So who was better ( Kaline or Clemente) ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Peter Spaeth- I must point out, a bit tongue in cheek, that your defense of
G1911 is essentially a point in my favor. A couple pesky facts:

1) The original post was "Clemente vs Kaline", a compelling question.
G1911 went the "overrated" route, which was NOT the debate. I'm sure
one of you will provide superficial circumlocution to explain it away, of
course. The fact remains HE strayed, and I corrected him.

2) You won't get away with explaining away my reaction as "emotional". I
don't have a nurse handy, so I guess you'll have to decide whether to
believe me when I say my blood pressure hasn't risen one point during
this ridiculous exchange. For Roberto (and Al), the stats and facts speak
for themselves. Their career achievements are stupendous by any
measure.

And one observation:

I've noticed a cadre of folks on this site who really lack perspective on
player "greatness". If the rest of us mere mortals accepted their divine
logic, I'm fairly certain only Babe Ruth would be "rated" properly. Shleps
like Aaron and Mays should just be forgotten, they aren't number one.
Nolan Ryan? His trillion strikeouts and 7 no-nos are trifles, he isn't
actually "great". Rod Carew certainly can't be great, right? I mean, he
did get those SEVEN batting titles with a lifetime .328 average and 3000+
hits, but gosh darn it he never appeared in a Series. He MUST be overrated.

And a conclusion:

Maybe guys who wear tube socks up to their knees and couldn't hit a
pitched beach ball with a wash board, should save the sermons about
"overrated" Hall of Fame players for table talk during fantasy drafts.

Too mean? Who cares.

Trent King

Actually, if you read MY post #2, I was the first one who suggested the common perception of Roberto might be a bit higher than deserved. I don't see why this concept of a player possibly being overrated is so difficult for you. Or why you need to go on a sarcastic rant when nobody has suggested any of the players you named were not great. Anyhow, I don't need the aggravation, let me know if you want to discuss statistics in a dispassionate and objective way, otherwise have a nice evening.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 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

You don't even know what circular means (it is "parsing words" to be familiar with the dictionary, apparently), yet it is "mental self gratification" for me to be literate and know basic words. That isn't brilliance, it's a bare minimum. You're upset about a post that says Clemente is great and that it's a toss-up pick. Nobody is dogging on Clemente at all. Obviously "Great" and "overrated" are not a contradictory scale. I am aware what e-sports is, but there is no relevance to the subject.

I swear almost every thread has some dipshit just finding the stupidest hot take that can be made and doubling down on it. Like this clown who doesn't even know what a contradiction or circular logic is trying to correct an opinion statement that is neither. Could have said "I disagree" and made a rational case, but of course that's not what happens.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Peter Spaeth- I must point out, a bit tongue in cheek, that your defense of
G1911 is essentially a point in my favor. A couple pesky facts:

1) The original post was "Clemente vs Kaline", a compelling question.
G1911 went the "overrated" route, which was NOT the debate. I'm sure
one of you will provide superficial circumlocution to explain it away, of
course. The fact remains HE strayed, and I corrected him.

2) You won't get away with explaining away my reaction as "emotional". I
don't have a nurse handy, so I guess you'll have to decide whether to
believe me when I say my blood pressure hasn't risen one point during
this ridiculous exchange. For Roberto (and Al), the stats and facts speak
for themselves. Their career achievements are stupendous by any
measure.

And one observation:

I've noticed a cadre of folks on this site who really lack perspective on
player "greatness". If the rest of us mere mortals accepted their divine
logic, I'm fairly certain only Babe Ruth would be "rated" properly. Shleps
like Aaron and Mays should just be forgotten, they aren't number one.
Nolan Ryan? His trillion strikeouts and 7 no-nos are trifles, he isn't
actually "great". Rod Carew certainly can't be great, right? I mean, he
did get those SEVEN batting titles with a lifetime .328 average and 3000+
hits, but gosh darn it he never appeared in a Series. He MUST be overrated.

And a conclusion:

Maybe guys who wear tube socks up to their knees and couldn't hit a
pitched beach ball with a wash board, should save the sermons about
"overrated" Hall of Fame players for table talk during fantasy drafts.

Too mean? Who cares.

