So who was better ( Kaline or Clemente) ?

[Mike D.]

Loving the Hall of Stats love (my brother runs that site).

Also, a Clemente:

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Loving the Hall of Stats love (my brother runs that site).

Also, a Clemente:

Very cool! Great website! And great card.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Very cool! Great website! And great card.

Thanks! Most people are shocked to find out that I'm only the SECOND biggest baseball geek in my family.

[Mark17]

They were born in the same year, so about the same age throughout their careers. What I remember is that when the Tigers finally got into the World Series in 1968, Kaline wasn't even going to get regular playing time. He'd hit just .287 during the season, playing in 102 games (he never played in more than 133 games, from 1967 to 1973.) Manager Smith had to take the extraordinary gamble of moving his centerfielder, Mickey Stanley, to play shortstop, to manufacture a spot in the outfield for Al.

Meanwhile, Clemente, in the 1971 Series, hammered out 12 hits, batted over .400, and was the Series MVP.

I'll take Clemente.

By the way, despite his objections, he did sign his name "Bob" for Topps, at least once:

[ClementeFanOh]

To G1911-

Your entire reply to my comment is circular. How can a "great" player be
overrated? Ummm..he can't. And his "actual production" is a large part of
his HOF status- FOUR National League Batting Titles, .317 lifetime average,
defensive prowess, on and on (even the "trivia" about that little thing
called excellence in the World Series). When a player is being ranked by
various entities as somewhere between the 35th and 70th best players of
all time(!), out of a 5 figure pool of players, his "actual production"
MUST be incredible- we aren't discussing E sports heroes here.The renown
and reputation are just icing on a magnificent cake. Nice try, but you're
cornered by your own post. A player simply cannot be "great" with HOF
numbers, and somehow be "overrated". Trent King

PS- And Al Kaline was a bad man as well, no doubt.

[ClementeFanOh]

Almost forgot Mark17- I'm with you all the way! Trent King

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To G1911-

Your entire reply to my comment is circular. How can a "great" player be
overrated? Ummm..he can't.

This is false. It appears you are looking for "contradictory" (that claims are in complete discord) more than "circular" (that the argument leads into itself), which would be the case if I said "great" and "not great". A player can obviously be great, and overrated. There are levels to it. Babe Ruth is great, Frank Thomas is great. That does not make them the same, it does not mean that a player cannot be under or over rated. Everyone in the top 100 is great; they are not the same.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

And his "actual production" is a large part of
his HOF status- FOUR National League Batting Titles, .317 lifetime average,
defensive prowess, on and on (even the "trivia" about that little thing
called excellence in the World Series).

Obviously. That's why I called him great.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

When a player is being ranked by
various entities as somewhere between the 35th and 70th best players of
all time(!), out of a 5 figure pool of players, his "actual production"
MUST be incredible

For the "actual production", yes. That's why I said he was great. Obviously. I do not subscribe to appeals to authority, something is not true or false because an authority says so. Otherwise, we would just take 1 of these rankings and nobody could disagree with it. This fallacy is not compelling.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

- we aren't discussing E sports heroes here.

What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

The renown and reputation are just icing on a magnificent cake. Nice try, but you're
cornered by your own post. A player simply cannot be "great" with HOF
numbers, and somehow be "overrated". Trent King

You are surely capable of being aware that this is not true. A player can be great and overrated. Like Jeter. Like Ryan. Like Clemente. His level of fame is not in acclaim with the math. It doesn't mean he wasn't a great player, but he's not at the very tip top as his popularity would suggest.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

PS- And Al Kaline was a bad man as well, no doubt.

What are you even talking about?



People really need to grow up and stop getting upset and making absurd claims anytime they encounter an opinion that does not worship their idol. I love Gaylord Perry, he's probably my favorite of the 60's. That doesn't mean I have to overrate him and pretend he was the best in a matchup with another. That I like him doesn't stop me from being cognizant of the math and reality. I am confident others are capable of this simplistic realization.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course a great player can be overrated. I am not arguing Clemente is, just pointing out some have made that claim. If the objective evidence points to a player ranking (hypothetically) 50-60, yet public perception is 20-30, that great player is clearly overrated by many. I don't see any circular argument here. And yeah, I don't get the emotional defense either, nobody is insulting Roberto for god's sake, we're just trying to look at his career objectively and to contextualize it.

[ClementeFanOh]

G1911- since you brought up the word “simplistic” and the notion of acting grown up, I’ll point out that you’ve provided your own shovel and dug the hole you are standing in. You’ve also (figuratively) provided a mirror to gaze into, when making snide comments about other people needing to grow up…people like you work hard to make distinctions without differences, parse words, and otherwise strain like mad to extricate themselves from foolish comments they made in a silly effort to appear erudite. In short, there’s a fair chance you’re not as clever as you believe you are. (By the way, the “E sports” comment was about gamers. You know, guys who are great at Madden but can’t actually throw a football. It meant that your commentary was an exercise in mental self gratification rather than legitimate reasoning. I’m stunned someone of your brilliance missed the reference). Trent King

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh;2264086/

How can a "great" player be
overrated? Ummm..he can't.

