PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Tonight picks Johnny Bench as greatest Red ever



OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 02:25 AM
Baseball Tonight recently began a feature where they are picking the three greatest players from each franchise. Tonight they featured the Reds and chose Johnny Bench as the greatest Red followed by Pete Rose at number two and Frank Robinson number three. The fans also get to vote and the fans went with Pete Rose number one, Johnny Bench two, and surprisingly, Bucky Walters as the third greatest Red of all-time. Bucky Walters was a great, great pitcher but I'd have to put Robinson or Joe Morgan in the top three.

My list would go as follows:

1. Johnny Bench
2. Pete Rose
3. Frank Robinson
3a. Joe Morgan

Do you guys agree/disagree with the Baseball Tonight list?

WVRedsFan
08-05-2008, 02:39 AM
Baseball Tonight recently began a feature where they are picking the three greatest players from each franchise. Tonight they featured the Reds and chose Johnny Bench as the greatest Red followed by Pete Rose at number two and Frank Robinson number three. The fans also get to vote and the fans went with Pete Rose number one, Johnny Bench two, and surprisingly, Bucky Walters as the third greatest Red of all-time. Bucky Walters was a great, great pitcher but I'd have to put Robinson or Joe Morgan in the top three.

My list would go as follows:

1. Johnny Bench
2. Pete Rose
3. Frank Robinson
3a. Joe Morgan

Do you guys agree/disagree with the Baseball Tonight list?

I think people underrate Frank Robinson. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember what Robby did for the team in the late 50's and early 60's. There was not a player who did more for his team. Rose was the sparkplug who got on base and made things happen, and I appreciate that. Morgan was the same kind of player who could also hit for power on occasion and was a good second baseman.

Bench was the best catcher of all time and was so important to the BRM's success, but in the dark days of the late 50's and early 60's when the Reds were going through a period much like we are going through today, Robinson put up the numbers and carried the team. Bench, Rose and Morgan were on successful teams where they had some help, but Robinson played on a team that won one pennant and made it to one World Series. He carried the team.

In 1963 when the Reds had a mediocre 86-76 record (we could only wish for that over the last 10 years), it was Robinson who had an off season. On the teams where Bench, Morgan, and Rose played, one bad season didn't sink the team.

My list would be:

1. Robinson
2. Bench
3. Rose
4. Morgan

AtomicDumpling
08-05-2008, 02:57 AM
I agree that Robinson is underappreciated. Another underappreciated player is George Foster. He had awesome power back when power was rare in the age of giant astroturf concrete stadiums. He has several of the best OPS+ seasons in Reds history.

You can make a very strong case that Bench was the best catcher in baseball history and Morgan was the best second baseman ever.

My list:
1. Robinson
2. Bench
3. Morgan
4. Rose
5. Foster

dougdirt
08-05-2008, 02:58 AM
Bench
Rose
Larkin
Robinson
after those 4 guys, it gets a bit tougher for me.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 03:10 AM
Didn't we have this conversation a few weeks back. Cyclone showed pretty clearly that from an analytical perspective, Morgan takes the cake.

OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 03:30 AM
I'm a little bored so I'm going to list my top three players for each organization.

Angels:

1. Nolan Ryan
2. Bobby Grich
3. Tim Salmon

Astros:

1. Jeff Bagwell
2. Nolan Ryan
3. Lance Berkman

A's:

1. Lefty Grove
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Rickey Henderson

Blue Jays:

1. Roberto Alomar
2. Roy Halladay
3. Carlos Delgado

Braves:

1. Hank Aaron
2. Warren Spahn
3. Greg Maddux

Brewers:

1. Robin Yount
2. Paul Molitor
3. Cecil Cooper

Cardinals:

1. Stan Musial
2. Rogers Hornsby
3. Bob Gibson

Cubs:

1. Sammy Sosa
2. Ernie Banks
3. Ferguson Jenkins

Diamondbacks:

1. Randy Johnson
2. Brandon Webb
3. Luis Gonzalez

Dodgers:

1. Sandy Koufax
2. Mike Piazza
3. Jackie Robinson

Giants:

1. Willie Mays
2. Barry Bonds
3. Christy Mathewson

Indians:

1. Tris Speaker
2. Bob Feller
3. Manny Ramirez

Mariners:

