Greatest Yankees?

Oooops , you are reaching now. Because Meusel and Cobb were worse fielders that doesn't make Ruth a good fielder - errors are errors. Yeah their gloves were small but errors are usually caused by a misjudgement of the flight of the ball or the bounce of the ball or an errant throw.

And one cannot deduce speed because of extra-base hits. Gap power or the ability to pull down the lines also cause extra base hits. In 2006 Nicky "pass me the fries"Johnson hit almost 50 doubles and he'll never be confused for Usain Bolt. Boog Powell and Frank Howard and Willie Stargell had a lot of extra base hits would you want to be on a relay team with them?

Tommy - boy.....reading too much hyperbole again. Ruth was a terrible fielder, making 75 errors from age 23 to 29 in the outfield. And baserunning ? he was thrown out 50% of the time he attempted to steal. He's lucky he was a great hitter because he almost gave away as many runs as he produced.

Yeah, but compare those errors to his peers - Bob Meusel (good
fielder, fine athlete) made more errors than Ruth in the NYY outfield,
and speedster Ty Cobb made 271 errors! And have you seen the gloves
they wore? I'm not saying Ruth was a great base stealer, just that he
was a good runner in his 20s and the extra base hits bear that
out....as do the accounts of that era.

OK even if I say Ruth was an ok runner and fielder lets compare him to Arod (and forget the PEDs for a second)

Hit /Power - ruth
Hit/avg - ruth
speed - arod
glove - arod
arm - arod

good line with the jenny craig, but how do you square that with having
david wells on your long relief list?

Thanks Dave......I'm not saying fat players can't be great. Ruth certainly is an All Time Yankee and distanced the competition. But he was not a 5 tool player. He was a terrible fielder and baserunner. Mostly because of his lack of speed due to his girth.

David Wells was a great Yankee for the time he was with the Yankees, because of his freakish rubber arm, he could get out of bed and pitch a shut-out after pitching the previous day. His contributions to the championship teams cannot be denied. Had he been better conditioned and not such a sleazebag he would have had a longer and better career as a Yankee. He too would have benefited from Jenny Craig and AA meetings.

The older men I have known that are objective about the game all gush about Ruth but they also admit that after his first 5 years he fell prey to the vices of fame and his "all-around ability" (five tools) dissipated quickly.

Au contraire mon frer - Ruth was a fantastic strong-armed fielder and
a daring baserunner for all of his 20s, slowing in his 30s.
Statistically, look at the SB's, put outs, assists, triples and
doubles - they drop off rapidly after 30. Sure, he was dissipated and
fat by his 30s but as a pure athlete, Ruth would still the best in the
game today. He was not fat in his 20s.

certainly ruth merited more mvps, but there was no mvp award between 1915-21 (the
chalmers award was discontinued after 1914)-
and the award between 1922-1929 specifically stated that previous winners were not
eligible.
the modern mvp award originated in 1931. while ruth had excellent seasons in 1931 and 1932, he was topped in 1931 by lefty grove (31-4/ 2.07era, won pennant), and topped in 1932 by jimmy foxx (58hr,169rbi, .364)

by any objective standard ruth would have been mvp favorite in 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921,
(he did win 1923), 1924,1926, 1927 1928, 1929 and 1930.

Excellent point - certainly from '20 onward yeah, he would've netted a bunch of 'modern' MVP awards.

Enough with the ghost worship. Unless you saw both Ruth and Arod play you can't compare. During that era if the ball bounced over the wall it was a homerun. Ruth was just fatter than the rest of the league. Mass X weight = Distance.

You can't tell me Ruth was a comparable 5 tool player unless the 5 tools were hot dogs, beer, flappers, cigars and puttin' on the ritz.

Now you're just being silly - Ruth was clearly a 5-tool player, and
dropped with his skills as a 19-year-old on the Red Sox, he'd have
similar success. Read up! Baseball is a game of history, really the
one major sport where stats across the eras are roughly comparable....

