Clemente: Inner circle of the elite, or on his way?

[bbcard1]

It is an interesting argument. It all really depends on how you define inner circle. Clemente would have a very good augment for the all time national league all star team, starting along side Mays and Aaron, especially if you move Musial to first and depending on your opinion and stand on Barry Bonds. Does that make him inner circle? OTOH, he probably would not be in the top 10 outfielder of all time if viewed objectively, though in the neighborhood. So far as Kaline goes, he was more spectacular though perhaps not quite as consistent. He started slowly and Kaline started fast which might account for the difference. He has a much larger persona than many players who are arguably statically better than he.

[JustinD]

I thought the OPs original thoughts were geared toward the collecting universe not stats.

Stats arguments and comparisons are rarely concrete or objective. It's mostly bar talk.

My comments were geared toward collector demand and collectability. Based on those parameters I don't think the others mentioned surpass Clemente. Parker is relegated to the dollar box and while here in Detroit, I can lay out a table of Kalines and sell them all, eBay sales do not match that demand. Clemente out paces Kaline sales by a country mile.

This that was said earlier is my experience:

Originally Posted by Johnny630 View Post
From my past experience over the last 10 years when a collector goes to sell his post war collection there are 3 guys he least wants to part with. This is how I gauge long term value.

1. Mantle
2. Jackie
3. Clemente

It’s a shame but people don’t have as hard of time letting go
Of Mays, Aaron, and Koufax.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I thought the OPs original thoughts were geared toward the collecting universe not stats.

Stats arguments and comparisons are rarely concrete or objective. It's mostly bar talk.

My comments were geared toward collector demand and collectability. Based on those parameters I don't think the others mentioned surpass Clemente. Parker is relegated to the dollar box and while here in Detroit, I can lay out a table of Kalines and sell them all, eBay sales do not match that demand. Clemente out paces Kaline sales by a country mile.

This that was said earlier is my experience:

Originally Posted by Johnny630 View Post
From my past experience over the last 10 years when a collector goes to sell his post war collection there are 3 guys he least wants to part with. This is how I gauge long term value.

1. Mantle
2. Jackie
3. Clemente

It’s a shame but people don’t have as hard of time letting go
Of Mays, Aaron, and Koufax.

+11
Yup I thought we were talking about collecting too.

Still a lot of cool stats that are blowing my mind.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

It is an interesting argument. It all really depends on how you define inner circle. Clemente would have a very good augment for the all time national league all star team, starting along side Mays and Aaron, especially if you move Musial to first and depending on your opinion and stand on Barry Bonds. Does that make him inner circle? OTOH, he probably would not be in the top 10 outfielder of all time if viewed objectively, though in the neighborhood. So far as Kaline goes, he was more spectacular though perhaps not quite as consistent. He started slowly and Kaline started fast which might account for the difference. He has a much larger persona than many players who are arguably statically better than he.

I would take Frank Robinson and possibly Ott over Clemente due to much more power.

[ls7plus]

A great big thanks for everyone taking the time to post their opinions. I am old enough to have seen and did see plenty of Mantle still in his prime in the very early '60's, along with Mays, Aaron, Koufax, Clemente and living in the Detroit area, a great deal of Kaline, who was a legend here, status wise at that time. With regard to one post above, Kaline is pretty well-remembered for his part in the '68 World Series. Tigers' manager Mayo Smith, knowing he needed a bit more to take on the very tough '68 Cardinals, moved Mickey Stanley from center field to shortstop (thereby relegating the excellent fielding, but no-hit Ray Oyler--.171 BA--to the bench) in order to get the aging Kaline's bat in the lineup (Northrup and Horton were in right and left, and both had excellent years) for his first and only World Series after he had been injured for the better part of the season. And Al did us proud, quite proud, hitting .379, and leading the Tigers in a World Series where the Bengals came back to win from a 3 games to one deficit.

I personally had both Kaline and Clemente in the middle tier of HOF'ers performance-wise, as objectively as I could ascertain them to be. But I have to admit that the preceding posts confirm my much more recent observations that Clemente has indeed become a legendary icon in the sport, and that metamorphisis isn't done yet!

The movie should be tremendous, and I also hope they title it, "21."

Thanks guys,

Larry

[71buc]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous I tend to discount pre-war players when having such debates. They didn't play night games, less travel, faced less specialized pitching, they were smaller, largely less athletic, and did not have to compete against others who were barred simply because of the color of their skin.

