PDA

View Full Version : How the All-Time Reds Team Ranks



*BaseClogger*
02-20-2012, 11:22 PM
This thought just popped into my head and while Spring Training is still kinda lame I figured it would be an appropriate time to bring this up.

How would an all-time Reds team rank compared to the others in MLB? The second best behind the Yankees?

I'm speaking strictly about position players, not pitching haha...

George Anderson
02-20-2012, 11:40 PM
How would an all-time Reds team rank compared to the others in MLB? The second best behind the Yankees?

.

Probally in the top 10 but most certainly behind the Yankees and likely the Dodgers, Cards and Red Sox.

*BaseClogger*
02-20-2012, 11:52 PM
The huge advantage the Reds have over many organizations are Bench and Morgan, two players who are arguably the greatest of all-time at scarce positions. I guess the Reds are short on outfielders?

Ron Madden
02-21-2012, 06:05 AM
The huge advantage the Reds have over many organizations are Bench and Morgan, two players who are arguably the greatest of all-time at scarce positions. I guess the Reds are short on outfielders?

Frank Robinson was no slouch...

RedsManRick
02-21-2012, 07:43 AM
Frank Robinson was no slouch...

Nor was Edd Roush. Stick Robinson in LF, Roush in CF and Junior circa 2000 in RF and you have a darn good OF --- all Hall of Famers.

buckeyenut
02-21-2012, 09:02 AM
I would stack up the Reds all time team against anyone.

1B Joey Votto
2B Joe Morgan
SS Barry Larkin
3B Pete Rose
LF George Foster
CF Eric Davis
RF Frank Robinson
C Johnny Bench
UT Edd Roush
UT Tony Perez
UT Ernie Lombardi
UT Davey Concepcion
UT Vida Pinson
UT Bid McPhee
SP Jim Maloney
SP Tom Seaver
SP Eppa Rixey
SP Bucky Walters
SP Mario Soto
MR Rob Dibble
MR Arolis Chapman
MR Randy Myers
MR Pedro Bourbon
MR Norm Charlton
CL John Franco

My list, so I get to include who I want. :) Imagine that pen with Dibble and Chapman both coming out throwing over 100 and the rest of the Nasty boys also in the pen.

Probably should have included some other guys, but I think it is a great team as is, one that stacks up with anyone except maybe the Yankees.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 02:39 PM
I would stack up the Reds all time team against anyone.

1B Joey Votto
2B Joe Morgan
SS Barry Larkin
3B Pete Rose
LF George Foster
CF Eric Davis
RF Frank Robinson
C Johnny Bench
UT Edd Roush
UT Tony Perez
UT Ernie Lombardi
UT Davey Concepcion
UT Vida Pinson
UT Bid McPhee
SP Jim Maloney
SP Tom Seaver
SP Eppa Rixey
SP Bucky Walters
SP Mario Soto
MR Rob Dibble
MR Arolis Chapman
MR Randy Myers
MR Pedro Bourbon
MR Norm Charlton
CL John Franco

My list, so I get to include who I want. :) Imagine that pen with Dibble and Chapman both coming out throwing over 100 and the rest of the Nasty boys also in the pen.

Probably should have included some other guys, but I think it is a great team as is, one that stacks up with anyone except maybe the Yankees.


I'll take that action. Here is my all time Cards team:

1B: Pujols
2B: Rogers Hornsby
SS: Ozzie Smith
3B: Ken Boyer
C: Ted Simmons
LF: Stan Musial
CF: Jim Edmonds
RF: Enos Slaughter
UT: Mark McGwire
UT: Yadi Molina
UT: Joe Medwick
UT: Lou Brock
UT: Red Schoendienst
UT: Willie McGee (personal favorite)
SP: Bob Gibson
SP: Cy Young
SP: Steve Carlton
SP: Dizzy Dean
SP: Harry Brecheen
MR: Adam Wainwright
MR: Al Hrabosky
MR: Lee Smith
MR: Dennis Eckersley
MR: Todd Worrell
CP: Bruce Sutter
Manager: Tony LaRussa
GM: Branch Rickey

The only clear advantage I would see the All Reds team have over the All Cardinals team is at the Catcher position. Starting pitching isn't even close. Cards all the way on that front. Morgan was a great player, top 5 2nd baseman, but Hornsby was insane at the plate. Yes, his defense left a little to be desired (just ok defensively) but the dude hit .400 three times in his career (hit an ungodly .424 in 1924) , won the triple crown twice, and OPS'd over 1.100 five different times. Only Babe Ruth was a better player during that era and even at the time, there was debate amongst sports writers and fans as to whom was the better player. I think the Cards actually have more players inducted into the HOF than the Yankees do.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 02:44 PM
Comparing those 2 specific lineups...I'd have to give the edge offensively to the Reds lineup. But the pitching isn't even close. The offensive differences are small enough that the huge pitching difference gives the Cards a HUGE advantage IMO. It's not really that close to be honest. But then again, I'd have the Yankee lineup well above the Cardinal one as well.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 02:59 PM
Comparing those 2 specific lineups...I'd have to give the edge offensively to the Reds lineup. But the pitching isn't even close. The offensive differences are small enough that the huge pitching difference gives the Cards a HUGE advantage IMO. It's not really that close to be honest. But then again, I'd have the Yankee lineup well above the Cardinal one as well.

Again, the only edge I would see the Reds having is at the catcher position. I will also even give you short stop, though Ozzie Smith's ability to save runs should certainly be note worthy. Every other position, the Cardinals players are better offensively.

I will also agree with you about the Yankees. That is just a who's who of HOF top ten talent. I will say though that I would stack the Cardinals pitching up against Yankees pitchers. That would be an interesting comparison.

EDIT: I forgot that the poster put Pete Rose at 3rd base. While he played the majority of his career in the OF, he did play 634 games at 3rd, so I guess that qualifies. I would still take the Cards offense because the outfield is clearly better and the bench is better. The Reds simply do not have a Lou Brock to come off the bench.

757690
02-21-2012, 03:02 PM
I'll take that action. Here is my all time Cards team:

1B: Pujols
2B: Rogers Hornsby
SS: Ozzie Smith
3B: Ken Boyer
C: Ted Simmons
LF: Stan Musial
CF: Jim Edmonds
RF: Enos Slaughter
UT: Mark McGwire
UT: Yadi Molina
UT: Joe Medwick
UT: Lou Brock
UT: Red Schoendienst
UT: Willie McGee (personal favorite)
SP: Bob Gibson
SP: Cy Young
SP: Steve Carlton
SP: Dizzy Dean
SP: Harry Brecheen
MR: Adam Wainwright
MR: Al Hrabosky
MR: Lee Smith
MR: Dennis Eckersley
MR: Todd Worrell
CP: Bruce Sutter
Manager: Tony LaRussa
GM: Branch Rickey

The only clear advantage I would see the All Reds team have over the All Cardinals team is at the Catcher position. Starting pitching isn't even close. Cards all the way on that front. I think the Cards actually have more players inducted into the HOF than the Yankees do.

