SOMers - Stratomatic Baseball

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Greatest
1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 24, 2013
The Greatest
Permalink  
 


Chasbar got me thinking a bit, in his thread about Stan Musial.

There is no doubt that The Man is one of the greatest players in the history of the game.  His career record speaks for itself.  Or, it should...

But somehow, there seems to be a feeling that while Musial's numbers are astounding, it's always someone else who leaps to the forefront of greatest player(s) ever.

You get plenty of votes for Ruth, Mays, Bonds and others, but how often is Stan Musial one of the first three or four names that comes up?

Do you think of Ted Williams before Musial comes to mind?  How about Joe D.?  A healthy Mantle?

If you were asked to create a list of the Greatest Players Ever (separate from Greatest Pitchers), where would Stan Musial rank?  Is he right there, where most of his numbers put him?

Is he top three?  Four?  Five?  Does he get dinged in your mind for a lack of blazing speed, or the fact that he was not an elite defender?

Here's the link to Musial's baseref page:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml

Take a look at that, then think about where he ranks on your list.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Manager

Status: Offline
Posts: 9769
Date: Jun 24, 2013
Permalink  
 

His stats are impressive. But, anytime you rate a player on a greatest list it's always will be subjective. That being said in my very humble opinion I would have him in the top 8.

__________________

I wanted to play more SOM so I retired.

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 24, 2013
Permalink  
 

stratfan70 wrote:

His stats are impressive. But, anytime you rate a player on a greatest list it's always will be subjective. That being said in my very humble opinion I would have him in the top 8.


Good point.  It is all pretty subjective.

I looked up his Neutralized stats, and he loses three points on his lifetime average (not much).  But he pushes closer to 2,000 runs (+46), 2,000 RBIs (+37) and 500 homers (+11).

I then decided to look at where he was, when he entered into decline.  I think we can agree that 1958 was his last great season (for average, anyway).  From that point forward, it's essentially counting stats to add to his accumulated totals in various categories.

After the 1958 season, Musial's lifetime average was .340.  That means he lost nine points on his career BA from 1959-'63.  After batting .351 in '57 (his final batting title), he dropped off a bit, to .337.

From '58, it was a precipitous fall, to .255, .275, and .288. He was ready to hang 'em up, until he realized that -- with expansion (and particularly that Mets' staff) -- there were still plenty more hits out there. He batted .330 in '62, then retired a year later, after hitting just .255.

On the career batting average leader list, a .340 lifetime mark brings him up, from 30th to 16th (Lou Gehrig-George Sisler range).  It also puts him in the Top-10 of hitters who played their entire careers after 1900.

Other players within three batting points of Musial at that point are Bill Terry (.3412), Harry Heilmann (.3416) and the Babe (.3421).

Of course, we can play the Neutralized game with everyone, and the list will shift many times.  We can cut off the determiner at the point of decline with everyone, and that may increase the margin between them and Musial again.



-- Edited by seajaw on Monday 24th of June 2013 05:05:44 PM

__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Jun 25, 2013
Permalink  
 

Considering that Baseball is the most stat-intensive sport, subjective is certainly the case.
To bear all facets of the game, I have always considered Willie Mays the greatest all-around player.
Stan's OPS of .976 is impressive as are many of his career stats.
It would be interesting to compile a top 10 list not to mention time consuming somewhat. Not having done so, I would rank Stan somewhere between 7 to 10.

 



__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

For an all-around position player, I would agree on Mays.  If you factor in his pitching, I'd go with Ruth.

Let's try an experiment.  I'll put Stan up against other elite players who played all or a significant portion of their careers in the Lively Ball Era.  You guys decide which one you'd take on Draft Day.

1. Musial or Barry Bonds?

2. Musial or Ted Williams?

3. Musial or Joe DiMaggio?

4. Musial or Mickey Mantle?

5. Musial or Tris Speaker?

6. Musial or Ken Griffey Jr.?

7. Musial or Lou Gehrig?

8. Musial or Rogers Hornsby?

9. Musial or Harry Heilmann?

10. Musial or Frank Robinson?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 735
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

Nos. 1,6 and 10----I would take Stan the Man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now where on the list of great players I have seen......1960 0n......
I would have to say he is number 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to argue with 725 career doubles.



__________________


Third Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 5563
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

For me Musial is top 6-8 all-time . It gets to splitting hairs after the first 5 .



__________________

Go Bucs !!!