Trent King

At least figure out how to use the Quote button before embarrassing yourself further.

[isiahfan]

Kaline...close...but not that close to be honest.

You can say Clemente played his home games where he lost some HR...but not that much...Kaline was clearly ahead in R, RBI, HR & SB...not to mention his significant ailments.

Both had cannons...

If Kaline had died on the field...like he almost did... (Thank you Willie Horton)..I think you have the Munson/Clemente effect X2...

[ClementeFanOh]

Isiahfan- you are clearly entitled to an opinion on Robert vs Al. You chose
the wrong player, but that's not the point

If you are suggesting that Roberto Clemente and Thurman Munson basically
draw some sort of "collective sympathy" due to untimely deaths, you'd do
well to look at the numbers. Munson was on the path of a HOF career, while
Roberto had clearly completed one. Roberto was likely 1st ballot HOF material
absent the circumstances of his death, Munson was not. It's apples and
oranges. Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

Whoops, typo above due to early morning- "Roberto" not "Robert".
I am clearly an "overrated" typist, I made a mistake. Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

G1911- ah, grammatical comments. If ever there was a sign that some
desperate asshat was losing an argument, that's it. Keep winning the internet,
1911, one keystroke at a time. Trent King

By the way, it didn't take long for you to lose that veneer of civility, did it?

[ClementeFanOh]

PeterSpaeth- you don't "need the aggravation"? Really? Looks like you
thrive on it. (Now THERE is an observation that isn't overrated). Trent King

PS- the notion of meaningful debate suggest I believe there is a topic worth
debating with you. I'm quite secure in my reasoning, thank you for the offer
though.

Trent King

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

I was always wondering how to compare these outfielders, because I could never figure out who the hell was better: (not listed in any particular order)

Frank Robinson
Roberto Clemente
Al Kaline
Carl Yastrzemski
Lou Brock
Hank Aaron

How much better was Aaron than Frank ? How much better was Frank than Kaline or Clemente ?

Imagine if any of these guys played for the Yankees their entire careers... Robinson and Kaline would be looked at quite differently by collectors, for sure. And Aaron breaking the HR record of a former Yankee legend? It would've been nuts. Kind of fun to envision.

[SAllen2556]

Does anyone know if Clemente ever commented on when he would retire? He was certainly going strong in his later years, way more than Kaline was. He only played 102 games in 1972. Was he becoming injury prone?

It certainly appears from his stats that Clemente could have easily played another 4 or 5 years, which would have put him at about 5th all-time in hits upon retirement in, say, 1977.

Those extra years would have caught him up to Kaline in plate appearances, and at that point would have likely put him at over 500 doubles and 3400 hits.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

I was always wondering how to compare these outfielders, because I could never figure out who the hell was better: (not listed in any particular order)

Frank Robinson
Roberto Clemente
Al Kaline
Carl Yastrzemski
Lou Brock
Hank Aaron

How much better was Aaron than Frank ? How much better was Frank than Kaline or Clemente ?

IMO

Hank was a higher level than the others, Brock a lower level than the others.

I would rank them this way:

Aaron


Clemente
F.Robinson
Yastrzemski

Kaline


Brock


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Clemente stats of the day: 16 HR/162 games. Only 41 BB/162 games, with an OBP of only .359 despite the high BA. Joe Morgan's OBP, for example, was 33 points higher than Clemente's. I think this is where he suffers a bit in some of the analyses.

[packs]

I never saw Clemente play but my dad's always described him as a kind of elite intangible player. He just did good things on the diamond that you had to see to know what they were.

In my lifetime, I think a player like Vlad might be a similar comparison. Vlad's career may not scream HOF or all time presence on the diamond, but when I saw him play I felt like he was the best player on the field.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I never saw Clemente play but my dad's always described him as a kind of elite intangible player. He just did good things on the diamond that you had to see to know what they were.

In my lifetime, I think a player like Vlad might be a similar comparison. Vlad's career may not scream HOF or all time presence on the diamond, but when I saw him play I felt like he was the best player on the field.

I remember reading a fascinating column years ago about which players had "duende" (a Spanish word but the discussion was not at all specific to Latin players) and which did not. No doubt Roberto had it. I suppose one could endlessly discuss whether it's important or not.