Read up ? What a condescending thing to say, from someone with such a silly smile. Don't believe everything you read. There are many Scientologists that believe in a book that says we are descendants of aliens.

My grand father said Ruth was the best but he was not a good outfielder and was a bad baserunner. My father said he wasn't anywhere close to the all-around players Mays and Mantle were. I say if he were to be dropped into todays game he'd be competeing for a spot in Trenton and attending weekly Jenny Craig and AA meetings.

Actually, Ruth was a 6 tool player because he was a dominating pitcher!

Which just goes to show you how ridiculous baseball was back then. The best pitcher was also the best hitter , sounds like 10 year olds' little league.

Not really a fair analysis, it's not like there were a ton of players even then, at least past the dead ball era, who were great hitters AND great pitchers Ruth was Ruth.

Exactly there were not a ton of good athletes period. Which allowed a big strong guy with some hand eye coordination and a good arm to dominate.

Sports have grown there are more skilled players and athletes have evolved to a point where they can do things previous athletes wouldn't have ever dreamed of. Todays athlete runs faster, is more coordinated, hits further.....improved diet, conditioning,training...

Babe Ruth pointing to CF and hitting a HR for a sick boy, its a nice story, but it never happened. Willie Mays's over the shoulder catch was a can of corn for Tori Hunter, Whitey Ford was softball pitcher compared to CC.

Hee hee - CC Sabathia better than White Ford, now that's hilarious!
He's never even won 20 games and with that body how many years does he
have left, 4-5? He's alright good but probably won't be HoF.

Torii Hunter easily making the Mays catch! Theater of the absurd - maybe in N2K.

You might factor in a smaller population and fewer teams to play for -
but also a much larger minor league system. It was just as competitive
- if not more so - to be a HoF caliber major leaguer. Plus, no
drugs....

Whitey was on the best team in baseball for 15 years and only won 20 games twice and thats before pitch counts, quick hooks and 5 man rotations. Big deal.

CC was only on two good teams, the 2007 Indians and the 2009 Yankees and both seasons he won 19. The rest of the time he was on a horrible Cleveland team and still averaged over 15 wins per season. Drop him on the 50/60 Yankee teams with 4 man rotations and he wins 250 easy. HOF first ballot.

Whitey was only 5' 8" and 165lbs and never threw a ball over 80 mph. Drop him in today's game and he's throwing batting practice.

Regarding no drugs - Mickey, Willie and the Duke used to pop greenies like they were chiclets. (ref: "Ball Four") God knows what the Babe was smoking in those cigars.

Frank Baker weighed 165lbs and he led the league 3 times in homeruns with less than 15. They were small. white, weaklings. No competition. The only decent ball was being played in the negro leagues.

C'mon Sabathia's not making the Hal with 210 wins and 2,500 K's -
maybe if he enjoys a real long career, but I doubt he will. Nothing
against him, terrific pitcher. But just 'cos he's a huge specimen,
doesn't make him better than Whitey Ford.

Yeah, the majors were disgracefully all white pre-47 and the Negro
Leagues were top quality - but it's pretty clear from all the
barnstorming and exhibition games - taken seriously by the players -
that the top players were pretty much equal (which should surprise
exactly no one).

I think you're overrating today's top players, who are roughly
equivalent to their forebears - and don't forget, the majors of the
30s 40s and 50s didn't really compete with pro football and basketball
for the nation's best athletes - they got 'em.

It's undoubtedly true that conditioning and preparations have changed dramatically leading to guys who run faster, etc. But there's no doubt that if you drop a player of the 30s into the modern regime, and he does the same things modern players do, he'll be just as good as ever: humans haven't evolved so much in 100 years so that physically they're that different (evolution doesn't move that fast). Human's aren't "more coordinated". It's all controllable stuff that makes today's atheletes different--diet, conditioning, practice (baseball wasn't even a 12 month job for the players of the past, most had to work in the off season). That doesn't make the players of the past any worse in ability, just in practice regime.