Clearly the Reds are lacking in the pitching department, they are way behind many teams there.

But Rose isn't clearly better than Boyer? And Edmonds over Brock?

I also think we need to establish if we are talking about players that played for each team, or only the years that the players played for that team.

RedsBaron
02-21-2012, 03:02 PM
Without even doing any research, I believe the Yankees would be able to field a team made up almost exclusively of Hall of Famers:
C-Yogi Berra and Bill Dickey, to say nothing of non-HOFers Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Jorge Posada
1B-Lou Gehrig with non-HOFer Don Mattingly in reserve
2B-Joe Gordon and Tony Lazzeri
SS-Derek Jeter
3B-Alex Rodriguez
LF-Mickey Mantle
CF-Joe DiMaggio
RF-Babe Ruth

Reggie Jackson and Roger Maris would be among the outfielder reserves or DH.
The starting pitchers could include:
Whitey Ford
Red Ruffing
Lefty Gomez
Ron Guidry
Roger Clemens

Mariano Rivera would head up the bullpen, aided by Goose Gossage and Jop Page.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:07 PM
Clearly the Reds are lacking in the pitching department, they are way behind many teams there.

But Rose isn't clearly better than Boyer? And Edmonds over Brock?

I also think we need to establish if we are talking about players that played for each team, or only the years that the players played for that team.

The reason why I put Edmonds over Brock is because Brock only played 115 games in Centerfield while Edmonds is arguably in the top 10 defensive CF's in the history of baseball. Edmonds also gives the Cardinals more pop. I love the speed threat that Lou poses coming off the bench. That is why he is a bench player for me. I constructed my lineup as to how well it would play on the field, not necessarily based on HOF status.

As I said before, I forgot that the poster put Pete Rose at 3rd. He is certainly a better hitter than Boyer was. I would still take the Cards lineup because their outfield is flat out better and their bench is deeper in my opinion.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 03:08 PM
Again, the only edge I would see the Reds having is at the catcher position. I will also even give you short stop, though Ozzie Smith's ability to save runs should certainly be note worthy. Every other position, the Cardinals players are better offensively.

I will also agree with you about the Yankees. That is just a who's who of HOF top ten talent. I will say though that I would stack the Cardinals pitching up against Yankees pitchers. That would be an interesting comparison.

EDIT: I forgot that the poster put Pete Rose at 3rd base. While he played the majority of his career in the OF, he did play 634 games at 3rd, so I guess that qualifies. I would still take the Cards offense because the outfield is clearly better and the bench is better. The Reds simply do not have a Lou Brock to come off the bench.

Well, I'd have the edge to the Reds at C, SS, 2B, 3B, CF and RF. Some of them are close, granted, but some aren't as close as you'd think. I'd also take the Reds bench over the Cards by a considerable margin. Lou Brock was a VERY good player, but Perez, Pinson, Roush...overall, much stronger IMO.

But like I said, the pitching makes it not matter one lick.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:09 PM
Without even doing any research, I believe the Yankees would be able to field a team made up almost exclusively of Hall of Famers:
C-Yogi Berra and Bill Dickey, to say nothing of non-HOFers Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Jorge Posada
1B-Lou Gehrig with non-HOFer Don Mattingly in reserve
2B-Joe Gordon and Tony Lazzeri
SS-Derek Jeter
3B-Alex Rodriguez
LF-Mickey Mantle
CF-Joe DiMaggio
RF-Babe Ruth

Reggie Jackson and Roger AMris would be among the outfielder reserves or DH.
The starting pitchers could include:
Whitey Ford
Red Ruffing
Lefty Gomez
Ron Guidry
Roger Clemens

Mariano Rivera would head up the bullpen, aided by Goose Gossage and Jop Page.

ouch... that lineup is a world of pain. Honestly though, I thought their starting pitching would be better considering the history of that organization. There are other clubs all century pitchers I would take over that group (Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, etc).

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:15 PM
Well, I'd have the edge to the Reds at C, SS, 2B, 3B, CF and RF. Some of them are close, granted, but some aren't as close as you'd think. I'd also take the Reds bench over the Cards by a considerable margin. Lou Brock was a VERY good player, but Perez, Pinson, Roush...overall, much stronger IMO.

But like I said, the pitching makes it not matter one lick.

Have you looked at Rogers Hornsby's stats compared to Joe Morgan? It isn't even close. Eric Davis vs. Jim Edmonds is not close, Robinson was a great player but he was no Stan Musial (Stan also played in RF so LF and RF are interchangeable). I will give you Roush but Pinson can't hold a candle to Medwick or Lou Brock. Bid McPhee and Red Schoendienst were essentially the same player so that's a wash.

RedsBaron
02-21-2012, 03:16 PM
ouch... that lineup is a world of pain. Honestly though, I thought their starting pitching would be better considering the history of that organization. There are other clubs all century pitchers I would take over that group (Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, etc).

The Yankees have some other HOF starting pitchers, such as Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock, but in truth they were borderline candidates.
In a short series there are a number of teams who might defeat the all time Yankees team.
The A's could field an all time pitching staff that would include Lefty Grove, Rube Waddell, Chief Bender, Eddie Plank, Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter, and Dave Stewart, with a bullpen lead by Rollie Fingers and Dennis Eckersley. They might shut down the Yankees.
The Giants staff would include Christy Mathewson, Carl Hubbell, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry and Tim Linecum.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 03:20 PM
The reason why I put Edmonds over Brock is because Brock only played 115 games in Centerfield while Edmonds is arguably in the top 10 defensive CF's in the history of baseball. Edmonds also gives the Cardinals more pop. I love the speed threat that Lou poses coming off the bench. That is why he is a bench player for me. I constructed my lineup as to how well it would play on the field, not necessarily based on HOF status.

As I said before, I forgot that the poster put Pete Rose at 3rd. He is certainly a better hitter than Boyer was. I would still take the Cards lineup because their outfield is flat out better and their bench is deeper in my opinion.

Outfield is flat out better? I take exception to that.

RF: Enos Slaughter vs Frank Robinson. Sorry, Enos was great, but Frank was better.

CF: Jim Edmonds vs Eric Davis. Again, sorry, but this is a wash. Sure, Davis' career was cut short from injuries so I guess we could debate that aspect. But I certainly wouldn't give the defensive edge to Edmonds. Offensively, they were very close.

LF: Stan Musial vs George Foster. Clearly the big edge to Musial here.

I might give the Cards a SLIGHT edge in the OF mainly due to the LF edge. But it's VERY close.

Bench...sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's a rather BIG edge to the Reds here...and it's not very close IMO.