Today's baseball players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I think baseball today is better than it ever has been. Don't get me wrong, I love Clemente, and Hank Aaron. Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by 71buc

At the risk of sounding blasphemous I tend to discount pre-war players when having such debates. They didn't play night games, less travel, faced less specialized pitching, they were smaller, largely less athletic, and did not have to compete against others who were barred simply because of the color of their skin.

Today's baseball players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I think baseball today is better than it ever has been. Don't get me wrong, I love Clemente, and Hank Aaron. Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

I disagree rather strongly but will not get too into that but I have absolutely no faith in the players of today being able to put up with anything the pre-war players had to deal with as far as playing conditions, travel by bus, pay, spit-balls, scuffed baseballs, getting cut when they struck out as much as they do today, etc, etc (in other words I believe the best of the past would excel more in today’s game than today’s guys would having to go back in time and play the old style)

Bigger and stronger are largely overrated in my opinion, otherwise we wouldn’t see players like Jose Altuve, Jean Segura and Dee Gordon being as good as they are.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I always have a problem when people talk about the physical differences between players of now and then. Evolution doesn't take place in 100 years. So the players of yesteryear would have all the same training and nutrition advantages as today's players, why on earth would they be worse? Now baseball wasn't a global game back then so the player pool is massively expanded, but I think that affects the elite far less than it does the average. Of course there are almost 3x as many jobs on MLB rosters than there was prewar which does eat up a portion of the available increased talent pool.

[71buc]

Rhys I disagree with you but respect your knowledge and opinion. Like I said, my opinion wouldn't be popular. That's alright, and it's what makes these discussions interesting. By the way Dee Gordon, and Segura wouldn't be permitted on the field during that time.

Evolution in sport does happen rapidly. Jesse Owens in1936 ran a 9.4 100yd Dash (World Record). A scant thirty nine years later Houston McTear sets the HIGH SCHOOL 100yd dash record set at 9.3.

I get the romance of the good old days but disagree that those players could compete at the same level today. However I do agree that the best players of any generation could play at any point in time. Nonetheless, their numbers wouldn't be the same facing today's players. Thier numbers were bolstered by comparatively less talented overall competition.

I am 5'5" on a good day and love Jose Altuve. However, size does matter. Jimmy Foxx was considered so large they called him the Beast and Double X. As the legend goes he was trapped not scouted. Mr. Foxx was 6ft 190 lbs. Today the average middle infielder is that size. How many pitchers sat at 90+ mph in Ruth and Cobb's day? Today the average fastball is 93 MPH. Today pitchers regularily light up the gun at 100 mph. Players do strike way too much today but the pitching does have some effect on those punchout totals.

As I said, I too am a dyed in the wool romantic. Why else would I collect this silly stuff? However, I am also a realist. A model T will never compete with a Ferrari, and a Sopwith Camel will never compete with an F-18. You can have Tris Speaker. I'll take Trout. You can have Honus Wagner I'll take Manny Machado. You can have Christy Mathewson I'll take Clayton Kershaw. These discussions are why I love baseball. No one argues for Bob Cousey over Stephen Curry or George Mikan over Labron. No one compares Johnny Unitas to Steve Brady. However in baseball we do exactly that.

[ls7plus]

Imho, one must remember that while the international talent pool of players has greatly increased, we are losing a large number of elite talent to the NBA, NFL, NHL and soccer. I also personally agree that the players of yesteryear, given the advantages of nutrition, training, etc. that current players enjoy, could certainly compete quite well today, even at an elite level. Pitching wise, the slider was the big development and detriment to hitting between the early 40's and today, when it came into widespread use after WWII. Interestingly, when it did, Ted Williams' walks went up into the stratosphere: 156 in 1946, and 162 in his second triple crown year in 1947 (giving him an OBP of .499!!!) because with his 20-10 eyesight and reflexes, he could detect the spin (a small circle is seen at the center of the spinning slider), gauge where that pitch would end up, and take it for a ball. Joe DiMaggio, on the other hand, according to Ted in his book, "My Turn at Bat," had trouble with the slider, and his post WWI stats seem to largely verify this conclusion.