(It's like golf. The equipment is dramatically improved, guys hit it farther, but does that mean Arnold Palmer or Ben Hogan or Jack Nicklaus aren't as good as Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson. I don't think so.)

Furthermore, I don't think pitching has changed at all (obviously there have been rules changes, physical changes to the mound and the stadiums, changes in approachs to innings pitched/relievers, 4 man vs. 5 man rotations etc). but look at the speed of a pitcher's fastball--that's the thing they say in baseball that "you can't teach" and in fact there were guys who threw 100 mph with in the 1930s and earlier (Bob Feller, Walter Johnson, Smokey Joe Wood, etc) and there were junk ballers whose balls moved as much as the guys today, and both types of pitchers got outs (and the old guys had to go more innings and start more often). A great slop baller of the past could still get guys out today and a great fastballer of the past would still throw as hard today. And size has nothing to do with it. Pedro Martinez 5' 11" 170, Bob Feller 6' 185. Little guys have thrown just as hard as big guys now and then. And hitters of the past had to be able to hit those same pitches--fastballs, curveballs, knuckleballs, whatever. Where there more junk ball pitchers then and more fastball pitchers now? I don't know, you'd have to make a very granular study. But getting outs is getting outs no matter how you do it and you can get into the hall of fame with a knuckleball and suck with a 100 mph fastball.



We know both intuitively and empirically that what the difference are betweeen then and now, but I don't at all think it makes nearly as much difference as twasp does--

Its harder to see the difference in players from different eras in baseball than it is in basketball for instance. Baseball players dont touch the ball as much as basketball players(except pitchers of course), dont get a chance to showcase their skills as much within one game. You can go a whole week or a whole month without being able to tell if Melky Cabrera can field or not. But watch one game and you can see that Shaq is more coordinated then any other big man to ever play the game. Basketball players jump higher, run faster, are better dribblers, more coordinated then generations past. Its the same in baseball and hockey and football just not as obvious. Watch a basketball game from the 50's they couldnt dunk, barely got off the ground when they rebounded,didnt jump when they shot, most could barely dribble the ball more than 5 steps. Its like watching a pick-up game at the Y.

I don't see it the same way at all. First of all Olajuwon was by far the more atheletic, graceful, and coordinated big man I ever saw, way more mobile and atheletic than Shaq. Second of all just because the way the game is played has changed--above the rim vs. below the rim--doesn't mean the guys who played it in the old style were worse atheletes. (There were always all kinds of atheletes in the game. One of the two or three greatest basketball players I ever saw was Magic Johnson and he couldn't jump either.) Third, when I see old baseball films I see the same game played by less muscular players, I don't see lesser atheletes playing a lesser game

The thing about talking about old baseball is that we can project on it anything we choose. You choose to project on it the notion that the past is so much worse than the present that it deserves to be dismissed. Your choice. I just don't agree with you.

"First of all Olajuwon was by far the more atheletic, graceful, and coordinated big man I ever saw, way more mobile and atheletic than Shaq."

When Hakeem gains 50 lbs and can dribble the ball up the court like Shaq, go behind the back, between the legs and cross-over to beat a guard to the hoop , talk to me. But that wasn't really the point was it? My point was its more obvious in basketball how more evolved the players are, and how the level of the game has improved. They simply couldn't jump, run.dribble or shoot the way they can now. You can see it with your eyes. There weren't 7 ft players like Garnett, Ewing, Olajuwan, Nowitzki etc. you drop those guys into the 50's and you've got 40 Russell/Chamberlains. Russell was blocking shots of guys taking one handed set shots. Wilt was as mobile as a lampost , finger-rolling over guys 8 inches shorter. Same goes for baseball, Im surprised you don't see it. Did you play basketball?