OnBaseMachine
02-21-2012, 03:25 PM
Have you looked at Rogers Hornsby's stats compared to Joe Morgan? It isn't even close. Eric Davis vs. Jim Edmonds is not close, Robinson was a great player but he was no Stan Musial (Stan also played in RF so LF and RF are interchangeable). I will give you Roush but Pinson can't hold a candle to Medwick or Lou Brock. Bid McPhee and Red Schoendienst were essentially the same player so that's a wash.

Your extreme Cardinals bias on a Reds board is highly, highly annoying.

Lou Brock - 109 OPS+
Vada Pinson - 110 OPS+

Red Schoendienst - 94 OPS+
Bid McPhee - 106 OPS+

And Davis (125 OPS+) compared to Edmonds (131 OPS+) is a lot closer than you think. But I guess because they played for the all mighty Cardinals that gives them the edge.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 03:26 PM
Have you looked at Rogers Hornsby's stats compared to Joe Morgan? It isn't even close. Eric Davis vs. Jim Edmonds is not close, Robinson was a great player but he was no Stan Musial (Stan also played in RF so LF and RF are interchangeable). I will give you Roush but Pinson can't hold a candle to Medwick or Lou Brock. Bid McPhee and Red Schoendienst were essentially the same player so that's a wash.

Hornsby & Morgan. I'm sorry, you've got to look at the era's too. Maybe I'm biased...heck, I know I am. But when I look at their primes compared to their era's, I'll take Joe. I'd also give a big edge defensively to Joe.

Davis and Edmonds is MUCH closer than you think. Injuries sapped Eric. But when healthy...very close IMO.

Robinson vs Musial. Well, I wasn't comparing those two in particular. So that changes things.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:28 PM
Outfield is flat out better? I take exception to that.

RF: Enos Slaughter vs Frank Robinson. Sorry, Enos was great, but Frank was better.

CF: Jim Edmonds vs Eric Davis. Again, sorry, but this is a wash. Sure, Davis' career was cut short from injuries so I guess we could debate that aspect. But I certainly wouldn't give the defensive edge to Edmonds. Offensively, they were very close.

LF: Stan Musial vs George Foster. Clearly the big edge to Musial here.

I might give the Cards a SLIGHT edge in the OF mainly due to the LF edge. But it's VERY close.

Bench...sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's a rather BIG edge to the Reds here...and it's not very close IMO.

When it comes to the outfield, as I said before, Stan played a lot of games in RF too. You have to compare Musial to Robinson. Musial is is the clear edge.

Edmonds and Davis were not offensively close, in fact its not even a competition. Edmonds blows Davis out of the water on every single major offensive state (OPS, OBP, SLG, AVG). I'm looking at the advanced matrix and Davis was a minus fielder the majority of his career while Edmonds was clearly one of the best defensive outfielders of his generation.

The only player on the Reds bench I would take over players on the Cards bench is Perez.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:38 PM
Hornsby & Morgan. I'm sorry, you've got to look at the era's too. Maybe I'm biased...heck, I know I am. But when I look at their primes compared to their era's, I'll take Joe.

Yes you are biased, lol. That's like me saying I would take Stan Musial over Ted Williams. I love Stan, my favorite Cardinals, but Williams was a better player than he was. There is no way that Joe Morgan's prime careers stack up with Rogers Hornsby's prime careers. Just look at their numbers.


Your extreme Cardinals bias on a Reds board is highly, highly annoying.

Lou Brock - 109 OPS+
Vada Pinson - 110 OPS+

Red Schoendienst - 94 OPS+
Bid McPhee - 106 OPS+

And Davis (125 OPS+) compared to Edmonds (131 OPS+) is a lot closer than you think. But I guess because they played for the all mighty Cardinals that gives them the edge.

There is no need to get snippy. This is a debate about different all century teams. It has nothing to do with what franchise is better nor does it really settle anything. Just a discussion.

I give Brock the edge because his stolen base rate is better than Pinson and he got on base more than Pinson did. Yes, their OPS+ were similar so I think you have to look at other factors when they are that close.

Maybe I underestimated what Bid McPhee brought to the table so he could possibly get a slight edge over Schoendienst.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 03:38 PM
Edmonds and Davis were not offensively close, in fact its not even a competition. Edmonds blows Davis out of the water on every single major offensive state (OPS, OBP, SLG, AVG). I'm looking at the advanced matrix and Davis was a minus fielder the majority of his career while Edmonds was clearly one of the best defensive outfielders of his generation.

Agree to disagree apparently.

Career OPS+ Davis 125 / Edmonds 131
Career OPS Davis .841 / Edmonds .903
Career OBP Davis .359 / Edmonds .376
Career SLG Davis .482 / Edmonds .527
Career AVG Davis .269 / Edmonds .284

17 year careers ... Davis 5321 ab's / Edmonds 6858 ab's. Yeah, injuries took their toll.

Not that far apart and DEFINITELY no "blowing out of the water". And like I said, injuries sapped Davis considerably. As for defense...I'm sorry, we're NOT going to agree on that one at all. I'm not knocking Edmonds at all...but Davis was ELITE in center. Again, injuries took their toll...heavily.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 03:45 PM
Agree to disagree apparently.

Career OPS+ Davis 125 / Edmonds 131
Career OPS Davis .841 / Edmonds .903
Career OBP Davis .359 / Edmonds .376
Career SLG Davis .482 / Edmonds .527
Career AVG Davis .269 / Edmonds .284

Not that far apart and DEFINITELY no "blowing out of the water". And like I said, injuries sapped Davis considerably. As for defense...I'm sorry, we're NOT going to agree on that one at all. I'm not knocking Edmonds at all...but Davis was ELITE in center. Again, injuries took their toll...heavily.

Look at the advanced defensive numbers on Davis. He was a minus defensive player his whole career. I'm not making these numbers up. I'm looking at Baseball Reference and Edmonds ranks 97th all time in defensive WAR where as I can't even find Davis on the list.

Those numbers you bring out do show that Edmonds blew Davis out of the water offensively . I consider Edmonds outslugging Davis by 40 more points a huge disparity in the numbers. Edmonds out OPSing him by 60 points is absolutely huge.

Look, I'm not saying that Davis was a bad player. He just wasn't nearly as good as Edmonds was.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 03:58 PM
Yes you are biased, lol. That's like me saying I would take Stan Musial over Ted Williams. I love Stan, my favorite Cardinals, but Williams was a better player than he was. There is no way that Joe Morgan's prime careers stack up with Rogers Hornsby's prime careers. Just look at their numbers.

Well, like I said, take the era's into consideration and factor in the ENTIRE game...defense too. It's closer than you'd think. But yes, I'd take Morgan. I'm not saying he was better, just my preference. I think offensively, Rogers was better...I think overall, Joe was better.