And I believe the poster above is entirely correct regarding human evolution or the lack of same over the last hundred years. I often faced off against one of the best pitchers I had ever seen (he lived just a few houses away) in games of "strikeout" in the late '60's, and played with him on many summer league teams (they were good teams, with 8 guys going on to play in college), and he was F-A-S-T for any era, clocked just a year or so later in college at 94 mph. He was 5'9" and 170-175 pounds, and never worked out! Just think what he would have been with modern training methods--97 or 98 mph almost certainly.

I personally think that those who say Walter Johnson threw about 90 mph are absolutely nuts--human anatomy and coordination haven't changed since then, and if the neighbor/teammate I's talking about could hit 94 mph in the late '60's, Walter was dead solid certain to have thrown significantly faster than that. Walter had greater size and strength in general and his notoriously long arms would have given him greater leverage. Nolan Ryan was clocked at 102 mph in the '70's in the 9th inning, likely after having thrown 200 pitches. Jay Jaffe, in his recent book, "The Cooperstown Casebook," states at p 361 that Bob Feller was timed at 107.9 mph in 1946 (his 348 K year) in a test using two photoelectric cells. Even allowing for some reasonable margin for error given the methodology, I think we can rest well-assured that Rapid Robert was easily over 100 mph on his good days with his fastest pitches. IMHO--and it is just that--my personal opinon--most if not all of the greats of yesteryear would be among the elite of the elite today, given their adaptation to better training methods and so on.

Thanks again Gentlemen, for a most lively and interesting discussion. And yes, I think Jackie ranks well up with the all time greats at second, especially with (by recollection only) a .409 OBP. What a tremendous table-setter for Snider and Hodges! Hornsby is the highest ever for a right-handed hitter, just 24 points higher, .433. Jackie's performance would indeed have been even better had he been given his chance earlier, rather than 28. Both he and Roberto are to be truly treasured (and Kaline too, as he is in and around Detroit).

Highest regards,

Larry

[tschock]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Nonetheless, If I was building a team today and could pick any player in baseball history I would take Mike Trout over both of them any day of the week.

Yeah, and drop Alexander or Caesar into WWII (with their lack of knowledge and experience in the advancement of tools and tactics) and see how they would do.

[the 'stache]

Peter, I'm looking at Bill James' 2002 book now; he has Clemente ranked 74th on his list of the 100 greatest players of all-time. To be fair, eight of the guys on the list ahead of Clemente either never played in the Major Leagues, or played when their career was in its twilight. I take an issue with that. I have no doubt these guys were tremendous players, but unless it's Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige, guys who absolutely dominated the Negro Leagues, I don't think these other guys belong on the list ahead of Clemente, who proved himself day day in, day out for eighteen seasons. I think Roberto's ranking, and Robin Yount's, are both a bit low (Yount he had at 55). There's some personal bias, as they're my favorite two players of all-time, but I can make a compelling case for their being a few slots higher. Now, of course, both players have been knocked down some by the players that have come into their own since 2002.

The comments that Clemente wouldn't have gotten to 3,500 hits are rubbish. Clemente had a few nagging injuries that kept him from playing a full 1972 season, but towards the end of the year, he was close to full strength. From the start of September to the end of the year, Clemente played in 27 of the Pirates' 32 games, hitting .333, slashing .379/.511/.890. He was preparing to come back for spring training in 1973 when his plane crashed.

Clemente's game was built to play past 40. While the big power hitters often lose a step late in their careers, Roberto was getting better. His last four seasons-1969 to 1972, age 34 to 37, he hit a combined .339 with a 153 OPS+ (.345 in 1969, .352 in 1970, .341 in 1971 and .312 in 1972). He played in 480 games combined. Look at his 162 game averages for this period-103 runs scored, 209 hits, 31 doubles, 13 triples, 19 home runs, 101 RBI, and a slash line of .387/.521/.908. And BBR has his WAR for 480 games at 25.0. He averaged 8.3 WAR per 162 games played.

Does that sound like a guy that is about ready to hang 'em up? The Pirates were 98-57 in 1972. Clemente was raking the last month of the season, and had every motivation to come back, and keep playing beyond 1973. Willie Stargell was NL MVP runner up in '73. Richie Zisk was a star on the rise-between 1973 and 1976, before being traded, Zisk hit .302 as a Pirate with a 138 OPS +. Al Oliver would hit .305 between 1972 and 1977 for the Pirates, with a 124 OPS +. Dave Parker was a rookie in '73, and by '75 he would lead the NL in slugging. What kind of lineup would the Pirates have had with Zisk, Oliver, Clemente, Stargell and Parker as the top five in the order?