"That doesn't make the players of the past any worse in ability, just in practice regime. "

True, but since they didn't have those things none of them were able to reach there full potential....leading to an inferior brand of baseball and an inferior level of sports in general. If you watch some basketball, the 50/60s players couldn't even dunk the ball. When the playing field is dropped to that low a level an outlier with freaky proportions can succeed vs the norm and be considered great when in fact it was due to his freakish size. Chamberlain, Ruth etc.. if Chamberlain was 6'7' or Ruth was 165lbs ......you would have never heard of them.

(It's like golf. The equipment is dramatically improved, guys hit it farther, but does that mean Arnold Palmer or Ben Hogan or Jack Nicklaus aren't as good as Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson. I don't think so.)

If we were talking aluminum bats and superior gloves I would agree. But diet, conditioning etc changes their inert abilities make them more flexible,coordinated, faster, improves their stamina ...... imbeds in their DNA and changes the athlete they are and their childrens abilities. (notice the amount of professionals who have sons who also make the majors against all probability charts).

(A great slop baller of the past could still get guys out today and a great fastballer of the past would still throw as hard today. )

Pitches today break much sharper than in the past, and at much different angles. New pitches have been developed that didn't even exist back them. Cutter, slider...And the avg fastball is much faster. Back in Ruths time nobody threw 95mph, now everyone but Javy Vazquez can.

Evolution has also gone that fast -- look at the avg home built in the early 1900's in New England - if you walk through one and you are 6 ft you have to bend over like you are in a cave. The avg height/weight,strength have increased dramatically.

Compare the olympic records in every category 1920 vs 2000's - significant differences
And it does make a big difference when playing the game where a fraction of a second changes a strike to a homerun, a safe at home to an out at home.

Hey, it s nice to believe in the good old days and rocking chair stories. And its nice to be baseball historians and quote Dizzy Dean and Shoeless Joe. But they don't stand a chance against a modern player. Not because they weren't great in their time , but because more people play, more people play at a higher level of ability and time improves every science.

Yeah - Im kidding. Unfortunately a whole decade is not comparable because of PEDs. Im seriously in favor of a separate wing of the HOF for known roid users. Otherwise how do you figure out what to do with players like Arod and Pudge Rod ?

Jason - respect your opinion immensely. Lets get Tom's opinion!

I think Jason mainly disagrees with you assessment of me!

I'd dismiss Cone, Clemens and Wells as 'great Yankees' pretty much out of hand. Cone and Wells weren't great players, period - much less great Yankees during their tenures. Very good? Sure. Key parts of championship teams? Fine - but so were Bobby Ojeda and Sid Fernandez.

Clemens was a great talent, and was also crucial to those Yankee teams but on my list, he doesn't make it - 'cos it's 100% his late career surge was medically-induced. So screw him and and bullpen cart he rode in on. I hope we live to see him behind bars, and there's a chance of that.

Of all the names bandied in this thread, Posada's the closest. He's no Berra or Dickey (or Thurman if he'd lived) but he's very close - but short in my view - of Hall of Fame credentials. He is gritty - I like the guy, and I'm a Mets fan.

Cone, Clemens, Wells were all major contributors to Yankee championships - that gets them in the door regardless how long or how well they played for other teams,

Its impossible to compare era's based on stats. Bill Dickey is a ghost - they didnt even keep stats on GDP and PBs on him in the 30's thats why you see a zero. You're going on heresay, legend. wives tales and old men's hyperbole.

Posada's passed balls are heroic, a testament to his kahunas, the guts, grit and determination of a warrior who despite his flaws continued to battle his defensive demons to become a champion.

And I'm not desperate to be in the company of greatness, I already am.......on this site.....with Tom Watson...who's concise, quick-witted and often brilliant replies show his all knowing smile is not a false facade.

What can I say. I couldn't disagree more.

4 years isn't long enough, especially as a percentage of Well's 21 year career I think... 6 years is closer...Clemens, he did win a Cy Young with the Yanks, maybe, though again, he spent twice as long with the Sox and pitched better there too. Cone I'm not sure is good enough, though his numbers may stack up with Raschi, Reyonlds and Lopat, etc. I'd have to look, I didn't really think past the guys I thought had the best Yankee careers on my initial list.