[packs]

I have a friend who's really into hockey and he says Gretzky was the same way. I know in Gretzky's case the intangibles show up in stats like goals and assists. But the point my friend likes to make about Gretzky is that he wasn't a physically gifted person. He was not fast. He was not big. He had nothing the other elite players did. What made him great was his ability to know what was going to happen before it did and to be in the right place at the right time, or be able to put the puck in the right place at the right time. But he always says nothing about Gretzky's body made him a good hockey player. There was something else there that other people don't have.

[Carter08]

Clemente. Much cooler rookie card too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

G1911- ah, grammatical comments. If ever there was a sign that some
desperate asshat was losing an argument, that's it. Keep winning the internet,
1911, one keystroke at a time. Trent King

By the way, it didn't take long for you to lose that veneer of civility, did it?

It’s not grammatical. I ignored the poor grammar. You don’t know what key words you were trying to spin into an attack even mean, or the barest bones of basic logic. That’s not grammar.

You did not even start out civil, I hardly see how I owe that to every moron making absurd claims and getting outraged if their guy isn’t out on top. If you want civility, don’t make nutball replies. There is a full transcript in order. Go figure out how to click the “quote” button, it isn’t hard.

[packs]

How about an auto to go with the thread:

[frankbmd]

Duende is an interesting word whether one considers the Iberian or Philippine origin and meaning. My research (Google plus a finger) has disclosed the images of two duendes:

duende.jpg duende 2.jpg

Obviously Kaline and Clemente, but which is whom?

[ClementeFanOh]

Okay genius, here we go. I’m typing from my phone and have limited time, so factor that into your red pen on the homework tendencies: 1) you are ignoring the glaring reality that you couldn’t keep your butt cheeks together (and big mouth shut), and stay on the actual topic of the thread. You thought readers would benefit from your searing intellect and you whiffed. 2) my “guy” doesn’t always have to come out on top. I was utterly deferential to Kaline in the thread. It would not even cross my mind to demean his career. 3) you missed on the circular argument thing, partner. When your claim is “RC is overrated because I declare it”- while refusing to acknowledge any data or evaluations which call your conclusion into question!- you have drawn yourself a nice little circle and put yourself in it. It’s an extremely primitive and misguided one, but you did it-while unprovoked, actually. “My comment is correct because I am always correct” is a non starter. We don’t get to declare ourselves the all time winner, then tell others “I said it so it must be correct”. 4) I hope you retain a full time psychiatrist, you are a sad mix of bizarre and twisted behavior. In the event you don’t, I’ll recommend coming out of the basement at least once a day. It wouldn’t hurt to at least ponder the possibility that you’re not an omniscient final authority, as well. Small steps, 1911, small steps…. Trent King

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Okay genius, here we go. I’m typing from my phone and have limited time, so factor that into your red pen on the homework tendencies: 1) you are ignoring the glaring reality that you couldn’t keep your butt cheeks together (and big mouth shut), and stay on the actual topic of the thread. You thought readers would benefit from your searing intellect and you whiffed. 2) my “guy” doesn’t always have to come out on top. I was utterly deferential to Kaline in the thread. It would not even cross my mind to demean his career. 3) you missed on the circular argument thing, partner. When your claim is “RC is overrated because I declare it”- while refusing to acknowledge any data or evaluations which call your conclusion into question!- you have drawn yourself a nice little circle and put yourself in it. It’s an extremely primitive and misguided one, but you did it-while unprovoked, actually. “My comment is correct because I am always correct” is a non starter. We don’t get to declare ourselves the all time winner, then tell others “I said it so it must be correct”. 4) I hope you retain a full time psychiatrist, you are a sad mix of bizarre and twisted behavior. In the event you don’t, I’ll recommend coming out of the basement at least once a day. It wouldn’t hurt to at least ponder the possibility that you’re not an omniscient final authority, as well. Small steps, 1911, small steps…. Trent King

It is the topic, Kaline vs. Clemente and their performance and ranking. You still don't even understand what was written or key terms (you chose to try to make it a logic debate) even mean. I have not made any appeal to authority, though you explicitly did. Can you even read the transcript, or is that as difficult as the Quote button? You can do nothing but screech complete falsehoods. Save yourself some dignity.