_Sir_Charles_
02-21-2012, 04:00 PM
Look at the advanced defensive numbers on Davis. He was a minus defensive player his whole career. I'm not making these numbers up. I'm looking at Baseball Reference and Edmonds ranks 97th all time in defensive WAR where as I can't even find Davis on the list.

Those numbers you bring out do show that Edmonds blew Davis out of the water offensively . I consider Edmonds outslugging Davis by 40 more points a huge disparity in the numbers. Edmonds out OPSing him by 60 points is absolutely huge.

Look, I'm not saying that Davis was a bad player. He just wasn't nearly as good as Edmonds was.

Well, I've never seen a defensive metric that is worth a darned. So I'm not going to go there. I know what i've seen though. And I think Davis is right there. Offensively, injuries derailed Eric so it's impossible to know what could have been. All I'm saying is that it's closer than you think. Just like several of the others.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 04:06 PM
Well, like I said, take the era's into consideration and factor in the ENTIRE game...defense too. It's closer than you'd think. But yes, I'd take Morgan. I'm not saying he was better, just my preference. I think offensively, Rogers was better...I think overall, Joe was better.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree on this. I'll take the career 1.010 OPS guy over the career .819 OPS guy, regardless of defensive prowess in the field. Look at it from my perspective. Wouldn't you think it was ridiculous if I tried to say that Ted Simmons was a comparable catcher to Johnny Bench? You would think I'm crazy. The debate of Joe Morgan vs. Rogers Hornsby is the same ballpark in my opinion.

I got this from an article I read labeling Hornsby as the best 2nd baseman in the history of the game:

That unusual ‘s’ on the end of his first name stood for ‘stud.’ This is a guy who hit more than .400 not once, not twice, but three times, including .424 in 1924. The Rajah won seven batting titles, two MVPs and nine slugging percentage titles, still a record. His career average was .358, second highest all-time behind Ty Cobb. Fellow Hall of Fame second baseman Frankie Frisch once said of Hornsby, “He is the only guy I know who could hit .350 in the dark.”

RedsBaron
02-21-2012, 04:09 PM
Well, like I said, take the era's into consideration and factor in the ENTIRE game...defense too. It's closer than you'd think. But yes, I'd take Morgan. I'm not saying he was better, just my preference. I think offensively, Rogers was better...I think overall, Joe was better.

During their peak years with each team, Hornsby had WAR scores of 11.7 (1921), 10.7 (1922), 13.0 (1924) and 10.0 (1925) whereas Morgan's four best WAR scores were 10.0 (1972), 9.9 (1973), 12.0 (1975) and 10.0 (1976), so if you go by that Hornsby gets the edge.
I don't go by that, for several reasons.
1. Hornsby was by most accounts at best a mediocre fielder, at worst a poor fielder, while Morgan was a multi-Gold Glove winner.
2. I believe that the quality of play has improved over the decades. Not that Hornsby in his prime couldn't play today, but I also doubt he would hit anything like .424.
3. Joe Morgan's personality gets on my nerves and I don't know that I would like him if I had him as a teammate, but Hornsby was by most accounts a total jackass.

MikeThierry
02-21-2012, 04:11 PM
During their peak years with each team, Hornsby had WAR scores of 11.7 (1921), 10.7 (1922), 13.0 (1924) and 10.0 (1925) whereas Morgan's four best WAR scores were 10.0 (1972), 9.9 (1973), 12.0 (1975) and 10.0 (1976), so if you go by that Hornsby gets the edge.
I don't go by that, for several reasons.
1. Hornsby was by most accounts at best a mediocre fielder, at worst a poor fielder, while Morgan was a multi-Gold Glove winner.
2. I believe that the quality of play has improved over the decades. Not that Hornsby in his prime couldn't play today, but I also doubt he would hit anything like .424.
3. Joe Morgan's personality gets on my nerves and I don't know that I would like him if I had him as a teammate, but Hornsby was by most accounts a total jackass.


I agree that Hornsby was a jackass. Morgan clearly is a better human being. I think Hornsby was a racist too, at least early in his career. If this debate was who was the better person, Morgan would be my choice.

757690
02-21-2012, 05:42 PM
The Hornsby - Morgan debate is one of the greatest ones in all of baseball becauae it's so close. Hornsby was better offensively, but not by that much, while Morgan was much, much better defensively and in base running. One thing to understand, back in Hornsby's day, 2B was an offensive position, similar to 1B, team's put their sluggers there and slick fielders at SS and 3B.

But most importantly, raw stats between era's are impossible to compare one to one. Completely different game, smaller player pool, no relievers, no sliders or cutters, different gloves, smaller fields...

This has been analyzed to death and for every one that concludes Hornsby was better, there's another one that says Morgan was better.

On a side note, I will always give the edge to Davis over Edmomds, because Davis never pretended to dive for a ball that he could catch on his feet. ;)

AtomicDumpling
02-21-2012, 06:27 PM
The Hornsby - Morgan debate is one of the greatest ones in all of baseball becauae it's so close. Hornsby was better offensively, but not by that much, while Morgan was much, much better defensively and in base running. One thing to understand, back in Hornsby's day, 2B was an offensive position, similar to 1B, team's put their sluggers there and slick fielders at SS and 3B.

But most importantly, raw stats between era's are impossible to compare one to one. Completely different game, smaller player pool, no relievers, no sliders or cutters, different gloves, smaller fields...

This has been analyzed to death and for every one that concludes Hornsby was better, there's another one that says Morgan was better.

On a side note, I will always give the edge to Davis over Edmomds, because Davis never pretended to dive for a ball that he could catch on his feet. ;)

Excellent post.

I would take Joe Morgan over Rogers Hornsby for sure. The Reds offense trumps the Cardinals offense by a fair amount in my view. The Cards had better pitching. Both teams would be very near the top of the ranks overall.

Regarding the bolded sentence, that is one of my pet peaves. It drives me crazy to see a fielder slow down then dive for a ball he could have caught on the run. If you are running full speed, diving or sliding slows you down a lot, so unless the ball is hugging the grass you are far better off to keep sprinting. Jim Edmonds was the2nd-biggest hot dog in MLB history in my view (yes, Rickey Henderson was the 1st). Hot-dogging fools the casual observer into thinking the player is better than he actually is. He wasn't nearly as good defensively as most people think he was. It was comical the way he flailed around for balls that a good fielder would have been standing and waiting for.

Edmonds was an excellent hitter without question but I have questions about him. He didn't become a great hitter until he was in his 30's, which seems odd. His best hitting seasons were from age 30-35 in St. Louis next to Mark McGwire. He had a bad season for the Angels at age 29, then was traded to the Cards and immediately burst into the stratosphere as a great hitter at age 30.