1. Ken Griffey Jr.
2. Alex Rodriguez
3. Edgar Martinez

Marlins:

1. Miguel Cabrera
2. Josh Beckett
3. Hanley Ramirez

Mets:

1. Tom Seaver
2. Mike Piazza
3. Dwight Gooden

Expos/Nationals:

1. Vladimir Guerrero
2. Pedro Martinez
3. Gary Carter

Orioles:

1. Frank Robinson
2. Brooks Robinson
3. Cal Ripken Jr.

Padres:

1. Tony Gwynn Jr.
2. Trevor Hoffman
3. Dave Winfield

Phillies:

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Steve Carlton
3. Grover Alexander

Pirates:

1. Honus Wagner
2. Roberto Clemente
3. Barry Bonds

Rangers:

1. Pudge Rodriguez
2. Juan Gonzalez
3. Rafael Palmeiro

Rays:

1. Scott Kazmir
2. Fred McGriff
3. Carl Crawford

Reds:

1. Johnny Bench
2. Pete Rose
3. Frank Robinson

Red Sox:

1. Ted Williams
2. Cy Young
3. Roger Clemens

Rockies:

1. Todd Helton
2. Larry Walker
3. Vinny Castilla

Royals:

1. George Brett
2. Bret Saberhagen
3. Jeff Montgomery

Tigers:

1. Ty Cobb
2. Al Kaline
3. Hank Greenberg

Twins:

1. Walter Johnson
2. Harmon Killebrew
3. Bert Blyleven

White Sox:

1. Eddie Collins
2. Frank Thomas
3. Luke Appling

Yankees:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Mickey Mantle

It's late so I didn't do a ton of research so I may have missed someone. Some of these were incredibly hard...

icehole3
08-05-2008, 05:30 AM
People cant forget what the Reds did in the 70's, they were a Dynasty.

1. Rose
2. Frank
3. Morgan
4. Bench
5. Doggie

bucksfan2
08-05-2008, 09:33 AM
People cant forget what the Reds did in the 70's, they were a Dynasty.

1. Rose
2. Frank
3. Morgan
4. Bench
5. Doggie

They were a dynasty but I think people get caught up in the dynasty as a whole and overrate some players. I have heard people say that Morgan was the best player on that dynasty. But at the same time I think you put Larkin on that team and he may be considered one of the greatest SS of all time. If Larkin had played the majority of his career in the glory days of midwest baseball he may be considered one of the greatest of all time. However a large portion of his career was spent playing in the shadow of NY and Boston and later in his career he missed a bit of time.

I would rank them like this.
1. Robinson
2. Bench
3. Rose
4a. Morgan
4B. Larkin
5. Perez

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2008, 10:51 AM
Bench is the greatest Reds player. The fact that he *only played for the Reds* is a tie-breaker, IMO. Robinson and Rose had success in other uniforms.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 10:54 AM
Bench
Robinson
Rose
Larkin
McPhee/Roush

red-in-la
08-05-2008, 11:49 AM
I don't want Pete Rose and greatest Reds players used in the same sentence......much less the same list.

Rose did more to hurt this franchise and the legacy of the BRM than he could have ever helped it.

Bench, Morgan, Robinson....

hebroncougar
08-05-2008, 11:53 AM
Hard to argue the point, after all, Bench is the greatest catcher to have ever played, and he only put on one uniform.

oneupper
08-05-2008, 11:55 AM
The "Fans" voted for Bucky Walters? Not to take anything away from Mr. Walters, but how many actual fans actually know that name? I don't think even the REDS broadcasters know who Bucky Walters was.

Makes you wonder what kind of survey that was. I'm guessing that ESPN asked their resident historian/statistician geek to name three REDS and they slapped the title "survey" on it.

(Sorry for capitalizing REDS, its a habit.)

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 12:00 PM
How can Morgan or Robinson be considered superior to Bench or even Rose?

If you want to say Robinson's entire career including his Oriole years were superior to Bench and Rose's career then I can somewhat understand. But Robinsons career and Morgan's career as a Red while certainly outstanding just IMO doesn't measure up to the greatness that Bench and Rose achieved while wearing a Reds uniform.

