MLB: Have we seen the best
 

I'm watching baseball tonight and they mention Mo Rivera is the best closer of all-time, which I agree with. Being that I'm 22 I wasn't around for all these other great ballplayers, but is it possible (now i'm using only the players who I have grown up watching) that we have seen perhaps what could be the greatest 3B ever (ARod), 1B (Pujols), C (Piazza, offensivley speaking) SP (Clemens), CL (Rivera), OF (Bonds) and i'll even be bold enough to put Jeter for SS since I cant think of any old timers off the top of my head. I bring it up bc i've been thinking about it and feel pretty lucky being able to witness what could be some of the greatest players at their respective positions.

I know as a fan I felt robbed by not getting to see the greatness that is Mark Redman take the mound with the game on the line.

I'm sorry, but the greatest shortstop of all time is SPIKE OWEN. You young 'uns have no idea.

Jeter as the best SS of all time?

I definitely don't think Jeter is among the best SS of all time. He has played for a bunch of title winning teams, so he tends to be put into another level which he isn't at. ARod would have been the best SS of all time if he didn't have to move to 3b. He's still played SS a lot more than 3b for now. One could easily argue that Schmidt was the greatest 3b, and i think Wright will end up passing him by.

Ozzie Smith had a great glove at SS, as did/does Visquel. You also can't overlook Ripken Jr.

Thats actually pretty much what i'm getting at. I like to think I know a good amount about baseball history, but since I didnt get to watch all these other guys play I dont feel like I really get the true appreciation of great they were, which is why I think some of the ones I mentioned above are, since I have seen them throughout their entire careers for the most part.

I take back my Jeter argument, he was the 1st that came to mind, cant believe I forgot about Smith and Ripken.

I wish Gagne wouldnt have gotten hurt. :(

Yeah, he only needed to have 7 or so more of his great seasons, plus win a title or two to get anywhere near Rivera's level.

Pujols has been amazing so far, but it's a bit much to say "best ever" already.

The next legend from the bullpen -

http://www.rwbl-ootp-online.com/league/p1858.html

911 is a joke.

I can just see the ESPN guys riding his jock.

Of course they would have a permanent saddle on Edwin Ryan's Nuts

Interesting. Incorrect, but Interesting

How do you figure? Gagne had 3 spectacular seasons. Rivera had 8 spectacular years out of 10, with the 2 that weren't spectacular is merely very good. It's totally correct, but I do realize that you are all about your guys, and I made a promise to myself to not argue LA sports with you anymore, which i should not have broken.

So what does a title have to do with anything?

Let's not forget Brooks Robinson in that equation. 16 straight gold gloves and a good bat for his era have to count for something.

everybody knows players get 20% better when they sign with an la team

if you're talking best ever, only bonds, rivera, and maybe clemens belong on that list

A-Rod, as well. People seem not to understand that they may be looking at the best player in history (after all's said and done).

Too bad he's not a good clutch hitter...

*Runs for the hills*

Sorry, postseason performance and the overall team performance have to count for something. It's a smaller part of the equation than individual stats, but not irrelevant. A-Rod, for some reason, seems to have a negative effect on teams overall performance and he's just been horrible the last two years in the playoffs.

What is this, act like a troll day ? You realize A-rod outhit Jeter in the 2004 playoffs, right ?

Your homerism really is incredible sometimes. The titles matter because of Rivera's role in them. These are his career post-season stats:

111.2 IP, 0.81 ERA, 34 Saves, 8 Wins, 1 Loss.

That is a performance that will likely never be repeated. At the highest leverage times, Rivera was the most dependable pitcher in history. Just an astounding performance.

Here are Gagne's career stats as a closer (I've eliminated his time as a starter because those numbers certainly don't help his case):

262.1 IP, 1.82 ERA, 161 Saves, 14 Wins, 7 Losses

In other words, Mariano has pitched in the post-season 40% of Gagne's total IP as a closer. And he has done so with a RIDICULOUSLY low ERA.

Here are Rivera's career stats (that exclude his incredible post-season performance):

852.2 IP, 2.30 ERA, 398 Saves, 58 Wins, 39 Loses

And Gagne is no spring-chicken as he is already 30 years-old. He would have to have to duplicate the incredible spurt as a closer 3 times before he would could claim to have surpassed Rivera. There have been many flash-in-pan closers (and Gagne was surely among the very best of those), but what makes Rivera incredible is his longevity and consistency at a position where longevity and consistency are rare.