WebScorpion
02-21-2012, 08:06 PM
... And like I said, injuries sapped Davis considerably.
Do you get any extra points for taking the field while undergoing chemotherapy treatment? Davis was doing that at the end of the '97 season and he still OPSed close to .800. :eek:

mth123
02-21-2012, 09:23 PM
Hornsby & Morgan. I'm sorry, you've got to look at the era's too. Maybe I'm biased...heck, I know I am. But when I look at their primes compared to their era's, I'll take Joe. I'd also give a big edge defensively to Joe.

Davis and Edmonds is MUCH closer than you think. Injuries sapped Eric. But when healthy...very close IMO.

Robinson vs Musial. Well, I wasn't comparing those two in particular. So that changes things.

Morgan's best 5 years 72 - 76 OPS+ 149, 154, 159, 169, 186
Hornsby's best 5 21-25 OPS+ 191, 207, 187, 222, 209

I think saying Morgan was better versus his league is a little off. Morgan does get a defensive edge.

dougdirt
02-21-2012, 11:49 PM
Morgan's best 5 years 72 - 76 OPS+ 149, 154, 159, 169, 186
Hornsby's best 5 21-25 OPS+ 191, 207, 187, 222, 209

I think saying Morgan was better versus his league is a little off. Morgan does get a defensive edge.

Of course Hornsby wouldn't even have been on the same field with Morgan because Morgan wasn't white. That certainly must come into play when comparing era's, even when using something like OPS+. OPS+ doesn't just translate seemlessly in times where the playing field was incredibly worn thin because of the rules.

dabvu2498
02-21-2012, 11:52 PM
Of course Hornsby wouldn't even have been on the same field with Morgan because Morgan wasn't white. That certainly must come into play when comparing era's, even when using something like OPS+. OPS+ doesn't just translate seemlessly in times where the playing field was incredibly worn thin because of the rules.

I'd say that's countered by the fact that there were 4 fewer teams in each league when Hornsby was playing vs. Mogran's era. Perhaps not in equal measure, but no small statistical blip either.

dougdirt
02-22-2012, 12:11 AM
I'd say that's countered by the fact that there were 4 fewer teams in each league when Hornsby was playing vs. Mogran's era. Perhaps not in equal measure, but no small statistical blip either.

Eh, the population in 1920 compared to the population in 1970 was 106,000,000 to 205,000,000, or nearly twice as much. Toss in that by the 1970's, we were gathering talent from not only ALL of America, but also reaching into Latin America and even with the fewer amount of teams, the talent pool wasn't even close.

George Anderson
02-22-2012, 12:14 AM
Eh, the population in 1920 compared to the population in 1970 was 106,000,000 to 205,000,000, or nearly twice as much. Toss in that by the 1970's, we were gathering talent from not only ALL of America, but also reaching into Latin America and even with the fewer amount of teams, the talent pool wasn't even close.

But lets also factor in during Hornsby's era the only real professional sport was baseball. The NBA and NFL were not around so about every athlete in the USA's focus was on baseball. I am not saying it's a huge factor but definitely a factor.

RedsBaron
02-22-2012, 07:52 AM
While the Red Sox usually have come in second behind the Yankees over the decades, in a battle of their respective all time teams, if you took each team's players at their peaks, Boston might come out on top, based upon a superior starting staff.
The Red Sox starting pitchers would include Pedro Martinez, whom many believe was the best ever at his peak, Roger Clemens, who had three Cy Young seasons as a Red Sox including a 24-4 record in 1986, Lefty Grove, who kept winning ERA titles after Boston acquired him, and Cy Young himself. The Red Sox would also have Smokey Joe Wood, who had a 34-5 1.72 mark in 1912, 25 game winner Mel Parnell, Luis Tiant and Curt Schilling.
Jonathan Paplebon, Dick Radatz and Ellis Kinder could head a capable bullpen.
The Red Sox would have a decent lineup as well:
C-Carlton Fisk
2B-Bobby Doerr
SS-Nomar Garciaparra and Vern Stephens
3B-Wade Boggs
LF-Carl Yastremzski
CF-Tris Speaker
RF-Babe Ruth
DH-Ted Williams
Reserves: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, Dom DiMaggio

I put Teddy Ballgame at DH, since he never cared much for fielding. Babe Ruth could also pitch, but I would use him as the Red Sox used him in 1919, when he primarily played OF and set a then MLB record with 29 HRs (and in a deadball era) and also pitched on occassion.

dabvu2498
02-22-2012, 08:30 AM
C-Carlton Fisk
2B-Bobby Doerr
SS-Nomar Garciaparra and Vern Stephens
3B-Wade Boggs
LF-Carl Yastremzski
CF-Tris Speaker
RF-Babe Ruth
DH-Ted Williams
Reserves: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, Dom DiMaggio



1B-Jimmy Foxx?

RedsBaron
02-22-2012, 09:06 AM
1B-Jimmy Foxx?

Thanks. Yeah, I forgot to list a first baseman, but Foxx, who had a 50 HR season with Boston, is the obvious pick.

dabvu2498
02-22-2012, 10:41 AM
Thanks. Yeah, I forgot to list a first baseman, but Foxx, who had a 50 HR season with Boston, is the obvious pick.

That was my assumption. The Sox are a little weak at the reserve IF positions.

Joe Cronin would be an obvious choice, but the rest... Pesky, Pedroia, Petrocelli, et al, would be a little weaker than the other teams we've mentioned.

RedlegJake
02-22-2012, 11:57 AM
Hornsby vs Morgan - first you have to factor the offensive era that Hornsby was in inflates his numbers tremendously. Probably by at least 30 or 40 BA pct points. No exaggeration. Then you have versatility where Morgan has an edge, baserunning Morgan has an edge though Hornsby was no slouch.

As for the racist thing, I give Hornsby a by due to the era - probably 3/4 or more of the players were racist - it was the era. If we are going to damn men for that then throw away 90% of whites living in America at the same time. It was a social disease not limited to Hornsby but epidemic to society so I am not going to pick one guy out and throw rocks at him. If he'd played in the 60s and 70s and fought against integration after Jackie then yes but not in the era before Robinson.

Also, Hornsby was a hardnosed player but not a bad teammate - he reserved most of his vitriol for management and writers, both groups he despised, as he considered contracts a form of slavery and baseball writers liars and leeches. That he often fought with opposing players was not uncommon to any player in those days - this was before the era of fraternization - fights were common and handshakes and buddy-buddy stuff with players on other clubs was verboten. All in all I'd pick Hornsby over Morgan. I think he's maybe the most forgotten about great, great star in baseball history. He had no peer in the NL for a full decade. Hornsby's numbers even accounting for his era were still inceredible and far beyond Morgan's.

Pinson verses Brock. Here's the rub. If you pick on the basis of the player's 5 prime years I'd take Pinson and never even blink. In those 5 prime years Vada was easily one of the best players in the entire game. He had it all = power, speed, defense, arm, and all in spades. The only tool that was merely above average was power, everything else off the charts. If you pick on an entire career then certainly Brock lasted longer and had an influence on Cardinal baseball for a much longer period. Pinson hurt his back and then his knees and very quickly went south.