On the Reds All Time Career list the only category Morgan is at the top is "On Base Percentage". The only total Robinson is at the top on is "Slugging Percentage. Bench on the other hand is the Reds all time leader in "Home Runs, RBI's and Sac Flies". Rose is the Reds all time leader in "Runs, Hits, Total Bases, Doubles, Walks, Runs Created and Extra Base hits".

Defensively Bench was superior at his position to Morgan and especially Robinson. Bench won ten Gold Gloves, Morgan won five and Robinson won one. Rose did win three Gold Gloves but I think he gets bonus points by playing numerous positions which neither Morgan or Robinson did on a consistent basis.

Again I can see how people can believe Robinson counting his Oriole years was superior to Bench and Rose but Morgan's non Reds career while with the Astros, Phillies and A's was hardly that noteworthy. Morgan's greatest years 1972-1976 while in a Reds uniform were outstanding but I don't see how they trump the years that Bench and Rose had while in a Reds uniform.

Bench
Rose
Robinson
Morgan
Larkin

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 12:35 PM
How can Morgan or Robinson be considered superior to Bench or even Rose?

Because I'm not going to penalize a player whose career was split amongst two or more teams.

Morgan played more games with the Reds than any other club, he's best remembered as a Red, and he by far had his best seasons as a Red. Meanwhile, Frank Robinson played 10 full seasons with the Reds compared to only six with the Orioles. I associate both those players as being Reds, not as an Astro or as an Oriole.

Morgan and Robinson were both greater ballplayers than Bench and Rose. While Bench was an outstanding defensive catcher and arguably the greatest catcher ever, the positional adjustment still isn't enough to offset the massive discrepancy in offensive value between Morgan/Robinson and Bench.

icehole3
08-05-2008, 01:10 PM
I don't want Pete Rose and greatest Reds players used in the same sentence......much less the same list.

Rose did more to hurt this franchise and the legacy of the BRM than he could have ever helped it.

Bench, Morgan, Robinson....

Rose the player has the most hits, he's the Hit King, period.

Roy Tucker
08-05-2008, 01:15 PM
I just caught the tail end of this on Baseball tonight. They said Bucky Walters got 12K+ fan votes on the last day.

Either Walters has a large latent fan base or some internet-type took it upon themselves to affect the voting.

redsmetz
08-05-2008, 01:18 PM
Bench
Robinson
Rose
Larkin
McPhee/Roush

I was wondering if anyone would mention Roush, and I'm not surprised it's you, WOY. In 1969, Reds fans rated him the best Reds player ever. Now certainly that was pre-BRM, but Roush is now lost in the fog of time. I was impressed that fans voting knew to even mention Bucky Walters.

Not named, but I think he helped make Robinson a better player at his peak as a Red, is Vada Pinson, now very unheralded. He would probably make the Top 25 Reds list, I think.

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2008, 01:18 PM
Because I'm not going to penalize a player whose career was split amongst two or more teams.

Morgan played more games with the Reds than any other club, he's best remembered as a Red, and he by far had his best seasons as a Red. Meanwhile, Frank Robinson played 10 full seasons with the Reds compared to only six with the Orioles. I associate both those players as being Reds, not as an Astro or as an Oriole.

Morgan and Robinson were both greater ballplayers than Bench and Rose. While Bench was an outstanding defensive catcher and arguably the greatest catcher ever, the positional adjustment still isn't enough to offset the massive discrepancy in offensive value between Morgan/Robinson and Bench.

We're not talking about the guy who produced the most as a Red, though.

Statistics aside, Bench represented the best the Reds franchise had to offer -- drafted and developed by the Reds, one of the greatest ever to play his position, spent his entire career with one team.

TRF
08-05-2008, 01:25 PM
We're not talking about the guy who produced the most as a Red, though.

Statistics aside, Bench represented the best the Reds franchise had to offer -- drafted and developed by the Reds, one of the greatest ever to play his position, spent his entire career with one team.

Same could be said of Barry Larkin. Bill James said he was one of the most "complete" players of all time.

OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 01:29 PM
Baseball Tonight showed some nice clips of Bench hitting homeruns and gunning runners down at second base with ease. Bench was my dads favorite player of all-time and when they were showing those clips he just had a big smile on his face. I love listening to his stories of how great Bench was, even if I've heard them five times. I would give almost anything if I could go back in time and watch Johnny Bench play. You folks who got to watch the Big Red Machine are very lucky. :)

macro
08-05-2008, 01:33 PM
Didn't we have this conversation a few weeks back. Cyclone showed pretty clearly that from an analytical perspective, Morgan takes the cake.

