There's no stars in racing? Is that right?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? Jeter is arguably the third or 4th best SS ever. Outside of Honus Wagner, ARod, Ernie Banks and maybe Robin Yount (who played 1/2 his career in CF) who is better? Jeter's defense has slipped but the majority of his career was fine.

Interesting I never was a huge fan of Jeter's, granted he was very good but playing in N.Y I thought he got alot of press. In my time prior to the explosion of steroids, I thought Cal Ripkin was the best SS I have ever seen, all people seem to remember was his games streak and he more or less looked like a 3rd baseman playing short, but he had a great glove and natural power for a guy that played short. Plus you could always count on 162 games a year from Cal.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You should really think these things over before posting. Cabrera has a .310 lifetime batting average (Clemente is .317). He has 5 straight seasons with over 108 rbi's (Clemente had two 100 rbi seasons in 18 seasons) Cabrera has 186 HR's in roughly 6 seasons (clemente had 240 in 18) Cabrera's typical season line is .310 with 98 runs 189 hits 40 2bs 32 HR's 119 Rbis .382 OBP .540 slg Clementes typical season is .317 with 94 runs 200 hits 29 2bs 16 HRs 87 Rbis .359 OBP and .475 slg.

Obviously the eras are different but mitigated by Cabrera playing in poor hitting parks his entire career. And this is also without cabrera reaching his prime late 20's hitting peak. If you took the first 6 years of each player it is embarrasing. Surely Clemente was a better fielder but cabrera is a better hitter.

The reason I used 60's era players was that you cannot fairly compare the two generations. What would Cabrera's HR and RBI numbers be if he played the first half of his career in Forbes Field?

Left Field—360 feet
Deepest corner—462 feet
Center Field—442 feet
Right Field—376 feet

What would Clemente or Kaline have done in an era when the pitching talent is as watered down as it is today?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ARyan

Out the ones you believe are better, a case could be made for at least these guys over Jeter;

Barry Larkin
Luke Appling
Cal Ripken
Arky Vaughan

A case could even be made for Alan Trammell, considering how clutch he was in the playoffs, and his solid career stats, but I would still put Jeter in front of Trammell.

Tramell isnt that close, Larkin wasnt as good of a hitter and not nearly as durable, Appling wasnt as good statwise especially if you take out 1936 which was so far out of character for him that surely there were people calling him a roid freak even if roids hadnt been invented yet. Maybe Vaughan but he had a short run. Ripken is valid

You can compare horses. No matter how you sugarcoat it. Secretariat would've made Summer Bird look like Mr. Ed last week.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The reason I used 60's era players was that you cannot fairly compare the two generations. What would Cabrera's HR and RBI numbers be if he played the first half of his career in Forbes Field?

Left Field—360 feet
Deepest corner—462 feet
Center Field—442 feet
Right Field—376 feet

What would Clemente or Kaline have done in an era when the pitching talent is as watered down as it is today?

We dont know what they would have done, we can only go by what they did. Since Forbes was so cavernous why didnt Clemente hit more doubles and have a higher average as there is a lot more ground to cover? While pitching may be watered down the era of facing fresh relief pitchers and the constant lefty/righty matchups has to be considered as does the closers role.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

Interesting I never was a huge fan of Jeter's, granted he was very good but playing in N.Y I thought he got alot of press. In my time prior to the explosion of steroids, I thought Cal Ripkin was the best SS I have ever seen, all people seem to remember was his games streak and he more or less looked like a 3rd baseman playing short, but he had a great glove and natural power for a guy that played short. Plus you could always count on 162 games a year from Cal.

You are correct, Ripken should have been in there

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are correct, Ripken should have been in there

Interesting thought who was the best 2nd Baseman in history? This one should generate alot of names.

For me Roberto Alomar would be right there on the shortlist.