[Exhibitman]

All this WARing and JAWing misses the essence. Clemente isn't a top tier card collecting favorite because of his stats alone, he is at the pinnacle because of the other factors that make his story so compelling and that make people want to have his cards. Clemente was a great ballplayer, but he was an even greater human being. You can fling stats at each other like monkeys slinging poo but it won't change the reality on the ground, which is that if you had a son who said Al Kaline is his role model, you'd say that's nice but if he said Roberto Clemente was his role model you'd be a very proud papa.

[glynparson]

Some of these answers seem to forget baseball is no longer just primarily a US sport with a minor Latin influence and is much more global with a huge Latin influence along with population explosions making the fact that baseball is now the # 3 sport in America rather irrelevant. American Football is only number one in the USA nowhere else. Baseball is still much larger than football
Globally. Though I understand soccer trumps
Them all in popularity.

[Tabe]

So many thoughts:

1) As a player, Clemente isn't even close to inner circle HOF.

2) As a person, Clemente is definitely inner circle HOF.

3) As for Kaline vs Clemente - how does the fact that Kaline played in a really small RF impact his TZR and assists? Certainly fewer guys would be running on Kaline given how short Tiger Stadium's RF was, especially compared to Forbes.

4) Folks in this thread are giving Jackie Robinson waaaaaaaaay too much credit as a 2B. The guy played 748 of his 1382 games at 2B - 54%. Yeah, it was his most-frequent position but he played 256 games at 3B, 197 at 1B, and 162 in the OF. Guys who played 5 seasons at a position aren't in the conversation for "best ever" at that position. Period.

5) The Owens/De Grasse comparison thing is nonsense. Owens ran a 10.3, De Grasse ran an 11.0. Yep, he was slower. The very time ever wearing that particular kind of shoe, without blocks, etc. Does anybody REALLY think De Grasse wouldn't have been faster with a month of practice using the same equipment? C'mon.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So many thoughts:
The Owens/De Grasse comparison thing is nonsense. Owens ran a 10.3, De Grasse ran an 11.0. Yep, he was slower. The very time ever wearing that particular kind of shoe, without blocks, etc. Does anybody REALLY think De Grasse wouldn't have been faster with a month of practice using the same equipment? C'mon.

Maybe, maybe not. Nonsense is comparing the time of Jesse Owens, on a cinder track, without blocks etc. against an Olympic athlete with today's advances in technology and training.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

A great big thanks for everyone taking the time to post their opinions. I am old enough to have seen and did see plenty of Mantle still in his prime in the very early '60's, along with Mays, Aaron, Koufax, Clemente and living in the Detroit area, a great deal of Kaline, who was a legend here, status wise at that time. With regard to one post above, Kaline is pretty well-remembered for his part in the '68 World Series. Tigers' manager Mayo Smith, knowing he needed a bit more to take on the very tough '68 Cardinals, moved Mickey Stanley from center field to shortstop (thereby relegating the excellent fielding, but no-hit Ray Oyler--.171 BA--to the bench) in order to get the aging Kaline's bat in the lineup (Northrup and Horton were in right and left, and both had excellent years) for his first and only World Series after he had been injured for the better part of the season. And Al did us proud, quite proud, hitting .379, and leading the Tigers in a World Series where the Bengals came back to win from a 3 games to one deficit.

I personally had both Kaline and Clemente in the middle tier of HOF'ers performance-wise, as objectively as I could ascertain them to be. But I have to admit that the preceding posts confirm my much more recent observations that Clemente has indeed become a legendary icon in the sport, and that metamorphisis isn't done yet!

The movie should be tremendous, and I also hope they title it, "21."

Thanks guys,

Larry

Great post, Larry. And Go Tigers!

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take Frank Robinson and possibly Ott over Clemente due to much more power.

The Orioles took Robinson in 1971 and didn't do them enough good head to head against Clemente in 1971!

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The Orioles took Robinson in 1971 and didn't do them enough good head to head against Clemente in 1971!

The best team doesn’t always win . It did go 7 and the O’s should have won, in my view, that last game at home. A few mistakes cost the home team. We did score more runs in the ‘71 WS, but that doesn’t really count in baseball. Man, the Pirates has some great pitching that series coupled with some unexpected hero’s and then there was Clemente.