Good point. Actually it was three weeks ago. That thread centered on the greatest living Reds player, though, so since this one opens it up to them all, I suppose it merits a different discussion.

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 01:45 PM
We're not talking about the guy who produced the most as a Red, though.

Statistics aside, Bench represented the best the Reds franchise had to offer -- drafted and developed by the Reds, one of the greatest ever to play his position, spent his entire career with one team.

I'm talking about the guy who produced the most period who would be most associated with the Reds over any other team that player played for.

By your definition, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider Ruth to be the greatest Yankee then.

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 01:56 PM
By your definition, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider Ruth to be the greatest Yankee then.

I think the point myself and others are trying to make is Bench from 1968-1983 and Rose from 1963-1978 were superior players to Robinson from 1956-1965 and Morgan from 1972-1979. If you wanna factor in the other years players played on other teams then fine Robinson may have been better than Bench and Rose.

I know you don't wanna penalize Robinson and Morgan for playing for other teams but even had Robinson and Morgan played their entire careers in a Reds uniform, I still don't get how people see their over all career as being better than Bench's.

KoryMac5
08-05-2008, 02:00 PM
I'm talking about the guy who produced the most period who would be most associated with the Reds over any other team that player played for.

By your definition, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider Ruth to be the greatest Yankee then.

I have to say I agree with the other side of the argument, the question is who is the greatest Red ever, not the greatest player to put on a Reds uniform. While numbers are important, what pushes Bench over the edge for me is playing at a high level his entire career with one team.

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 02:02 PM
I think the point myself and others are trying to make is Bench from 1968-1983 and Rose from 1963-1978 were superior players to Robinson from 1956-1965 and Morgan from 1972-1979. If you wanna factor in the other years players played on other teams then fine Robinson may have been better than Bench and Rose.

I know you don't wanna penalize Robinson and Morgan for playing for other teams but even had Robinson and Morgan played their entire careers in a Reds uniform I still don't get how people see their over all career as being better than Bench's.

The overall careers of both Morgan and Robinson were greater than Bench; to me it's not even particularly close.

Just a simple reference, because it was easy to find:

Morgan WARP3: 165.3
Robinson WARP3: 167.6
Bench WARP3: 120.5

My win shares data is at home, but it paints a similar picture. Runs created shows the same thing. Pretty much every statistical metric out there shows the same thing.

I know Bench's defense was incredible, but there have been other catchers in the game who put up similar (or even better) offensive numbers.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 02:04 PM
To me the selling point is the ability to close your eyes and see the man in a Reds uniform, it's a branding exercise as much as a statistical study IMO.

I close my eyes and I see Morgan hitting that HR in San Francisco in 1982 as much as I see his arm flapping in a Reds uniform, I also see him in an A's uniform and a Phillies uniform. It weakens the Morgan as Red brand a bit, just as Robinson in those high stirruped O's Uniform or that Dodgers and Angels uniform, Bench, Larkin, McPhee, they only have one uniform in my minds eye, that enriches the brand and that's a big part of what I believe the poll was after.

cumberlandreds
08-05-2008, 02:14 PM
[quote=OnBaseMachine;1711372]Baseball Tonight showed some nice clips of Bench hitting homeruns and gunning runners down at second base with ease. Bench was my dads favorite player of all-time and when they were showing those clips he just had a big smile on his face. I love listening to his stories of how great Bench was, even if I've heard them five times. I would give almost anything if I could go back in time and watch Johnny Bench play. You folks you got to watch the Big Red Machine are very lucky. :)

Yes we are. :) Bench, like I said in an earlier thread like this, would be my all time Red. He re-defined the position of catcher. No one before him played the game defensively like him and really no one since has either. Although Ivan Rodriquez is the closet but whenever Tim McCarver says Rodriquez is the best I just want to reach through the screen and grab him by the neck. McCarver obviously has some sort of grudge against Bench or he would never say this. Here's how I would rate the Reds:

1. Bench
2. Rose
3. Robinson
4. Morgan
5. Eric Davis I know his career was injury riddled but I have not seen a more talented player with the Reds than Davis. He was for a few seasons the best.