I also don't have any issue with trades and free agency--in fact, I cherish free agency, the reserve clause was unAmerican and unethical. But a guy has to have a substantial career in pinstripes to be an alltime Yankee...A-rod's just approaching that I think in his seventh year, when he will have played as many seasons with the Yanks as elsewhere (more if you consider his first two seaons in Seattle were as a part time kid call up). Yeah, it's the free agency era, but there are also guys like Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Mo, Mauer, etc... who still spend their entire careers in one place, or substantial amounts of prime career time with a single team.

With respect to players of the past vs. players we saw, well, I'm sorry, but Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Lazzeri, Ford, Berra, Dickey--those guys were just better than Winfield, Mattingly, Bernie, Willie Randolph, Pettittte, Posada. I'm not saying there aren't contemporary players as good as players of the past--though their greatness by comparison probably does deserve a steroid-era asterisk---but in Yankee history you have to be the greatest of the great to suplant the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio.

I don't agree with the idea that you can't compare players across eras and that in order to evaluate players you have to compare them to their contemporaries. You have to do both--how great are they compared to the reference standards, and how great were they compared to their peers?

Ruth obviously is the reference standard and did things his peers couldn't do (though he only won a single MVP surprisingly). Other guys on the Yankee all time list put up big career numbers in the absolute AND won multiple MVPs, clearly marking them as being first among peers. That's a lofty standard to meet but that's the standard you need to me to be among the greats in Yankee history. The bar's not as high for other franchises.

I think people so desperately want to believe they are in the presence of greatness--the players they watch are the best, the performances they see are the most transcendent--that there's a kind of inflation that goes on. In my lifetime in music and theater performances I've seen standing ovations go from rare, heartfelt responses to great performances, to de rigeur rituals nearly every night. And there's a tendency among baseball fans to find explanations--pseudoscientific and otherwise--to explain why we can't compare eras and, therefore, a lesser performing player we saw must be as good as a better performing player we didn't. Bah, I say! Greatness is greatness. We are certainly in the presence of all time performers--players I saw made my greatest Yankee list, I saw guys play sports like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Magic and Bird--who I'll be able to tell my grandkids about. But just because I saw Posada and not Dickey doesn't make Posada better, that's a weird, self-centered way of looking at history. DIckey clearly was the better player. He didn't have as much power as Posada, but he was a way better hitter in every other way and he was a great defensive catcher--at one point in the 30s he was the first catcher to have no passed balls in a season. Compare that with Posada, the king of the passed ball!

Jason - you need some middle relievers, spot starters and some bench players:

BP
- Mike Stanton LH
- Jeff Nelson RH
- Goose Gossage RH
- Sparky Lyle LH

Long Relief/Spot Starters
- Roger Clemens LR
- David Cone LR
- David Wells LR

Bench:

- Dave Winfield RHB
- Ricky Henderson PR
- Don Mattingly LHB
- Phil Rizzuto UIF
- Jorge Posada C

There you go - now you have a full squad of 25.

Well, I'll take Dickey ahead of Posada as a second catcher, and I'm not sure how much I consider Cone, Wells, and Clemens as Yankees. Can't really argue too much with the rest of the choices.

Wells, Cone,Clemens - 4yrs,6yrs,6yrs.Free agency, deals....we've got to accept it. I saw Cone, Wells and Clemens pitch for the Yankees, I rooted for them... and they won championships. That's enough for me.

Mike Stanton couldn't make the Triple A of greatest Yankees. Nor Jeff Nelson for that matter.

Fair enough. Yeah, the game has become super specialized, but what we call middle relievers today they used to call failed starters once. Any number of Herb Pennocks, Red Ruffings, Allie Reyonldses, Vic Raschis and Eddie Lopats would get those spots on a theoretical roster.

What is this "The Sweet Hereafter"? Enough with the ghosts. Lets put in some people we saw perform and do very well for the Yankees.