[ClementeFanOh]

Cool duendes, Frankbmd! New to me. Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I have a friend who's really into hockey and he says Gretzky was the same way. I know in Gretzky's case the intangibles show up in stats like goals and assists. But the point my friend likes to make about Gretzky is that he wasn't a physically gifted person. He was not fast. He was not big. He had nothing the other elite players did. What made him great was his ability to know what was going to happen before it did and to be in the right place at the right time, or be able to put the puck in the right place at the right time. But he always says nothing about Gretzky's body made him a good hockey player. There was something else there that other people don't have.

I think Bird is somewhat the same, what distinguished him was uncanny court sense and vision.

[isiahfan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Isiahfan- you are clearly entitled to an opinion on Robert vs Al. You chose
the wrong player, but that's not the point

If you are suggesting that Roberto Clemente and Thurman Munson basically
draw some sort of "collective sympathy" due to untimely deaths, you'd do
well to look at the numbers. Munson was on the path of a HOF career, while
Roberto had clearly completed one. Roberto was likely 1st ballot HOF material
absent the circumstances of his death, Munson was not. It's apples and
oranges. Trent King

I am not stating that their unfortunate deaths increased their abilities....but it 100% added to their collectability...if you disagree with that not sure what else to say. If they had both been injured or retired instead of dying...on the same days....the interest/intrigue/collectability would maybe be high...not as high thouhg.

[ClementeFanOh]

Isiahfan- well, my remark about you siding with Kaline was just a joke, a friendly jab. Regarding your comment about the collectibility of their cards/etc, that’s from left field as none of the comments mentioned it. Roberto is clearly a high priority get for many vintage collectors, no doubt. I thought you meant that both Munson and Roberto’s manners of death were somehow related to their on field results, which I found strange. Debate doesn’t have to be contentious, right? Trent King

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Does anyone know if Clemente ever commented on when he would retire?

Yes, and it will send shivers up your spine. He said, in June of 1970, that he wanted to play until he got 3,000 hits.

Hear it in his own words:

http://vendiamo.com/Miley/Clemente.wav

As we know, he died with exactly 3,000 base hits.

[packs]

Maybe an alternate take on things but I actually think Clemente's death hurt his overall collectability more than it enhanced it. Had Clemente lived, he would have seen the landscape of baseball change completely. Hispanic players are now a dominant force in Major League Baseball, particularly players from Puerto Rico and other surrounding islands.

It's my opinion and speculative (obviously) but I believe if Clemente had lived, his influence on today's game would be felt more and he would be closer to the make up of the league than he ended up being as a tragic hero.

I think he would be a Jackie Robinson-like figure if he had lived a full life and had enough time to comment on his experiences as the pioneer he was.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is weird to think of certain players not having died young. Ruth easily could have lived well into the 1970s, and Gehrig well into the 1980s, for example. I mean, imagine Ruth being in the press box commenting on the 1975 WS, or Gehrig on the 1986 WS?

Was Clemente a guy who would have stayed involved with baseball, or would he have gone back home and lived an insular life?

[packs]

It truly is a shame. So many of the hurdles have been removed that a guy like Clemente, had he lived, would have really been able to tell his story. The language barrier is almost non-existent now. Spanish is a colloquial language in America today and has been for quite a while.

He would have been far less of an enigma had he lived another few decades. Not just because he would been alive, but also because the landscape of America has changed so much.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've read interesting stories about Vic Power, who I guess was roughly a contemporary of Clemente and Puerto Rican, apparently as a very young man he was considered a prospective superstar but the Yankees wanted no part of him because he dated white women.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

How about an auto to go with the thread:

Here's another:

RC Auto 2846.97 Aug-28.jpg

[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.

[isiahfan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Isiahfan- well, my remark about you siding with Kaline was just a joke, a friendly jab. Regarding your comment about the collectibility of their cards/etc, that’s from left field as none of the comments mentioned it. Roberto is clearly a high priority get for many vintage collectors, no doubt. I thought you meant that both Munson and Roberto’s manners of death were somehow related to their on field results, which I found strange. Debate doesn’t have to be contentious, right? Trent King

Agreed...both great players...I thought you meant their deaths didn't play a part in their value or attention...