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 02:26 PM
You folks you got to watch the Big Red Machine are very lucky. :)

I think being able to follow the BRM certainly was a blessing but also a tad bit of a curse. From what I understand crack addicts are continually trying to reach the euphoria they felt from the first time they tried crack by constantly doing crack and other drugs. It's kinda like being a fan of the BRM, we are addicted to one day feeling the euphoria we felt from watching those great teams.

Unfortunately like most crack addicts we are really strung out with not alot of hope in sight.

Hap
08-05-2008, 03:06 PM
I'm a little bored so I'm going to list my top three players for each organization.
Blue Jays:

1. Roberto Alomar
2. Roy Halladay
3. Carlos Delgado
(Dave Stieb says "what about me?")

Braves:

1. Hank Aaron
2. Warren Spahn
3. Greg Maddux

(Eddie Matthews says "what about me?")

Phillies:

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Steve Carlton
3. Grover Alexander

(Richie Ashburn?)

Red Sox:

1. Ted Williams
2. Cy Young
3. Roger Clemens

(Yaz?)

Royals:

1. George Brett
2. Bret Saberhagen
3. Jeff Montgomery

(Hal McRae?)

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2008, 03:53 PM
The overall careers of both Morgan and Robinson were greater than Bench; to me it's not even particularly close.

Just a simple reference, because it was easy to find:

Morgan WARP3: 165.3
Robinson WARP3: 167.6
Bench WARP3: 120.5

My win shares data is at home, but it paints a similar picture. Runs created shows the same thing. Pretty much every statistical metric out there shows the same thing.

I know Bench's defense was incredible, but there have been other catchers in the game who put up similar (or even better) offensive numbers.

IMO, things like this and Hall of Fame voting go beyond statistics. There are ephemeral qualities that have to be considered.

red-in-la
08-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Greatest player is NOT a spreadsheet excercise!

Greatest player is who comes first to mind when you think of the greatest, that is in performance and fame as a Red.

Bench and Morgan were FIRST BALLOT unamimous selections to the Hall-of-Fame. I cannot even remember whether Robinson is in as a Reds or an Oriole......I give Robinson the 3rd nod, but that third spot could be lots of players

Johnny Vander Meer pitched back-to-back no-hitters.....has any other pitcher in HISTORY ever done that? He could be that 3rd guy also.

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 04:09 PM
IMO, things like this and Hall of Fame voting go beyond statistics. There are ephemeral qualities that have to be considered.

I don't necessarily disagree with you - for example, I really do believe Josh Gibson was a greater player than Johnny Bench, but there really isn't any defining objective metrics out there to show it.

To me, creating a stipulation (or weighing it heavily) such as playing your entire career for one team just cuts too many well-deserving players right out of the picture.

The BRM is one of the greatest dynasties in baseball history. The 1975 and 1976 Reds are two of the greatest teams in baseball history. And Joe Morgan was that dynasty's greatest player. He was the 1975 team's greatest player, and he was the 1976 team's greatest player. He was - by far - the best player in baseball during those years. He was the greatest player in the game for the entire decade of the 1970s, and he accomplished that primarily in a Reds uniform.

To me, that counts for a little more than just playing for one team over an entire career or hanging on five years past the point of when a guy should have retired just so he could break a record.

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 04:11 PM
Bench and Morgan were FIRST BALLOT unamimous selections to the Hall-of-Fame. .

Not to nit pick but no one in the history of the HOF has ever been unanimous. Seaver is the closest with 98.84%.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 04:47 PM
Johnny Vander Meer pitched back-to-back no-hitters.....has any other pitcher in HISTORY ever done that?

If you have to ask you automatically lose your vote... answer what other significant event occurred that night and you can get it it back though.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 04:47 PM
Not to nit pick but no one in the history of the HOF has ever been unanimous. Seaver is the closest with 98.84%.

1.16% = Dick Young

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 04:54 PM
1.16% = Dick Young

What was the history behind that?

OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 05:00 PM
If you have to ask you automatically lose your vote... answer what other significant event occurred that night and you can get it it back though.

The first night game played at Ebbets Field.