Interestingly he was traded to the Cardinals in one of the Cards worst trades ever for Bobby Tolan and Wayne Granger. Tolan and Granger went on to have starring roles for the Reds for a couple of seasons while Pinson was all but finished. So - which player I'd pick depends on how you are making the picks. I think the 5 year prime factor is the best way to make the picks and then I'd take Pinson.

Musial verses Robby. If you have to make it between these two Mike - your St.Loo bias certainly shows here where Saint Stan is concerned. I understand. I live in Missouri and even in the KC area Musial is revered as one of the patron saints of baseball. Funny that outside of Missouri Stan the Man is all but forgotten when the great greats are talked about. Usually the conversation mentions Ruth and Mays and Mantle then Griffey and Bonds and Kaline and then someone says oh yeah lets not forget Musial. And everyone else says oh yeah I did forget about him. Unless they're from Missouri. Then he was the first guy they thought of.

Seriously though - this is the hardest pick of all. Both played at first base some, both played right and left some. Musial started out as a pitcher and had a helluva an arm, few people remember that. He used to wow teammates in ST and get management all riled up when he'd throw some practice and they'd worry about him hurting himself. He actually gave up his pitching career when he fell on his arm subbing in the outfield when his minor league team was a player short and ending up with a sore arm. His manager knew he was a fair hitter, too, so he just left him in the outfield. Robby had more power. In their 5 prime years Musial was the better overall hitter except for the power edge to Robby, Musial had the better arm, plus an edge in speed. I'd take Musial, but it would be the closest type of pick. It's the type where it doesn't matter which player you have really. In the end it comes down to consistency at the highest level - Musial was more consistent at a higher level for a longer period.

McPhee over Schoendinst on the reserve list. Can we even discuss this? The eras they played are so different its hard to compare them in any meaningful way. I'll take Bid just on my Reds bias although Schoendinst is nicknamed "Red".

I'm surprised Paul Derringer isn't on the Reds all time pitching list. He was better than any pitcher on the Reds all time list mentioned except for Bucky Walters.
Don Gullett was a very good pitcher and on the Reds weak list might get a nod from me.

The most glaring deficiencies are the omission of pitchers Will White, Noodles Hahn and Tony Mullane from the all time list. Yes they are turn of the century and earlier but they easily make the best all time list. Not my fault the Reds have stunk, relatively speaking, at the pitching position since then. At least one of these old timers should make the list.

Apollo Tony Mullane won 20 or more 8X in his career, 30 or more 5 times in a row.

Hahn had a short career but won 20+ 4 X before he derailed by a sore arm. He won 16 twice. Then he had 2 very short seasons injury riddled years before he hung it up in 1906. His career era was 2.55 and he had 6 straight years with a WAR over 5+ before his arm blew out.

Finally Will White is a true pioneer of the game who won 30+ 5 times and 40 or more 3 times in the 1880s all with the Reds. He won 226 games in 7 seasons with Cincinnati until his arm gave out from overuse.(Starting 76 games and completing 75 of them in a season will eventually do that to a guy).

Derringer won 161 games as a Red and 223 games in his career, won 20+ 4X as a Red and 15+ 6 times. He certainly belongs on the all time Reds list.

I'd add Hahn and Derringer to the list. I removed Mario Soto (career too short) and Eppa Rixey (long career but basically a .500 pitcher 266-251 and not as dominant as the others on the list even at his best)

Noodles Hahn
Paul Derringer
Tom Seaver
Bucky Walters
Jim Maloney

George Anderson
02-22-2012, 12:20 PM
Musial verses Robby. If you have to make it between these two Mike - your St.Loo bias certainly shows here where Saint Stan is concerned. I understand. I live in Missouri and even in the KC area Musial is revered as one of the patron saints of baseball. Funny that outside of Missouri Stan the Man is all but forgotten when the great greats are talked about. Usually the conversation mentions Ruth and Mays and Mantle then Griffey and Bonds and Kaline and then someone says oh yeah lets not forget Musial. And everyone else says oh yeah I did forget about him. Unless they're from Missouri. Then he was the first guy they thought of.

Seriously though - this is the hardest pick of all. Both played at first base some, both played right and left some. Musial started out as a pitcher and had a helluva an arm, few people remember that. He used to wow teammates in ST and get management all riled up when he'd throw some practice and they'd worry about him hurting himself. He actually gave up his pitching career when he fell on his arm subbing in the outfield when his minor league team was a player short and ending up with a sore arm. His manager knew he was a fair hitter, too, so he just left him in the outfield. Robby had more power. In their 5 prime years Musial was the better overall hitter except for the power edge to Robby, Musial had the better arm, plus an edge in speed. I'd take Musial, but it would be the closest type of pick. It's the type where it doesn't matter which player you have really. In the end it comes down to consistency at the highest level - Musial was more consistent at a higher level for a longer period.




When your considering Robby, are you looking at his entire career or just his Cincy career? If you look at just his Cincy career which I thought this was what the thread was about, I would have to give the nod to Musial.

Very good post BTW.

RedlegJake
02-22-2012, 12:37 PM
I was just looking at his Cincy years and yes I'd take Musial too but I think its close. I mean one team has Musial and one has Robby. Does one really have an edge just on that?

George Anderson
02-22-2012, 12:55 PM
I was just looking at his Cincy years and yes I'd take Musial too but I think its close. I mean one team has Musial and one has Robby. Does one really have an edge just on that?

If you compare Musial's 22 year career with the Cards to Robby's 10 year career with the Reds then IMO it isn't even close, Musial is on top.

The one area you gave Robby the edge was in power but if you compare the numbers Musial has Robby beat in Hr's 475 to Robby's 324, RBI's 1951 to 1009. Robby does have Musial beat in slugging percentage .611 to .559 but it is reasonably close. I just think when you factor in the other things like defense, speed etc the edge overwhelmingly goes to Stan. Now if you wanna factor in Robby's Baltimore years it might be different.

RedsBaron
02-22-2012, 01:30 PM
I give a significant edge to Musial over Robinson, but one other thing they have in common is that they were both left off of the All Century Team in the voting by fans, although MLB did later add Musial to the team. After Musial was added, Roberto Clemente partisans whined that Clemente should have chosen intead of Musial, which was ridiculous. Frank Robinson had a much, much better case for being on the All Century Team than did Clemente.
Stan the Man and Robby are two of the most underrated players in MLB history.

RedsBaron
02-22-2012, 01:38 PM
The Giants staff would include Christy Mathewson, Carl Hubbell, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry and Tim Linecum.