[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.

[G1911]

Name - OPS+
Northrop - 129
Horton - 165
Kaline - 146
Stanley - 102
Oyler - 20

Now let us imagine we possess common sense and this isn’t about advocating Clemente. Who do we think they’re trying to cut out of the lineup? Who do we think the clear choices to start are?

Kaline played less games because he missed two months with a broken arm. The change was done to get Oyler, notorious as a great glove but possibly the worst hitter in the majors, out of the lineup. Even adjusting for the year of the pitcher, Oyler was 80% below the league average, an astounding figure that is rarely seen.

A guy hitting .287 in the 1968 AL would finish fourth in the batting race. Kaline had a great season. As he had every year since 1955. He is obviously not going to be kept out of the lineup.

The arguments presented for Clemente, mostly factually wrong or incredibly emotional, are not compelling.

Disclaimer for those who get triggered at any dissent to the narrative: Clemente was a great player and one of the few athletes I would uphold as an example of human virtue, a man I would consider admirable as a man and not an athlete. To say another player was a hair better is not an insult. To say he is overrated is not an insult. Objective reality is often not what we desire it to be, it is not personal or insulting to be cognizant of it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The more I think about it, all respect to Mark, saying Stanley was moved to squeeze Kaline into the lineup makes as much sense as saying the Berlin Wall was built to keep West Germans from flowing into East Germany.

[campyfan39]

Agree. Clemente was awesome but is overrated. All stars ⭐️ n all genres who die young are immortalized. Even musicians who choked on their own vomit are made immortal and their talent greatly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by G1911

I’d pick Kaline, by just a hair though. They are very close by any honest assessment.

Clemente was great, and greatly overrated. The emotional narrative is strong, and he fits into a contemporary narrative, as a victim of his times and a great humanitarian with a heroic death. It doesn’t change actual performance, where one may reasonably come down on either side.

What really surprised me is that their slugging is only .005 apart.

[ClementeFanOh]

G1911 and campyfan-

So, all knowing 1911, what does "triggered" mean? It sounds like it refers
to anyone who doesn't lay down for your tortured narratives, who actually
dissents rather than acquiesces. I'm sure that's just me though...

So, to be called incredibly emotional and factually wrong, aren't insults. Oh,
that's right. All I need do is cave to your aggression, then passive
aggression, then outright hostility- not to mention your errors- and all the
unpleasant terminology goes away. You make it sound so reasonable.

You can say the arguments for Roberto aren't compelling, but that doesn't
make you right. I can tell people all day long that I'm 6 feet tall, and it
won't change the fact that I'm 5'10".

Now then, get the bolts on your neck tightened and have a chat with
someone not named Siri or Alexa, might do you some good. Your tiny
bubble reeks of sadness (and Dorito dust, I'll wager..) No insult intended,
of course!

Campyfan- you should be ashamed. So Roberto was "awesome" but
"overrated"? Are you a burner account for G1911? Geesh, what an insane
comment, you contradict yourself within a 6 word sentence! I know this will
bounce off your forehead into space, but for posterity I'll point out Roberto
was NOT a "young athlete". His bona fides CLEARLY qualified him for HOF
status after a career that was probably 5 times longer than the average
tenure for a player. As for your remark about musicians choking on their
own vomit, perhaps you should lay off the crack pipe yourself. Good Lord!!

By now I'm sure you are both "triggered", no longer able to think
logically, and hopefully headed to your safe spaces. Once you've recovered,
keep in mind I've yet to say a SINGLE negative word about Al Kaline and
recognize his excellence. Neither of you can say the same about Roberto,
and neither could you stay on the *^*$!* topic despite your self-proclaimed
knowledge of it. Trent King

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

G1911 and campyfan-

So, all knowing 1911, what does "triggered" mean? It sounds like it refers
to anyone who doesn't lay down for your tortured narratives, who actually
dissents rather than acquiesces. I'm sure that's just me though...

So, to be called incredibly emotional and factually wrong, aren't insults. Oh,
that's right. All I need do is cave to your aggression, then passive
aggression, then outright hostility- not to mention your errors- and all the
unpleasant terminology goes away. You make it sound so reasonable.