I would disagree here. "Great" players can certainly be overrated. Take the current trend on vintage baseball pages on Facebook, many of whom would have you believe Nolan Ryan to be the greatest pitcher of all time, or at least in the top 5, or something else equally laughable.

Yes, Nolan Ryan was great. He holds records that will not even be approached, much less equaled in terms of K's and no-hitters. But these folks overlook the individual nature of those accomplishments while throwing conventional measures of pitching greatness like ERA, WHIP, Winning %, etc. out the window. Because the sexy stats to pitching can't be denied, people want to take Ryan - who is maybe a top 25-50 pitcher overall at best, and elevate him all the way to the top. It's simply not true, and an example case of a great player being misunderstood and overrated.

[ClementeFanOh]

JHCollins- Dear God, the thread is Roberto vs Al… and if your source for definitions of “greatness” is a Facebook group, I’ve found the problem in that case at least. Trent King, still voting Roberto

[isiahfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

They were born in the same year, so about the same age throughout their careers. What I remember is that when the Tigers finally got into the World Series in 1968, Kaline wasn't even going to get regular playing time. He'd hit just .287 during the season, playing in 102 games (he never played in more than 133 games, from 1967 to 1973.) Manager Smith had to take the extraordinary gamble of moving his centerfielder, Mickey Stanley, to play shortstop, to manufacture a spot in the outfield for Al.

Meanwhile, Clemente, in the 1971 Series, hammered out 12 hits, batted over .400, and was the Series MVP.

I'll take Clemente.

By the way, despite his objections, he did sign his name "Bob" for Topps, at least once:

Exactly...Kaline played his entire career with a bum foot...and from about 67 on played basically crippled...and still put up better overall numbers.

Additionally your version of the 68 series innfo is incorrect. They moved Stanley to SS to give a boost to the "O" in place of light hitting Oyler. They won the series (and Al was again crucial to their success in 1972) It is laughable that you say they had to manufacture a spot for AK in the OF. FYI he batted .379 with 6 R, 2 HR, 8 RBI...which you forget to mention.

I love Roberto guys...but putting him in a class above AK is ridiculous.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

Exactly...Kaline played his entire career with a bum foot...and from about 67 on played basically crippled...and still put up better overall numbers.

Additionally your version of the 68 series innfo is incorrect. They moved Stanley to SS to give a boost to the "O" in place of light hitting Oyler. They won the series (and Al was again crucial to their success in 1972) It is laughable that you say they had to manufacture a spot for AK in the OF. FYI he batted .379 with 6 R, 2 HR, 8 RBI...which you forget to mention.

I love Roberto guys...but putting him in a class above AK is ridiculous.

I'm confused as well.

Kaline's .287 in 1968, if he had played enough to qualify that season, would have been 4th in the batting race in that pitching dominated season. He had a 146 OPS+ that year. He was obviously performing very well.

Like I've said it, I think Kaline wins it but it's a very narrow gap between them. This 1968 argument definitely is not a good argument against Kaline and appears to be directly contradictory to the math.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Just .287" even in a year other than 1968 sounds a bit oxymoronic, when since maybe the 1930s was that ever not a solid BA?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

Exactly...Kaline played his entire career with a bum foot...and from about 67 on played basically crippled...and still put up better overall numbers.

Additionally your version of the 68 series innfo is incorrect. They moved Stanley to SS to give a boost to the "O" in place of light hitting Oyler. They won the series (and Al was again crucial to their success in 1972) It is laughable that you say they had to manufacture a spot for AK in the OF. FYI he batted .379 with 6 R, 2 HR, 8 RBI...which you forget to mention.

I love Roberto guys...but putting him in a class above AK is ridiculous.

You're right about Kaline's average being good for 1968, but he was the 4th outfielder. Northrup and Horton provided more production during the regular season, and Stanley hit well enough to go along with his Gold Glove centerfield play. Something had to give to squeeze Al into the lineup for the Series.

[isiahfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You're right about Kaline's average being good for 1968, but he was the 4th outfielder. Northrup and Horton provided more production during the regular season, and Stanley hit well enough to go along with his Gold Glove centerfield play. Something had to give to squeeze Al into the lineup for the Series.

Again...it wasn't to "squeeze" in a HOF...it was to remove Oyler.....

Selective memory I think..Kaline's total #s were down due to injury that year...but his slashes were still good...oh and he was considered pretty good on D too...winning 10/11 previous gold gloves up until his injury filled 1968...contrary to your writings...Kaline would not have been the odd man out...not sure why you keep spewing this nonsense

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You're right about Kaline's average being good for 1968, but he was the 4th outfielder. Northrup and Horton provided more production during the regular season, and Stanley hit well enough to go along with his Gold Glove centerfield play. Something had to give to squeeze Al into the lineup for the Series.

I don't look at it that way. You don't need to find a way to "squeeze" your HOF outfielder and face of the franchise into a lineup with Mickey Stanley and Jim Northrup, sorry. Look, by moving Stanley you lose that Gold Glove anyhow. Ae the poster above states, the gamble was could they get away with moving out the anemic Ray Oyler in favor of the reasonably good hitter Stanley. So Kaline's available status created an opportunity, it did necessitate anything. It would have been the easiest decision in the world to bench Northrup or Stanley in favor of Kaline if it came to that.