Greatest player by decades

[kenndoza (archived)]

Great column Rich. I like your point about why the decades of our lives (I assume we're all about 30-50 years old) don't seem to have the specific superstar possibly because we watched the fade.

I notice you didn't include Joe Morgan in the 1970s discussion. He had a couple of MVPs if I recall, and played the whole decade. He's at least part of the discussion. I think the winner, if not Pete Rose, has to be Reggie Jackson. He was *THE* superstar of the 1970s for two different World Series teams, and he delivered not only during the post-season, but I think he won at least a couple of MVPs. Plus he was my favorite player as a kid.

I grew up in Kansas, and in the 1980s, there was no superstar greater than George Brett. I was never a huge fan of the Royals, but I would certainly vote for Brett over Dawson (who I will never forgive for striking out with the bases loaded against the Giants in the 1989 playoffs). Schmidt and Dale Murphy (talk about someone who faded) are also legitimate choices. Unfortunately the stardom of Dwight Gooden, Roger Clemens, and Ryne Sandberg missed out on a significant part of the first half of the decade, or else they'd be included. Cal Ripken, was ROY in 1982 and MVP in 1983, so he should be there too. And I have no problem with voting Rickey Henderson over all of them.

1990s has to be Bonds, although many people would vote for Griffey, as he's more popular. And if we're counting pitchers, Clemens, Maddux, and Randy Johnson all should be considered.

2000s - is it Pujols? A-Rod? Vladimir Guerrero? Bonds again?

Here's an interesting question: who will be the biggest superstar of the 2010s? He's probably around 22 right now and might not be in the majors yet, but I suppose he could already be there.

[Demreb]

Kenn, I know what you mean about Joe Morgan. As much as I can't stand him on Sunday Night Baseball, I respected the heck out of him when he played (usually while he was killing the Cubs). I did look at him, but what I noticed was he had two totally killer years (1975 & 1976). In fact those were the only two years he batted over .300 in the '70s.

In addition his RBI and Hit total were pretty pedestrian for at least four of the years. He's more of a leadoff guy, you say? OK, agreed. But even his runs scored total was for three years of the decade.

What I did was look at the candidates in a decade. I then added up their RBIs, Runs, SBs, BA and HRs and ranked them against each other. The leader for the decade in HRs got a "1", second place got a "2" and so on. Low score wins, just like in golf (or like my bowling scores). I figured it covered the range of a ballplayer's talent. If they stole and scored a lot of runs, but didn't homer, they could still make an impact. It's unscientific to be sure, but all the players were graded the same way.

The only thing this measure didn't accomplish was somehow giving credit to a guy who may have totally dominated in one category (i.e. Henderson in SBs), but I wasn't sure if that was even necessary.

When Matt and I were talking about things in general, we were trying to figure out who dominated each decade start to finish. It wasn't easy to accept that Schmidt didn't qualify as much as I thought because he didn't start playing until '72 and didn't have his breakout year until '74. Looking back, when I think of the '70s, Schmidt is a big part of the domination (but maybe that's because he hit about 300 homeruns against the Cubs that decade).

I certainly agree with your other points and maybe this thread will expand beyond what I wrote and people can argue for the player they support beyond just the five categories I graded them on. There could be arguments for a guy because he was great defensively as well as offensively, so when you put the whole player together that guy was better. Or a better clutch player. Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

[kenndoza (archived)]

I definitely wouldn't vote for Morgan for the 1970s, but I figure he was part of the discussion. Much like Willie Stargell in 1979 and Kirk Gibson in 1988, he didn't always have the best numbers, but you just *knew* he was the best. Of course his dominance was slightly before my time. And also he gets points deducted just for being the blowhard he is today.

I did just read BALL FOUR and it's interesting how he's described because he was just so young back then and seemed destined for stardom but wasn't quite there yet (this was 1969).

I'd probably do my rankings the same way you did, but I think you'd have to add a completely subjective sixth category - intangibles - which would make the Reggie Jacksons and Pete Roses of the world come out a little better than the Andre Dawsons and Robin Younts who earned their stardom mostly outside of the national spotlight. During my childhood, I'd say the three biggest stars were Reggie, Pete Rose, and George Brett (and given my geographical location, Brett may not belong in that group). Guys like Schmidt, Dale Murphy, Dave Winfield, and Don Mattingly were just about on that level given the year (and Winfield only when he was a Yankee). Ripken and Henderson and Sandberg and Yount were a little behind them. Then you've got guys like Andre Dawson and Tim Raines. They may have been just as good, but no one outside of real baseball fans (i.e. 12-year-old boys) knew who they were. I'm sure I forgot others. Purely subjectively (and I realize I'm mixing up decades here), that's how I'd rank them in that sixth category.

[Demreb]

BALL FOUR, BALL FOUR PLUS BALL FIVE & I'M GLAD YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY are all excellent. Bouton also co-wrote a book about an umpire that throws a baseball game (can't remember the name of it off hand. It's buried in my Baseball Books Box in the basement).

Not to turn this thread into a book review, I know what you're talking about with intangibles. And that is what makes this line of discussion so awesome. We each have our biases (either because of personality, geography or whatever) as to who had "it" and who didn't.

The one correction I want to make is that instead of HRs, I used TBs (that's how Rose was so valuable) to evaluate players.

In reading your assessment of the '80s players, when you hear the names of Dawson, Brett, Mattingly, Winfield, etc. they don't grab you the way Mays, Aaron and Mantle do. That's what makes it so tough to decide who deserves to be called the player of the '80's.

As for the player of the 2010's, good question. You could point to Reyes, Cabrera, Fielder, but that would be too easy. You're probably right that the player may not even be in the majors yet. Could it be McCutchen? Patterson? The Rebels certainly hope so.

[MGrage]

demreb said:

As for the player of the 2010's, good question. You could point to Reyes, Cabrera, Fielder, but that would be too easy. You're probably right that the player may not even be in the majors yet. Could it be McCutchen? Patterson? The Rebels certainly hope so.

Well, if you believe the scouts, I'd have to put Justin Upton in pole position. Mahalo

Matt

PS. Hello from hot and humid Manila guys. I finally made it. YAY!

[kenndoza (archived)]

Hot and humid Manila guys? What have you been doing over there? ;D

[Demreb]

Or maybe the question to ask is "Who have you been . . ." ah, nevermind. This is supposed to be a family friendly site.

Glad that you made it safely Matt! Try the roast platypus. I understand it tastes like chicken.

[MGrage]

DOH! Well, I think the phrase "What happens in Bangkok, stays in Bangkok" certainly applies. And Rich, isn't the platypus just a big mutated chicken anyways? Mahalo

Matt