You can say the arguments for Roberto aren't compelling, but that doesn't
make you right. I can tell people all day long that I'm 6 feet tall, and it
won't change the fact that I'm 5'10".

Now then, get the bolts on your neck tightened and have a chat with
someone not named Siri or Alexa, might do you some good. Your tiny
bubble reeks of sadness (and Dorito dust, I'll wager..) No insult intended,
of course!

Campyfan- you should be ashamed. So Roberto was "awesome" but
"overrated"? Are you a burner account for G1911? Geesh, what an insane
comment, you contradict yourself within a 6 word sentence! I know this will
bounce off your forehead into space, but for posterity I'll point out Roberto
was NOT a "young athlete". His bona fides CLEARLY qualified him for HOF
status after a career that was probably 5 times longer than the average
tenure for a player. As for your remark about musicians choking on their
own vomit, perhaps you should lay off the crack pipe yourself. Good Lord!!

By now I'm sure you are both "triggered", no longer able to think
logically, and hopefully headed to your safe spaces. Once you've recovered,
keep in mind I've yet to say a SINGLE negative word about Al Kaline and
recognize his excellence. Neither of you can say the same about Roberto,
and neither could you stay on the *^*$!* topic despite your self-proclaimed
knowledge of it. Trent King

This guy is just absolutely insane and unhinged... Every thread needs one of them.

EDIT: My favorite part is the appeals to logic, while just venting his anger at 2 people, 1 of which has not even engaged with him at all. Maybe this dumbass will learn the Quote button in another decade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Discussing Clemente's HRs and walks as I posted about before might be more interesting than a lot of invective?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Discussing Clemente's HRs and walks as I posted about before might be more interesting than a lot of invective?

Well, looking at the math isn't "logical" apparently, as it might not produce the only outcome that is allowed to even be considered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well, looking at the math isn't "logical" apparently, as it might not produce the only outcome that is allowed to even be considered.

I'm still stumped on why a player can't be great and overrated, but that's me. I would put a fair number of people in that category including another who died young, Kobe.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm still stumped on why a player can't be great and overrated, but that's me.

He makes so many weird, illiterate, and nutball arguments that I'm having a hard time moving past that first one as well and getting to his follow-ups.

In other matters, I tried but couldn't find a single baseball card that pictures both Clemente and Kaline, during their career or after. I'd have guessed Topps would have paired them up in one of their thousands of combo cards at some point over the last 25 years of nostalgia sets. The closest I could find is that they were on the same box in 1962 Bazooka.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's a cool item for sure. I think at least for 50s and 60s most of the multiplayer cards are same team or at least same league?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Re overrrated, I have a logic question. Nobody of course has any trouble with the concept of being underrated. Is it a zero sum game? If 10 players are underrated, does that necessarily mean 10 are overrated?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Re overrrated, I have a logic question. Nobody of course has any trouble with the concept of being underrated. Is it a zero sum game? If 10 players are underrated, does that necessarily mean 10 are overrated?

I don't think it is; because the two aren't on an even scale. Both terms are unspecific, general measures that are not tied to a standard delineator, so there's no 'slider' where putting 1 player from a pool into a bucket necessitates another player being put into the opposite bucket on the scale. Even if we remove the 'not tied to a standard delineator' aspect, we can still end up with a non-zero sum game. If we evaluated every player in baseball and correlated them to "average", we probably would not have an equal number above and below the average. While the total performance of the two halves below and above must be equal, extremely good or extremely bad players account for multiple players performance gaps who are slightly better or slightly worse, and so our numbers will vary based on the extremely good and extremely bad.

I would guess though, that if we looked at a large group of players, we would end up with more in the underrated than the overrated categories. I think there's a 'soft sum' effect; the attention fostered onto a handful of players takes away from many others; the top 10 overrated will account for significantly more underrated players who don't get the attention they deserve because the focus is always on the same 10 or so players. Our bias towards representative examples will usually produce this effect in such a dataset of people, whether it's overrated or underrated baseball players, generals, physicists, or middle school janitorial staff. The extremes lean to overrated, so quantity of underrated tends to be higher.

But that's just my opinion