[slotdirt]

Jeter is a good one, and will probably be in the HOF, no doubt, but he's never been a great defensive shortstop - never. He's made the highlight reel plays in the playoffs (the non-slide Jeremy Giambi toss, the Hollywood-esque jump into the stands, etc.), but as an everyday shortstop, he consistently has ranked as below average in every measurable defensive rating.

How one makes a list of shortstops that doesn't include Cal Ripken above Jeter is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, Cal was a lot more hype than substance, but the guy could hit in his day and was more than adequate defensively on a ton of really, really mediocre Orioles teams.

Don't get me started on Trammell (or Whitaker). If you stack up Trammell with the SS members of the HOF currently, he is at least in the top half. Trammell's 1987 season is still one of the finest non-roided up seasons for a shortstop in baseball history. Whitaker getting dropped from the ballot after his first year of eligibility while Ryne Sandberg gets in on the second or third ballot is one of the true travesties of Hall of Fame voting of the last 15 years.

Now, talking about the best second baseman ever - that's tough. Roberto Alomar definitely deserves some consideration, but his career ended so amazingly quickly, he's really hard to judge. I think you'd have to look to an old timer like Rogers Hornsby (highest career AVG, OBP, HR, and SLG for a second baseman) as your all-time best.

[Bobby Fischer]

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by CSC

Interesting thought who was the best 2nd Baseman in history? This one should generate alot of names.

Rogers Hornsby was the best.

He was the greatest right handed hitter of all time

[slotdirt]

One could make a case for Nap Lajoie - I mean, Cleveland did name their team at the time after him and all.

I can tell you that there are a gang of players from that era that have no business being in the Hall of Fame that could have held the jock strap of Jeter, Trammell, Larkin, or Dave Concepcion for that matter.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Now, talking about the best second baseman ever - that's tough. Roberto Alomar definitely deserves some consideration, but his career ended so amazingly quickly, he's really hard to judge. I think you'd have to look to an old timer like Rogers Hornsby (highest career AVG, OBP, HR, and SLG for a second baseman) as your all-time best.

That would be the only blemish in his career, alot of fans would probably be surprised to look at his career numbers, I expect Joe Morgan's name to be included in the discussion and his and Alomar's numbers are very close. However I would give the edge to Alomar. The one thing about Alomar is he played his best yrs in Canada and Joe played for the Big Red Machine, Alomar won multiple golden gloves, could beat you with his glove, bat, or on the bases. Seriously other than spitting on an Umpire, he should be a guaranteed 1st ballot Hall of famer.

[slotdirt]

Joe Morgan? He gets dismissed for actually not being as great as he was made out to be and more importantly, for being the absolute worst baseball announcer in the history of the game. I'd take Alomar over Joe Morgan 13 times out of 10. Alomar isn't going to be a first ballot HOFer not because of the spitting incident, but because of the way his career ended. There was no denouement; just crash and burn.

[Bobby Fischer]

as for stars in racing

The biggest thing IMO is that the triple Crown stars retire if they happen to be true stars, moreso than the durability issue.

ACTIVE PROMOTION

There isn't enough creative promotion in racing. When you do have a two horses like Big Brown and Curlin healthy at the same time, you have to get them in the ring together. You just can't wait for a race like the Classic to come up and draw both stars. There has to be a race made for them and they have to draw enough others to get a field of 8 or 10.
Creative promotion. Money. etc...
If you build it [these matches] they will come

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

as for stars in racing

The biggest thing IMO is that the triple Crown stars retire if they happen to be true stars, moreso than the durability issue.

ACTIVE PROMOTION

There isn't enough creative promotion in racing. When you do have a two horses like Big Brown and Curlin healthy at the same time, you have to get them in the ring together. You just can't wait for a race like the Classic to come up and draw both stars. There has to be a race made for them and they have to draw enough others to get a field of 8 or 10.
Creative promotion. Money. etc...
If you build it [these matches] they will come

Thanks for bringing it back to the horseys!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

No one is lying or pretending. If the competition is balanced, albeit at a reduced level of quality as judged by the top performance valuations, than how is that not as much of an excitement generator as the competition level of an earlier era?