Matt700wlw
08-05-2008, 05:02 PM
The Seaver to the Reds trade

oneupper
08-05-2008, 05:06 PM
The Seaver to the Reds trade

From wiki:


Tom Seaver feud
Most notoriously, Young engaged in a public feud with New York Mets pitcher Tom Seaver, which contributed to one of the turning points in Mets history. After free agency came to baseball, Seaver publicly complained that Mets owner M. Donald Grant made no effort to sign any of the available players. Seaver was also renegotiating his own contract, and Grant portrayed his star pitcher as being motivated by money. Grant's most enthusiastic supporter in the press was Young, who wrote a series of blistering columns about Seaver, culminating on June 15, 1977. "In a way," Young wrote, "Tom Seaver is like Walter O'Malley. Both are very good at what they do. Both are very deceptive in what they say. Both are very greedy."
But it was a paragraph later in the piece that genuinely enraged Seaver:
"Nolan Ryan is getting more [salary] now than Seaver, and that galls Tom because Nancy Seaver and Ruth Ryan are very friendly and Tom Seaver long has treated Nolan Ryan like a little brother."
Seaver and the Mets had only just agreed on a contract extension the previous night, but following the column, Seaver informed the Mets that the deal was off and that he was insistent on being traded out of New York.
"That Young column was the straw that broke the back," Seaver said in 2007. "Bringing your family into it, with no truth whatsoever to what he wrote. I could not abide that. I had to go." Seaver was traded to the Cincinnati Reds later the same day. When Young was subsequently introduced for his Hall of Fame induction in Cooperstown, New York, he was heavily booed by the fans.[14]
In 1981, four years after vilifying Seaver for renegotiating his existing contract with the Mets, Young broke his own contract with the Daily News and jumped to the crosstown Post, where he remained until his death six years later. The News filed a breach of contract suit against Young, which was eventually dismissed.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 05:16 PM
What was the history behind that?

In the fifties Young and guys like Earl Lawson represented a new way of sports reporting, they hung out with he team, but didn't report in the hero worship style of the pre mass media generation, thus they were harsher, more critical, they reinvented baseball journalism. Young was one of the ringleaders of that style. By the 70's though he was older, more cynical and harsher, especially to the wave of boomers he had to confront in the clubhouse, there was a world of difference between the 50's era player and the 70's, they were more educated, richer, and media savvy.

Everything the scribes hated.

George Anderson
08-05-2008, 05:20 PM
But did Dick Young actually admit he didn't vote for Seaver?

westofyou
08-05-2008, 05:45 PM
But did Dick Young actually admit he didn't vote for Seaver?

He was dead (1987), I was being facetious

Highlifeman21
08-05-2008, 05:51 PM
Rose the player has the most hits, he's the Hit King, period.

Counting stats are teh awesome...

Highlifeman21
08-05-2008, 05:59 PM
I'm talking about the guy who produced the most period who would be most associated with the Reds over any other team that player played for.

By your definition, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider Ruth to be the greatest Yankee then.

Not sure if you remember me telling you on the Subway leaving The House That Jeter Ruined after the Saturday game, but a couple of the fans sitting out in the bleachers were arguing who was the greatest Yankee of all-time, Jeter or Posada. So, silly me proudly wearing my Adam Dunn jersey, turned to the one kid and asked "Do you mean in your lifetime, or that you've personally seen?" and he quickly says "No, best Yankee of all-time."

So I look at him and say "I can think of 4 guys off the top of my head that were easily better. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle and DiMaggio." So he looks right at me and says "Mantle was a drunk, DiMaggio was a man-*****, Gehrig died of a disease, and Ruth should have stayed a pitcher." So I repeat back "Ruth should have stayed a pitcher, eh?" so he goes, "That's right. Jeter's the best Yankee ever, and Posada's a close 2nd. What do you know? You're a (bleeping) Reds fan. You don't know (bleep) about baseball."

So yeah, by some people's logic, Ruth isn't the greatest Yankee of all-time.

Not saying anyone else here shares that logic, but it just reminded me of the bleachers in the Bronx.

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2008, 06:03 PM
To me, that counts for a little more than just playing for one team over an entire career or hanging on five years past the point of when a guy should have retired just so he could break a record.

Does chasing free agent dollars count for anything?

Maybe Bench would have left via free agency, given the opportunity. But it never happened.