No-hitters- Ray Culp , Freddy Garcia , Phil Ortega , Scott Kazmir , Needle Nose Wright , A.J. Griffin , Carlos Torres , Stan Bahnsen , Mario Soto

Perfect games - Jamie Moyer , J. R. Richard , Sandy Koufax



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 3797
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

For an all-around position player, I would agree on Mays.  If you factor in his pitching, I'd go with Ruth.

Let's try an experiment.  I'll put Stan up against other elite players who played all or a significant portion of their careers in the Lively Ball Era.  You guys decide which one you'd take on Draft Day.

1. Musial or Barry Bonds?

2. Musial or Ted Williams?

3. Musial or Joe DiMaggio?

4. Musial or Mickey Mantle?

5. Musial or Tris Speaker?

6. Musial or Ken Griffey Jr.?

7. Musial or Lou Gehrig?

8. Musial or Rogers Hornsby?

9. Musial or Harry Heilmann?

10. Musial or Frank Robinson?


 I'd take Stan in numbers 1,5,6,9, and 10



__________________


General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

For an all-around position player, I would agree on Mays.  If you factor in his pitching, I'd go with Ruth.

Let's try an experiment.  I'll put Stan up against other elite players who played all or a significant portion of their careers in the Lively Ball Era.  You guys decide which one you'd take on Draft Day.

1. Musial or Barry Bonds?...tough call, but I'll take Bonds for his defense and speed.

2. Musial or Ted Williams?...easy call; while I said Musial was the most under-appreciated great player ever, IMO Williams is the most overrated great player ever.

3. Musial or Joe DiMaggio?...Musial was better both at his peak and career.

4. Musial or Mickey Mantle?...Too short of a career for Mantle.

5. Musial or Tris Speaker?...Another one of the most under-appreciated great players, this one is really a toss-up, more then Bonds was.  I'll take Speaker for his defense in CF.

6. Musial or Ken Griffey Jr.?...Sorry seajaw, Griffey isn't as close as Speaker is.

7. Musial or Lou Gehrig?...Easy call, Gehrig crushes him, definitely the most extreme difference of the players mentioned.

8. Musial or Rogers Hornsby?...Even factoring in his position, Musial easily over Hornsby.

9. Musial or Harry Heilmann?...Not even close.

10. Musial or Frank Robinson?...Not even close part 2.


 So IMO, only Gehrig easily beats Musial.  Musial easily beats Hornsby, Heilmann, and Robinson.  Speaker and Bonds nose out Musial, Musial kinda beats out Williams and Mantle, and more easily beats out DiMaggio and Griffey.  By ranking, I would go....Heilmann, Robinson, Hornsby, DiMaggio, Griffey, Williams, Mantle, Bonds, Speaker, Gehrig.



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

For an all-around position player, I would agree on Mays.  If you factor in his pitching, I'd go with Ruth.

Let's try an experiment.  I'll put Stan up against other elite players who played all or a significant portion of their careers in the Lively Ball Era.  You guys decide which one you'd take on Draft Day.

1. Musial or Barry Bonds?...tough call, but I'll take Bonds for his defense and speed.

2. Musial or Ted Williams?...easy call; while I said Musial was the most under-appreciated great player ever, IMO Williams is the most overrated great player ever.

3. Musial or Joe DiMaggio?...Musial was better both at his peak and career.

4. Musial or Mickey Mantle?...Too short of a career for Mantle.

5. Musial or Tris Speaker?...Another one of the most under-appreciated great players, this one is really a toss-up, more then Bonds was.  I'll take Speaker for his defense in CF.

6. Musial or Ken Griffey Jr.?...Sorry seajaw, Griffey isn't as close as Speaker is.

7. Musial or Lou Gehrig?...Easy call, Gehrig crushes him, definitely the most extreme difference of the players mentioned.

8. Musial or Rogers Hornsby?...Even factoring in his position, Musial easily over Hornsby.

9. Musial or Harry Heilmann?...Not even close.

10. Musial or Frank Robinson?...Not even close part 2.


 So IMO, only Gehrig easily beats Musial.  Musial easily beats Hornsby, Heilmann, and Robinson.  Speaker and Bonds nose out Musial, Musial kinda beats out Williams and Mantle, and more easily beats out DiMaggio and Griffey.  By ranking, I would go....Heilmann, Robinson, Hornsby, DiMaggio, Griffey, Williams, Mantle, Bonds, Speaker, Gehrig.


No need to apologize in Junior's case.

But the way, names I tossed out in some cases, like Frank Robinson (strong defender, good speed, better power), were because they might be perceived to have a more complete skills package.

Stan might be seen as a better hitter, per se, but Robby had better power, speed, and played as good or better defense. 