With all that being said, of course the "best closer ever" would be in the modern era because closers didn't exist in their modern form until recently. So, in a sense it's kind of like best DH ever, IMO.

You have no clue what you're on about. Riviera is the best closer - as defined today, in baseball history, and ought to be a first ballot HOF. Gagne, is not.

A-Rod is the best SS ever, not the best 3B ever. He hasn't played nearly long enough to be considered the best 3B ever, and surpassing Mike Schmidt for that honor in the time he has left might be a tall order. Jeter's not even close, even if you take A-Rod out of the picture. Honus Wagner would be.

Pujols has a long way to go to equal Lou Gehrig, and he's not on pace to do so.

Piazza - yes, if you just consider offense.

Clemens - I think the case is getting pretty strong for him, especially considering he's won all these games in the era of the 5-man rotation and bullpen specialization.

Rivera - yes

Bonds - Babe Ruth was still better. With respect to the steroid suspicions, it's hard to judge Bonds beyond that. If you want to adjust for the steroids, I'd say Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, and Stan Musial were better, too. That's where I'd draw the line.

Rivera - Yes
Bonds - Possibly
Pujols - Long, long way to go. Gehrig and Foxx, anyone?
Piazza - You can't rule out defense when talking catchers
ARod - Might well be
Clemens - Tough to compare pitchers, I don't think so personally
Jeter - (Head explodes)

Me llamo Pedro.

BUt if we assume, as most seem to do now, that the last few years have been the 'steroid era' Bonds outperformed his peers by a huge amount. If everyone was taking steroids then it's a level playing field still.

What about the one position we haven't mentioned -- who's the greatest 2B of all time?

Ty Cobb!

Alex Rodríguez's postseason numbers are better than Jeter's in an admittedly smaller sample size.

However, Jeter's numbers stay even with his overall numbers across the board. A-Rod's BA and OBP stay even but his SLG is lower in the postseason. Still 60 points or so higher than Jeter's, IIRC.

Yes - how could I forget Cobb?

As for Jeter, while I've been critical of him in the past and agree he isn't in the debate about the best SS ever, it is still possible he could be someday. He is only 31. He is putting up his best season ever. If he were able to maintain a high level performance for at least 6 more years, he would certainly enter the discussion of best SS ever (despite his defensive shortcomings). Do I think he will legitimately enter that discussion? No. But it is still a possibility. I will say that he is more likely to be a candidate for best SS ever than Pujols is to be the best 1B ever (because injury and performance dropoffs mean Pujols has MANY more obstacles to overcome). So, I don't think "head explodes" is really the proper reaction to the claim that Jeter is the best SS ever unless you have the same reaction to Pujols, IMHO.

An interesting thing I was wondering about Jeter the other day. This is total speculation and based entirely on wild conjecture. What if Jeter succeeds at career high levels for the next 5 or 6 years? Could we suggest that Jeter was actually a "victim" of the steriods era (presuming he is clean and many pitchers were dirty)? Do those who think we should look at Bonds and others skeptically then think we should look at Jeter's already impressive numbers in a more positive light? Anyway, it's based on a lot of hypotethical, but I thought it was an interesting thought experiment.

If offense is the main criteria, it's pretty hard to argue against Rogers Hornsby.

Nap Lajoie.

Earl Weaver Baseball was awesome.

Painful as it is to say, Joe Morgan or Eddie Collins are probably near the top (Morgan in particular) of candidates.

Isn't the issue with Jeter more a sense that he's overrated defensively rather than devalued as a hitter? That's the issue in my mind - that A-Rod is a much better denfensive SS, and that if you wanted to put your best defense on the field, Jeter is the one who should have been moved.

If you're going to take that stand on hitting with Jeter, why wouldn't you do it with Piazza, too? Nobody seems to.

Interest list of the top 75 all time at each position:

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/index.php

He would need to have about six more career years to even knock on Honus Wagner's door -- and that's if we agree to ignore defense at a position where defense is critical.

Pujols is young enough that he could still be improving, so we can at least pretend that his numbers will keep going up. Jeter may continue racking up 200 hits but he's unlikely to improve his power in the second half of his career. And despite playing in the greatest offensive era of all time, he's still outslugged by Wagner who played in the Dead Ball era.

Barring Jeter turning into a Pete Rose like freak of longevity, I don't see him getting into the "all time greatest" picture based on anything more than New York and ESPN hype. Which, sadly, will probably be more than enough.