We're always reminded that it's the players that drive the game. Well, the mutuels are still returning as much or more as they ever have with the innovations of multi-horse and multi-race wagers. You could even argue that the excitement has been enhanced by those mutuel innovations and bonanza returns.

The horses we have are the horses we have. The esthetics haven't changed. Our view of the current generation versus previous only makes it 'feel' like they have.

I agree that the wagering aspect of the game is better in many ways....but I don't agree with the rest. Pretending that a bunch of less than stellar horses are as exciting as truly good horses does not generate any real excitement or interest.....and I think it shows. It is unfortunate that the high level talent plateau has become so low that many people seem to already believe Rachel Alexandra is an all-time great.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You should really think these things over before posting. Cabrera has a .310 lifetime batting average (Clemente is .317). He has 5 straight seasons with over 108 rbi's (Clemente had two 100 rbi seasons in 18 seasons) Cabrera has 186 HR's in roughly 6 seasons (clemente had 240 in 18)
Cabrera's typical season line is .310 with 98 runs 189 hits 40 2bs 32 HR's 119 Rbis .382 OBP .540 slg
Clementes typical season is .317 with 94 runs 200 hits 29 2bs 16 HRs 87 Rbis .359 OBP and .475 slg.

Obviously the eras are different but mitigated by Cabrera playing in poor hitting parks his entire career. And this is also without cabrera reaching his prime late 20's hitting peak. If you took the first 6 years of each player it is embarrasing. Surely Clemente was a better fielder but cabrera is a better hitter.

Moments like this lead me to believe glasses are in order........lol. Look who I thought you were referring to.

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/team/...ayer_id=466320

Thus my response of horror.....Melky and Orlando are a bit different animals I needed to laugh this afternoon as some of what I have seen today is beyond repulsive.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Pretending that a bunch of less than stellar horses are as exciting as truly good horses does not generate any real excitement or interest.....and I think it shows.

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Jeter is a good one, and will probably be in the HOF, no doubt, but he's never been a great defensive shortstop - never. He's made the highlight reel plays in the playoffs (the non-slide Jeremy Giambi toss, the Hollywood-esque jump into the stands, etc.), but as an everyday shortstop, he consistently has ranked as below average in every measurable defensive rating.

How one makes a list of shortstops that doesn't include Cal Ripken above Jeter is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, Cal was a lot more hype than substance, but the guy could hit in his day and was more than adequate defensively on a ton of really, really mediocre Orioles teams.

Don't get me started on Trammell (or Whitaker). If you stack up Trammell with the SS members of the HOF currently, he is at least in the top half. Trammell's 1987 season is still one of the finest non-roided up seasons for a shortstop in baseball history. Whitaker getting dropped from the ballot after his first year of eligibility while Ryne Sandberg gets in on the second or third ballot is one of the true travesties of Hall of Fame voting of the last 15 years.

Now, talking about the best second baseman ever - that's tough. Roberto Alomar definitely deserves some consideration, but his career ended so amazingly quickly, he's really hard to judge. I think you'd have to look to an old timer like Rogers Hornsby (highest career AVG, OBP, HR, and SLG for a second baseman) as your all-time best.

I did screw up by forgetting Ripken. Jeter was good enough defensively that it doesnt subtract from his overall rating as a player. Trammell is a borderline case. he compares well to some SS candidates from the earlier years but in modern terms he is questionable. Hornsby is a clear choice at 2nd.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

One could make a case for Nap Lajoie - I mean, Cleveland did name their team at the time after him and all.

I can tell you that there are a gang of players from that era that have no business being in the Hall of Fame that could have held the jock strap of Jeter, Trammell, Larkin, or Dave Concepcion for that matter.

You know from personal observation?