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

Thanks to everyone who has replied with their thoughts, thus far. Keep 'em comin'.

Any more names you'd to add to that partial list?

And feel free to discuss with each other here. I'm perfectly content to sit back and listen...and learn.

__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

Thanks to everyone who has replied with their thoughts, thus far. Keep 'em comin'.

Any more names you'd to add to that partial list?

And feel free to discuss with each other here. I'm perfectly content to sit back and listen...and learn.


 I beg to differ about Robinson's defense.  His arm wasn't always that strong, especially after he hurt it in the early 60's.  He wasn't bad, but I don't think he was far superior then Musial.  Robinson had some early speed, but his SB% is actually almost identical (72.5% for Robby, 71.5% for Musial).  And as far as power, Musial beats Robby in slugging by 22 points even though he hit over 100 homers less.

The only player off the top of my head I would consider putting as an equal to Musial....with the exception of Ruth of course.....is Joe Morgan, mostly for his superior defense at an important position then any offensive contributions.  I would put someone like Mike Schmidt further ahead of Robinson, again when factoring in superior defense.



-- Edited by nacster on Wednesday 26th of June 2013 07:31:32 PM

__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 26, 2013
Permalink  
 

nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Thanks to everyone who has replied with their thoughts, thus far. Keep 'em comin'.

Any more names you'd to add to that partial list?

And feel free to discuss with each other here. I'm perfectly content to sit back and listen...and learn.


 I beg to differ about Robinson's defense.  His arm wasn't always that strong, especially after he hurt it in the early 60's.  He wasn't bad, but I don't think he was far superior then Musial.  Robinson had some early speed, but his SB% is actually almost identical (72.5% for Robby, 71.5% for Musial).  And as far as power, Musial beats Robby in slugging by 22 points even though he hit over 100 homers less.

The only player off the top of my head I would consider putting as an equal to Musial....with the exception of Ruth of course.....is Joe Morgan, mostly for his superior defense at an important position then any offensive contributions.  I would put someone like Mike Schmidt further ahead of Robinson, again when factoring in superior defense.



-- Edited by nacster on Wednesday 26th of June 2013 07:31:32 PM


The differences may not be that great defensively, but Robby did play all three outfield positions at one time or another, as well as first base.

I remember his poor arm ratings, but usually remember him as a solid "2" defensively in the corners, and a "3" in center (if I recall) in his more youthful years.

From what we can tell, Robby was definitely hindered by conditions around him.  His stats, when neutralized, bump his career BA from .294 to .302, and boost his home run totals from 586 to 622.  He also gains an extra 169 RBI.  His OPS goes from .926 to .951.

And, he was deadly in the clutch: .292 career RISP, .272 2O/RISP, and .289 in late/close situations.

Also, it might be fair to note that the middle of Robby's career was situated solidly in what is now referred to as the second Deadball Era, when offensive numbers were greatly impacted.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Jun 27, 2013
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:
nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Thanks to everyone who has replied with their thoughts, thus far. Keep 'em comin'.

Any more names you'd to add to that partial list?

And feel free to discuss with each other here. I'm perfectly content to sit back and listen...and learn.


 I beg to differ about Robinson's defense.  His arm wasn't always that strong, especially after he hurt it in the early 60's.  He wasn't bad, but I don't think he was far superior then Musial.  Robinson had some early speed, but his SB% is actually almost identical (72.5% for Robby, 71.5% for Musial).  And as far as power, Musial beats Robby in slugging by 22 points even though he hit over 100 homers less.

The only player off the top of my head I would consider putting as an equal to Musial....with the exception of Ruth of course.....is Joe Morgan, mostly for his superior defense at an important position then any offensive contributions.  I would put someone like Mike Schmidt further ahead of Robinson, again when factoring in superior defense.



-- Edited by nacster on Wednesday 26th of June 2013 07:31:32 PM


The differences may not be that great defensively, but Robby did play all three outfield positions at one time or another, as well as first base.

I remember his poor arm ratings, but usually remember him as a solid "2" defensively in the corners, and a "3" in center (if I recall) in his more youthful years.

From what we can tell, Robby was definitely hindered by conditions around him.  His stats, when neutralized, bump his career BA from .294 to .302, and boost his home run totals from 586 to 622.  He also gains an extra 169 RBI.  His OPS goes from .926 to .951.

And, he was deadly in the clutch: .292 career RISP, .272 2O/RISP, and .289 in late/close situations.

Also, it might be fair to note that the middle of Robby's career was situated solidly in what is now referred to as the second Deadball Era, when offensive numbers were greatly impacted.