I'm not saying I blame Rose or Morgan for it. They played their best baseball in Cincinnati, but they didn't leave everything here like Bench did.

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 06:27 PM
Does chasing free agent dollars count for anything?

Maybe Bench would have left via free agency, given the opportunity. But it never happened.

I'm not saying I blame Rose or Morgan for it. They played their best baseball in Cincinnati, but they didn't leave everything here like Bench did.

In a game in which players were subject to the owner's will for a century, I wouldn't fault any player one bit from the 1970s who was interested in chasing free agent dollars.

My original point still stands: if you're going to stipulate that a player must play his entire career with one team, then you're unfairly cutting an awful lot of players out of consideration.

The best way to illustrate that point is to identify who you believe would be the greatest player in each team's history. Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Foxx, Morgan, Collins, Hornsby, Mathews, Rodriguez, Bonds, Grove, Clemens, Maddux, Robinson, Aaron ... just some of the handful of guys you'd be immediately eliminating from consideration for any franchise.

OnBaseMachine
08-06-2008, 12:39 PM
Quest to name the "Top Three" All-Time Greatest Reds
Posted by johnerardi at 8/6/2008 10:16 AM EDT on Cincinnati.com

The followiing item didn't make the cut for the Reds notebook in the paper-and-ink Enquirer this morning, but the sujbect is so near and dear to my heart that I'll post it here. I speak of the "Top Ten" All-Time Reds. John Fay got the ball rolling with it last week, so I'm piggybacking off that. At the end of the post, you'll see where I had time this morning to google ESPN's "Top Ten" All-Time Reds list in their ongoing quest this month to name the greatest player in each franchise's history. It was Tim Kurkjian at "Baseball Tonight" and ESPN.com who came up with the original idea to first name each franchise's "Top Ten," and then narrow it to "Top Three" and ultimately winnow that to "The Greatest." I haven't gotten to Steps 2 or 3 yet. As always, we welcome your input. Fay asked in his earlier post on this sujbect for your "Top Ten." I ask today for your "Top Three." Later, we''l do "The Greatest."

TOP TEN: Ask 10 people to pick their 10 greatest Reds in franchise history, and there’s a good chance no two people will agree. Knowing there was interest in the topic because ESPN.com’s Tim Kurkjian recently compiled a Top Ten List for every franchise – and before I read John Fay’s list – I compiled my own.

Here it is, in no particular order: Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Frank Robinson, Barry Larkin, Eric Davis, Bucky Walters, Ernie Lombardi and Edd Roush.

Turn out I had eight Fay’s 10. He preferred Dave Concepcion and Eppa Rixey to my Lombardi and Davis.

Greg Rhodes, former executive director of the Reds Hall of Fame and Museum, had only seven of my 10. He preferred Jim Maloney, Jose Rijo and Paul Derringer to my Lombardi, Davis and Perez.

ESPN's Baseball Tonight's "Top Ten" All-Tiime Reds agrees with only seven of my Top Ten. And their list doesn't match up exactly with Fay's or Rhodes', either. (I asked two guys in the Reds press box last night for their Top Ten, and neither of them had a list exactly matching mine, Fay's, Rhodes, or ESPN's, thereby proving my point: Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different lists.)

ESPN preferred Concepcion, Derringer and Kluszewski to my Lombardi, Davis and Roush. (The latter's absence is incomprehensible to me. In 1969, center fielder Roush was named the greatest Red of the franchise's first 100 years.)

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3abfd7b94e-bb51-4118-af2c-488641177e68&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

Johnny Footstool
08-06-2008, 12:53 PM
In a game in which players were subject to the owner's will for a century, I wouldn't fault any player one bit from the 1970s who was interested in chasing free agent dollars.

My original point still stands: if you're going to stipulate that a player must play his entire career with one team, then you're unfairly cutting an awful lot of players out of consideration.

The best way to illustrate that point is to identify who you believe would be the greatest player in each team's history. Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Foxx, Morgan, Collins, Hornsby, Mathews, Rodriguez, Bonds, Grove, Clemens, Maddux, Robinson, Aaron ... just some of the handful of guys you'd be immediately eliminating from consideration for any franchise.

As I said in my initial post, the fact that Bench played his entire career for the Reds is a tiebreaker. It isn't a stipulation.