I forgot to include Iron Man Joe McGinnity on the list of Giants starting pitchers.
Although a few of their Hall of Famers probably shouldn't be in Cooperstown (Fred Lindstrom, Roger Bresnahan, Travis Jackson), the Giants can field an all time team made up of Hall of Famers at each position, as well as a few other superb players, and they have an outfield second only to that of the Yankees and no team is deeper at first base:
C-Bresnahan
1B-Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, Will Clark
2B-Frankie Frisch, Jeff Kent
SS-Travis Jackson
3B-Lindstrom, Matt Williams, Jim Ray Hart
LF-Barry Bonds
CF-Willie Mays
RF-Mel Ott
OF reserves include Monte Irvin and Bobby Bonds

_Sir_Charles_
02-22-2012, 01:40 PM
Btw, I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but to Mike...I just wanted to let you know that I for one absolutely LOVE the fact that you and Matty are Cards fans posting here. I know some get annoyed by your fandom, but for me...it's a blessing because it allows for ACTUAL debate instead of all one-sided discussion about how awesome the Reds are. So please, keep doing what you guys are doing. As long as it's intelligent, polite baseball discussion...it's all good, no matter WHO you root for. Just my 2 cents.

George Anderson
02-22-2012, 01:48 PM
Btw, I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but to Mike...I just wanted to let you know that I for one absolutely LOVE the fact that you and Matty are Cards fans posting here. I know some get annoyed by your fandom, but for me...it's a blessing because it allows for ACTUAL debate instead of all one-sided discussion about how awesome the Reds are. So please, keep doing what you guys are doing. As long as it's intelligent, polite baseball discussion...it's all good, no matter WHO you root for. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed, and I really don't think their views in this thread are biased either.

_Sir_Charles_
02-22-2012, 01:48 PM
Agreed, and I really don't think their views in this thread are biased either.

True. I know MINE were. *grin* Well...some. I'd still take Davey over Ozzie. :p

RedsBaron
02-22-2012, 01:50 PM
Btw, I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but to Mike...I just wanted to let you know that I for one absolutely LOVE the fact that you and Matty are Cards fans posting here. I know some get annoyed by your fandom, but for me...it's a blessing because it allows for ACTUAL debate instead of all one-sided discussion about how awesome the Reds are. So please, keep doing what you guys are doing. As long as it's intelligent, polite baseball discussion...it's all good, no matter WHO you root for. Just my 2 cents.

Amen. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

RedlegJake
02-22-2012, 02:47 PM
I enjoy Mike's viewpoint - at first I didn't even realize he was a Cards fan. Took about four posts for that to emerge. Seriously he and Matty are what every fan should try to be when visiting other teams sites. Informed, courteous and respectful and still a fan of their own team.

mth123
02-22-2012, 10:11 PM
Btw, I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but to Mike...I just wanted to let you know that I for one absolutely LOVE the fact that you and Matty are Cards fans posting here. I know some get annoyed by your fandom, but for me...it's a blessing because it allows for ACTUAL debate instead of all one-sided discussion about how awesome the Reds are. So please, keep doing what you guys are doing. As long as it's intelligent, polite baseball discussion...it's all good, no matter WHO you root for. Just my 2 cents.

:thumbup:

RedsBaron
02-23-2012, 08:03 AM
As for the racist thing, I give Hornsby a by due to the era - probably 3/4 or more of the players were racist - it was the era. If we are going to damn men for that then throw away 90% of whites living in America at the same time. It was a social disease not limited to Hornsby but epidemic to society so I am not going to pick one guy out and throw rocks at him. If he'd played in the 60s and 70s and fought against integration after Jackie then yes but not in the era before Robinson.



That is an interesting issue. If you accept that the goal of management of a baseball team is to build a winner, then the moral shortcomings of players are only relevant if they affect the ability of the team to win. In that respect, a closet racist may not adversely affect the team at all whereas a player who is also a grand wizard with the KKK is not going to contirbute to clubhouse harmony.
Ignoring Hornsby for the moment, the distinction I would make is between someone like, say, Lou Gehrig, and someone like Ty Cobb.
I have no idea if Gehrig was a racist, but assuming he went along with the attitudes of his time in the 1920s and 30s and had racist thoughts, Gehrig seems to have been the type of personality who would have re-examined his beliefs if he played today and to have never been a threatening type of person. I could see him easily fitting into a modern clubhouse.
I question whether Cobb could fit into a modern team. His racism seems to have been more ingrained and he by all accounts had a most threatening, alpha personality. In selecting all time teams I have always ranked Cobb lower than his raw stats would justify because I cannot see him adapting to an integrated game.

dfs
02-23-2012, 10:39 AM
That is an interesting issue. If you accept that the goal of management of a baseball team is to build a winner, then the moral shortcomings of players are only relevant if they affect the ability of the team to win. In that respect, a closet racist may not adversely affect the team at all whereas a player who is also a grand wizard with the KKK is not going to contirbute to clubhouse harmony.
Ignoring Hornsby for the moment, the distinction I would make is between someone like, say, Lou Gehrig, and someone like Ty Cobb.
I have no idea if Gehrig was a racist, but assuming he went along with the attitudes of his time in the 1920s and 30s and had racist thoughts, Gehrig seems to have been the type of personality who would have re-examined his beliefs if he played today and to have never been a threatening type of person. I could see him easily fitting into a modern clubhouse.
I question whether Cobb could fit into a modern team. His racism seems to have been more ingrained and he by all accounts had a most threatening, alpha personality. In selecting all time teams I have always ranked Cobb lower than his raw stats would justify because I cannot see him adapting to an integrated game.

Me of that generation had a generalized fear of the other. My grandfather hated black people....except for the ones he actually knew where his relationship with them was one of mutual respect. There are similar stories told about Cobb. It is my understanding that Cobb was no more or less racist than the general public and most of the incidents where Cobb flashed his temper had to do with "lack of respect." Under those terms, he might fit into a major league clubhouse far better than one would expect where "respect" is currency.

Cobb would have no trouble at all fitting in if he were a star. If he was one of the less talented members on the roster....perhaps some adjustment would need to be made.

MikeThierry
02-23-2012, 01:04 PM
I appreciate that you all appreciate my postings here :D. I've said it multiple times that this is my favorite baseball forum and it blows any Cardinals baseball forum out of the water.


Musial verses Robby. If you have to make it between these two Mike - your St.Loo bias certainly shows here where Saint Stan is concerned. I understand. I live in Missouri and even in the KC area Musial is revered as one of the patron saints of baseball. Funny that outside of Missouri Stan the Man is all but forgotten when the great greats are talked about. Usually the conversation mentions Ruth and Mays and Mantle then Griffey and Bonds and Kaline and then someone says oh yeah lets not forget Musial. And everyone else says oh yeah I did forget about him. Unless they're from Missouri. Then he was the first guy they thought of.


It's not a matter of bias for me. I've given the Reds position players credit where they clearly are better (3rd, Catcher, and even though Ozzie is one of my favorites, Larkin was a better overall SS). When Musial retired, he had or shared in 17 Major league baseball records and 22 national league records. One of the reasons why Musial is forgotten is because he was mainly overshadowed by Ted Williams, who is the greatest hitter of all time (in my opinion). Stan Musial was one of the most dominant hitters in the history of baseball and arguably the most consistant hitter in the history of the game.

In this article, Will Carroll does an excellent job of breaking down who were the Kings of baseball in their era. It's interesting to see how many times Ted Williams and Stan Musial go back and fourth over their league dominance.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/will_carroll/01/30/king.of.baseball/index.html

As far as the Morgan vs. Hornsby arguement goes, I understand the defensive arguement. However, when we talk about Babe Ruth, do we really discuss how good defensively he was or take his lack of defense into account when ranking him with the top players? He was simply so good offensively that his defense was almost moot. The same is true for Hornsby. With Morgan, you are talking about a top 5 second baseman of all time. With Hornsby, you are talking about a top 5 baseball player of all time. Only Williams, Cobb, Ruth, and Gehrig were better. The stats pretty much back that up. As I also stated before, the major arguement back in those days was who was better Ruth or Hornsby. He was that dominant of a player to where people were questioning whether or not he was better than Ruth. I hate sticking up for Hornsby because he was a racist SOB but I just can't overlook him in this discussion.

MikeThierry
02-23-2012, 01:07 PM
Oh, and I still think you are all crazy about the Davis vs. Edmonds arguement. :lol: :p ;) :)

Every offensive statistic Edmonds dominates Davis in and Edmonds, by all advanced metrics, was one of the best defensive CF's in the history of the game. As I keep pointing out, those same metrics view Davis as a minus defensive player.

I also understand the injury argument for Davis but this discussion is on who was the best player at their position, not best player with the best potential. The injuries they had should not play into determining who is better. If the "what if's" argument is something we are taking into account in this discussion, Musial looks even better compared to Robby because Musial lost a prime year or so of his career due to his service in WWII. We have to take what they accomplished on the field because we could go all day with hypotheticals.

Also, if we were using a what if scenario, Scott Rolen would be my choice at 3rd over Boyer.

*BaseClogger*
02-23-2012, 01:17 PM
I don't think it matters what the defensive metrics say, it's not going to convince any of us that Davis was not a fantastic defender...

MikeThierry
02-23-2012, 01:42 PM
I don't think it matters what the defensive metrics say, it's not going to convince any of us that Davis was not a fantastic defender...

See, this is where being a fan leaves all objectivity out the window.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is that any number of teams can re-arrange their lineups to make their teams better in the discussion. For example, if I replace Pujols with Johnny Mize at 1B and put Pujols in the outfield where he played the majority of his games early on in his career, no contest the Cards would have a better lineup. Even better yet, if I put Pujols at 3rd where he spent some playing time, no question he would be better than Rose. While this discussion is very fun, its almost a pointless endevour.

EDIT: I completely overlooked Johnny Mize when compiling my list. I would like to replace Mark McGwire with him on the bench. Mize was an absolute offensive stud back in the day.

MikeThierry
02-23-2012, 02:21 PM
Ok, lets say that Eric Davis was a good defensive CF. This is sort of like the Morgan vs. Hornsby argument for me. Davis may have been good but Edmonds is arguably in the top ten all time Defensive CFers.

RedlegJake
02-24-2012, 09:38 PM
I wouldn't have Davis as my centerfielder though, I'd have Roush and I'd claim that he is as good as Edmonds defensively. In his heydey, Roush was the premier defensive centerfielder of the NL. Again, we're comparing across very different eras again. I do accept your argument that Davis was mostly potential unrealized whether that was because of injuries or whatever. I'd take Davis simply because I don't like Edmunds hotdogging style but again that IS my fan bias showing most definitely. I'd take Edmunds over Roush because Jim had better offensive numbers (Roush was one of the last great deadball hitters in the new live ball era). Edd's numbers even compared to deadball players of a decade earlier are merely all-star not great, his defensive prowess was necessary to push him over the hump and is overlooked by the stat conscious who claim he doesn't really belong in the Hall. His contemporaries speak of him in the same breadth defensively as Harry Hooper and Tris Speaker. Defensively, therefore, I'll call them a wash and give Edmunds the nod on his better bat.

If we're shifting players then the Reds can move Perez to third, or Robby to first, but you're right - that's a game that could be played endlessly and isn't really a true representation of the teams. I'd rank the Cards, Dodgers, and Giants 1-2-3 in the NL historically all time and be hard pressed to rank them as to which was which. Probably Giants then Dodgers then Cards simply because of pitching. The Reds, Cubs, Pirates, Phillies and Braves would be in a dogfight for the last 5 spots - if I honestly get past my fan bias it is just too hard to pick between all these teams on an all time basis - they all have great players at every position. You really have to go to a 40 man roster to truly get a fair ranking - its the depth of great players at different positions that makes the difference. Then you have players who played for multiple teams - which team gets to claim that player? Fascinating but endless debate.

MikeThierry
02-26-2012, 03:32 PM
I wouldn't have Davis as my centerfielder though, I'd have Roush and I'd claim that he is as good as Edmonds defensively. In his heydey, Roush was the premier defensive centerfielder of the NL. Again, we're comparing across very different eras again. I do accept your argument that Davis was mostly potential unrealized whether that was because of injuries or whatever. I'd take Davis simply because I don't like Edmunds hotdogging style but again that IS my fan bias showing most definitely. I'd take Edmunds over Roush because Jim had better offensive numbers (Roush was one of the last great deadball hitters in the new live ball era). Edd's numbers even compared to deadball players of a decade earlier are merely all-star not great, his defensive prowess was necessary to push him over the hump and is overlooked by the stat conscious who claim he doesn't really belong in the Hall. His contemporaries speak of him in the same breadth defensively as Harry Hooper and Tris Speaker. Defensively, therefore, I'll call them a wash and give Edmunds the nod on his better bat.

If we're shifting players then the Reds can move Perez to third, or Robby to first, but you're right - that's a game that could be played endlessly and isn't really a true representation of the teams. I'd rank the Cards, Dodgers, and Giants 1-2-3 in the NL historically all time and be hard pressed to rank them as to which was which. Probably Giants then Dodgers then Cards simply because of pitching. The Reds, Cubs, Pirates, Phillies and Braves would be in a dogfight for the last 5 spots - if I honestly get past my fan bias it is just too hard to pick between all these teams on an all time basis - they all have great players at every position. You really have to go to a 40 man roster to truly get a fair ranking - its the depth of great players at different positions that makes the difference. Then you have players who played for multiple teams - which team gets to claim that player? Fascinating but endless debate.

So true on your last part. I put Cy Young on my list because he pitched 2 years in St. Louis. He was amazing in his years in St. Louis (40 complete games in 1899 lol) but his playing time here doesn't nearly represent his whole career.