 Very good points all around......but IMO the deadball era in the 60's did not affect the true huge stars that much.  I didn't see Aaron's numbers drop, or Mays, Killebrew, Clemente, McCovey, etc.  Mantle's dropped yes, but his were more a product of injury decline.  Also, Robinson's huge years....the years in his 20's.....were in Crosley, which was more of a hitters park even in that era.

I am far from disagreeing the deadball points you mention, I just think that era was a little over-hyped.  There was a complete lack of offense from usually at least 3 spots in the lineup that weren't pitchers.  Lineup spots that in the 50's and even into the 70's were offensive positions (2B, SS, and C).  That was more of a product IMO of the cycling of talent (more power pitchers, less hitters at the MI positions) then the ball.



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Jun 27, 2013
Permalink  
 

nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:
nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Thanks to everyone who has replied with their thoughts, thus far. Keep 'em comin'.

Any more names you'd to add to that partial list?

And feel free to discuss with each other here. I'm perfectly content to sit back and listen...and learn.


 I beg to differ about Robinson's defense.  His arm wasn't always that strong, especially after he hurt it in the early 60's.  He wasn't bad, but I don't think he was far superior then Musial.  Robinson had some early speed, but his SB% is actually almost identical (72.5% for Robby, 71.5% for Musial).  And as far as power, Musial beats Robby in slugging by 22 points even though he hit over 100 homers less.

The only player off the top of my head I would consider putting as an equal to Musial....with the exception of Ruth of course.....is Joe Morgan, mostly for his superior defense at an important position then any offensive contributions.  I would put someone like Mike Schmidt further ahead of Robinson, again when factoring in superior defense.



-- Edited by nacster on Wednesday 26th of June 2013 07:31:32 PM


The differences may not be that great defensively, but Robby did play all three outfield positions at one time or another, as well as first base.

I remember his poor arm ratings, but usually remember him as a solid "2" defensively in the corners, and a "3" in center (if I recall) in his more youthful years.

From what we can tell, Robby was definitely hindered by conditions around him.  His stats, when neutralized, bump his career BA from .294 to .302, and boost his home run totals from 586 to 622.  He also gains an extra 169 RBI.  His OPS goes from .926 to .951.

And, he was deadly in the clutch: .292 career RISP, .272 2O/RISP, and .289 in late/close situations.

Also, it might be fair to note that the middle of Robby's career was situated solidly in what is now referred to as the second Deadball Era, when offensive numbers were greatly impacted.


 Very good points all around......but IMO the deadball era in the 60's did not affect the true huge stars that much.  I didn't see Aaron's numbers drop, or Mays, Killebrew, Clemente, McCovey, etc.  Mantle's dropped yes, but his were more a product of injury decline.  Also, Robinson's huge years....the years in his 20's.....were in Crosley, which was more of a hitters park even in that era.

I am far from disagreeing the deadball points you mention, I just think that era was a little over-hyped.  There was a complete lack of offense from usually at least 3 spots in the lineup that weren't pitchers.  Lineup spots that in the 50's and even into the 70's were offensive positions (2B, SS, and C).  That was more of a product IMO of the cycling of talent (more power pitchers, less hitters at the MI positions) then the ball.


I don't know.  You had one year (1968) in which the entire A.L. had just one .300 hitter.

Runs scored in the N.L. in 1968 were down by about 100 per team, on average, from 1966.  The average number of runs scored per club in 1966 was 662.  Two years later, it was 558.  The league BA in '66 was .256.  In '68, it had dropped to .243.

Aaron had just moved into the most homer-friendly ballpark you could imagine, so that likely mitigated the overall effects.

On the Junior Circuit, averages were even lower, and the "Deadball" effect was more pronounced.  The league batted .247 in 1964 (.254 in the N.L.), and plunged to .230 by '68.  Runs per team declined, on average, from 661 in '64, to 553 in '68.

Even with all the changes (mound, strike zone, eventually the DH in the A.L., etc.), it still took a while for the numbers to rebound.

The elite hitters did manage to stay above it all, for the most part, as you pointed out.  Even so, a general pall on the rest of the lineup will affect even the greatest hitters' numbers somewhat, at least in the areas of RBIs and runs scored.

Theoretically, the other counting numbers can also be knocked down, because of the fewer opportunities to hit that would come from less production from the other hitters.  The lineup doesn't turn over as much.

You are right about Crosley, though.  It had become much more hitter-friendly over time.  That's something I should have caught.  But the Neutralized stats still back the notion that the era was likely an overall drag on Robby's numbers, compared to the "norm."



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."

1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard