for the last three or four years. It either began or was given credence in Harvey Frommer’s book “Red Sox Vs. Yankees: The Great Rivalry.” (Sports Publishing L.L.C. 2004). In an email conversation with me, Harvey admitted he had no sources for his information and refused to explain further. Every on-line reference of this alleged trade proposal lacks any attribution. My repeated attempts to contact the official Lou Gehrig Web site have been ignored. Gotta love it though: The Web site seems to believe that Ruth was traded, not sold. As if the Yankees would ever feel obligated to do the Red Sox a favor. Will someone please put this ridiculous myth to rest once and for all?
Yup, Yesterday Was Better…
Insert generic post
Yup, Yesterday Was Better…and still is
What about George Brett? 3 batting titles? The best line drive hitter? You write for the Star, correct?
Yes, Yesterday Was Better…and still is
Insert generic post 2
Indeed, Yesterday Was Better…and still is. Athletes & the games played, cars, women, television, movies… life. There will ne’er again be a time like Yesterday!
Insert generic post 3
Cue Liz Damon…
Like smoke from a cigarette
Dreams that you soon forget
It’s fading away
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
Insert generic post 4.
Like smoke from a cigarette
Dreams that you soon forget
It’s fading away
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
Insert generic post 5
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday
And it’s 1900 yesterday…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
Insert generic post 6
Good, we’ve consensus…
And it’s 1900 yesterday, and it’s 1900 yesterday, and it’s 1900 yesterday…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
Page 3 Archives … oh yeah
And it’s 1900 yesterday, and it’s 1900 yesterday, and it’s 1900 yesterday…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
In the year 2000
Orwell 1984…Zager & Evans ‘In The Year 2525′… Adolf… Manson… Ted Kaczynski… sports, intellect, life… yup, Yesterday Was Better alright.
gp7
Shakespeare, Serling, Cioran and Nietzsche … Dawson, Starr, Unitas and Baugh… Yesterday Was Better alright – unquestionably – the best ever lived & played then.
gp8
Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams & Young – Koufax, Gibson, Maris & McLain too… yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…unquestionably.
gp9
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright … both indubitably AND unquestionably
Going once, going twice, going three times – SOLD!
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright… heh heh heh!
Game, set, match…Yesterday Was Better
With 16 teams in the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s and 30 teams today it is not clear which era had more dilution of talent. One era had integration. The other had fewer teams. Maybe that makes the players of the ’50s and ’60s the best.
Amen…amen…amen, amen, amen… yup, Yesterday Was Better, alright… and amen.
… Cause I’m ba-a-ack…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…and still is
Yeth-thir!
heh heh heh!
: )
here in modernia, it is yes, sir
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…still is and e’er will be… yup.
gp10
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright… there can be no question nee doubt about it.
gp11
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
gp12
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright… still is… and e’er will be.
gp13
Yesterday Was Better alright…yup…and how.
Psst! Hurry, times a wastin because… yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…
9 days later …
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…and still is
Damn… so close
Unquestionably it was Better, Yesterday… and still thence than tis today
aw yea
Yup, unquestionably as always & will e’er be… Yesterday Was Better – and still is
: )
se7en
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…and still is
heh heh heh
: )
Are you God?
Plea begets answer: reconnoitering…
Yesterday is the Alpha & the Omega – I Am… verily, it has always been this way.
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright, and still is as e’er will be…
Let me praise you.
The line forms to the right, just as the present genuflects in reverence the bygone that was… yup, Yesterday Was Better alright.
Waiting, waiting, waiting…Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright…still is…always will be.
heh heh heh
: )
March 6, 2010
Anybody here, seen my old friend ‘lectric – can you tell me where he’s gone? Appears that his plug done got pulled…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright
: )
I am glad we are friends.
Knew my fragrant prose would bring you out of the shadow world this present day faux pas you lurk in…
Yup, Yesterday Was Better alright
heh heh heh
: )