[baseball] my all-time major-league lineup, second team
Submitted by Nick Vane on Tue, 10/22/2002 - 04:30
Tags:
- Rogers Hornsby, 2B
- Cap Anson, 1B
- Ted Williams, LF
- Babe Ruth, RF
- George Brett, 3B
- Joe DiMaggio, CF
- Alex Rodriguez, SS
- Yogi Berra, C
- Sandy Koufax, SP
- Dennis Eckersley, RP
I was wondering about the criteria here (and on your first team). I mean, these were all great players in their day, but how many of them could truly compete with today's players? (ARod excluded). It seems that today's players are all bigger, stronger, faster and have to play day-in and day-out against stronger competition. Just curious.
that's a good question. I dunno. Yeah, today's players are larger, bulkier, and generally more "talented" than yesteryear's stars. But part of my reluctance stems to include them from a few reasons.
First off, things are quite easier for today's stars in a lot of ways. Improvements in travel, nutrition, and specialization of jobs have all contributed to today's players' shape. Baseballs are replaced before they get too scuffed, mitts are larger, and there's a pitcher for every inning past 5.
Second, ballparks are smaller today. In an effort to crowd in more seats, dimensions are decreasing. Nowadays utility infielders can slug 25 home runs a year with no problem.
Third, and this may be unfair, but I suspect that most of today's players are using some kind of illegal substance. I don't want to reward a Barry Bonds, as well as he has blossomed of late, for putting dangerous things in his bloodstream. Look at a picture of the 180-pound Mr. Bonds when he was a Pirate, and look at the gigantic 38-year-old who hit 77 freaking home runs in 2001.
Fourth, I don't think competition is necessarily stronger. Fewer people are going into baseball as a career, yet the number of major league teams is nearly double the number up to the 60s. Players would see each other far more often when each team only played 7 others, as opposed to 14 in one league, and five others due to interleague play.
but that doesn't totally answer your question. I picked my teams based on overall game. I tried to pick men way who performed way above their league. Anyone can hit 40 home runs today. It took true talent to do it back in the day. But I also tried to pick players renowned for defense as well (Mays, Campanella, Musial, DiMaggio). I wanted players with drive that could compensate for any flaws (Hornsby). I wanted a pitcher who was a proven workhorse with control (Johnson), not today's pitcher with a slightly better fastball but no endurance.
I chose A-Rod because everyone's had nothing but high praise for him since he broke into the majors. Everyone seems to think he's pretty special, so I made room for him on the second team.
If I had to think about it, I'd probably re-jigger the teams based on overall chemistry or something like that. Like a real team.
I don't know. I guess I don't know that people like Bonds are taking drugs. From what I have read, the man works out every day, several hours a day. Players in the past didn't work out like that.
I have a feeling that even the worst starting players today are better than the average or above average players of 50 years ago, but that's just my feeling.
ok, it is unfair of me to make sweeping assumptions, but you look at Barry of ten years ago compared to now, and the man has just grown. A lot of players have taken similar leaps in size and ability. I just find it hard to believe that baseball can change this quickly at an organic pace. How we go from 45-50 home runs leading the league to Sammy Sosa suddenly strgining together 60-home run years, Brady Anderson hitting 50 HRs as a leadoff hitter, and even typical shortstops bashing 30 homers.
Can someone tell me how to make a misc.post?