You won't find me arguing that Jeter should have been moved to 3rd. I posted a few times about that back when the decision was made (and I even thought it would add to the silly "legend of Jeter" if he was willing to sacrifice (and I thought a move to CF may have been the best for all involved).

As for Jeter's defense, I think it is a little different than Piazza (although they are similar). First off, Jeter's defense seems to have shown some miraculous improvement according to various metrics (the usual caveats apply). Whether that is something he can maintain, I don't know. Second, is that Piazza truly is a total loss at stopping the running game. Jeter, even when he has been worse than his peers, has not been completely unable to perform a part of his defensive game. In that way Jeter was like (but not as bad as) Soriano at 2nd and not as much like Piazza, IMO. Third, catchers are just weird and hard to compare. Since we have no evidence that who is catcher really affects pitcher performance, evaluating catchers is just tough.

With that being said I do think Piazza belongs in the debate of being the best catcher ever, but I think he is ultimately on the losing side of that discussion. But without looking at his numbers, I think he is first ballot HOFer.

The guys who put together those lists are full of crap. Rickey Henderson above Willie Mays as an outfielder?

And you've got guys like Joe Ferguson, Alan Ashby, Brad Ausmus, and Butch Wynegar on the list of 75 best catchers, but no Manny Sanguillen?

I certainly agree with the hype factor, but I also think we can all be a little guilty of joining in the backlash against the hype and ignoring how good Jeter is.

As for Wagner, his defense is kind of an unknown quantity, but I've always assumed (and this may be a bad assumption) that because he played so many other positions besides SS that he wasn't the best defensive player. If we assume (and again this may be a bad assumption) that he is on par with Jeter defensively, then I think Jeter has a shot. Again, I agree it would take several more career years and a lot of longevity, but that is possible (unlikely, but possible). But I like those odds better than Pujols because Pujols has a foot problem that rarely goes away, has indications that he may have back problems (which is bad for a young player), and there have been many great players over the years who had their careers derailed by injuries. It's a close call, but I still think Jeter has a better chance of being in the debate for best SS than Pujols does for 1B (but I think both have them have long odds right now).

edit: One other oddity about comparing Wagner and Jeter's SLG percentages is that Wagner may have been helped by the dead ball era. He only had 101 career HR's. Almost all of his SLG is due to the ridiculous number of 3B's he was able to get in the expansive OF's of the deadball era. So, although I agree Jeter's numbers don't look as good in the current era, I also think Wagner's numbers need to be looked at in the unusual dead ball era.

There may be an argument that if you consider the era in which they played, Johnny Bench's offensive numbers are just as impressive as Piazza's. But when you consider defense, the comparison between the two isn't remotely close.

Does anyone else think that when you combine offense and defense, Ivan Rodriguez has to enter the "greatest catcher" discussion?

I think the big difference offensively is that Piazza sustained his excellence over a longer period than Bench did. His OPS+ is 147, to Bench's 126.

But I agree, Bench was such a dominant catcher defensively, that more than closes the gap, and Bench was the better all-around catcher. For that matter, I think Yogi Berra was also a better all-around catcher than Piazza.

I think he's not Bench's equal, nor probably Berra's. But certainly he belongs in the discussion of who belongs in the top 5.

His recent resurgence definitely helps his case. I think the sabermatic semi-revolution hurts him though because his OBP was hurt by his free-swinging ways. His MVP award was a pretty undeserved, IMO.

Another thing that has hurt his defensive reputation is the whispers (I originally heard this from a Yankees scouting report) that I-Rod made his pitchers throw fastballs with runners on base so he could keep his throwing percentages up. I never saw if anyone ever studied this to see if it was true (to see if I-Rod's pitchers had an unusually high BAA with runners on base). But it adds one wrinkle to his otherwise sterling defensive reputation.

I haven't looked at his numbers in a while, but my initial inclination is to think he is near the discussion, but still not in it, but I could be wrong.

I honestly believe that Rickey Henderson is the greatest player of the last 50 years.

This actually pretty much the exact way I see it. I know it's too early for Pujols, but he very well could be the best at his position when all is said and done. Considering just offense, I think Piazza gets the nod over Bench, but Bench was obviously the best overall C. I also agree it's tough to compare SPs, but a great case can be made for Clemens being the best. I retracted my Jeter comment already. And someone already mentioned it, but its possible we are seeing the greatest player ever in ARod.

Rickey was the greatest basestealer ever, and walked a lot. He was good hitter with decent power, and a fine defensive left fielder. But he couldn't touch Mays with respect to hitting for average and for power, and Mays was one of the greatest defensive center fielders ever.