Charleston v. Clemente

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Clearly that's it. Also add in the fact many many more fans have seen Clemente play. So, while I like the market capitalization theory you posed, you should only compare players from the same era. And if you compare to a Yankee, drop them 30% because they get overhyped

I consider myself an average baseball fan. So, without looking, I tried to name as many players primarily from the Negro Leagues as I could. Josh Gibson, Satchell Paige, Cool Papa Bell, ummmmm that's it. Dang, I must have forgotten some. But Oscar Charleston - never heard of him. Looked him up in Wiki and see that Bill James lists him as 4th best player ever. Really? OK, that may be too high because the reason Wiki mentions that is because it was the highest. But I respect Bill James' work so if not 4th it's likely high nonetheless.

Regarding the sets mentioned like Punch, is there a dedicated thread to those sets on this Board? Like number of known cards in the set, how many known cards exist of each player, any short prints, scans all in one place, etc. I love it when the obscure sets are documented in one thread. Of course the experts may want to hold back on some information as they may still be trying to complete the set.

The problem with ranking Charleston that high, to me, is that there is really no evidentiary foundation to justify that ranking, through no fault of the negro league players themselves. The negro league teams included, in their schedules, games against semi-pro teams, as well as against other negro league teams. What we are left with, to the best of my knowledge, is hearsay 10-20X over, myth, and legend. Not a basis for actual ranking of the greatest players of all time (which certainly does not impute any fault to the players themselves, as they would be the very last ones to blame for this deficit). While James disclaims political correctness in his rankings, I believe, respectfully, that inclusion of such players on his list is precisely the result of that factor. I saw Mantle play in his prime in the early '60's, and you simply couldn't convince me that Oscar Charleston was the better player.

Mike Trout comes the closest I've seen to Mantle, yet while very, very fast, isn't quite as fast (Mantle was clocked running from home to first at 3.0 seconds from the left side, and 3.1 from the right); has fine power, but certainly not equivalent to the Mick's (Mantle homered every 12.5 times at bat for ten years, from '55 through '64, when still in his prime; Trout is clouting them once every 17 times at bat while in his prime; and Trout doesn't have the tape-measure power to all fields that Mantle had. Combine Trout with Judge re the latter, make Trout a bit faster, and you'd have Mantle in his prime. Oscar Charleston a better player than that? I truly doubt it.

Just sayin',

Larry