NightmaresDad
Woody Rules!
This is an incredible suggestion about an incredible infield and I second this nomination with incredible force!Mr. Incredible said:
Especially if you count offense as well as defense.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Sloopy45
- Start date
Especially if you count offense as well as defense.
Brutus1
Don't be penurious, donate to the BP Spring Dr.
That depends. Are you talking about adding defense to the equation ?
I guess, since Soriano leads major league 2nd baseman in errors, I'd say no.
For power though, they're pretty impressive.
If you're talking defense, I believe the Mets had a great D in either 98 or 99.
Olerud,Alfonzo, Ordonez and Ventura.
That Indians lineup was pretty good, too.
I guess, since Soriano leads major league 2nd baseman in errors, I'd say no.
For power though, they're pretty impressive.
If you're talking defense, I believe the Mets had a great D in either 98 or 99.
Olerud,Alfonzo, Ordonez and Ventura.
That Indians lineup was pretty good, too.
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
The Orioles of the Brooks Robinson years
The early 80's cards with ozzie..
Reds already mentioned
I think some of those Brooklyn Dodgers teams were good..
I personally don't think the Rangers guys would fit anywhere near the top 25. They are all too young and less experienced.
Iguess depends on what your criteria is. One year wonders? Offense? Defense? Do you include the catcher - I do. Offense AND Defense?
Plus it is hard to compare different decades...game changes so much.
The early 80's cards with ozzie..
Reds already mentioned
I think some of those Brooklyn Dodgers teams were good..
I personally don't think the Rangers guys would fit anywhere near the top 25. They are all too young and less experienced.
Iguess depends on what your criteria is. One year wonders? Offense? Defense? Do you include the catcher - I do. Offense AND Defense?
Plus it is hard to compare different decades...game changes so much.
Upvote
0
Honor&Glory
Paper,Rock, Scissors, Lizard, Spock!
The Dodgers infield of the 70's was one of the greatest of all times, but was overshaddowed, at that time, by the Big Red Machine
Russell
Lopes
Cey
Garvey
I think they all played together for like 10 years, to boot.
Russell
Lopes
Cey
Garvey
I think they all played together for like 10 years, to boot.
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
Mr. Incredible: "The Big Red Machine infield of Concepcion, Rose, Perez and Morgan."
That's probably better. 2 Hall of Famers, 1 should've been, and a perrenial All-Star SS. Statistically they don't match the power & RBI production of the Texas infield, tho'. Much better defensively tho'.
BuckStocksHere: "The Orioles of the Brooks Robinson years"
I'd take the Texas infield offensively over the Orioles. Plus, I can't even name the 2B on those teams. 1 through 4 on the infield, Texas is way better. Defensively, its not a contest: Baltimore all the way.
"The early 80's cards with ozzie.."
Not a chance. Offensively its not even close. Tom Herr, Jose Oquendo, Jack Clark, & Ozzie? Jack the Ripper is the only decent (underline: DECENT) offensive player in the bunch.
"I think some of those Brooklyn Dodgers teams were good.."
Snider-Robinson-Reese-& who else? Again, 1 through 4 not as good, altough 1 thru 3 are all HOF'ers ..
That's probably better. 2 Hall of Famers, 1 should've been, and a perrenial All-Star SS. Statistically they don't match the power & RBI production of the Texas infield, tho'. Much better defensively tho'.
BuckStocksHere: "The Orioles of the Brooks Robinson years"
I'd take the Texas infield offensively over the Orioles. Plus, I can't even name the 2B on those teams. 1 through 4 on the infield, Texas is way better. Defensively, its not a contest: Baltimore all the way.
"The early 80's cards with ozzie.."
Not a chance. Offensively its not even close. Tom Herr, Jose Oquendo, Jack Clark, & Ozzie? Jack the Ripper is the only decent (underline: DECENT) offensive player in the bunch.
"I think some of those Brooklyn Dodgers teams were good.."
Snider-Robinson-Reese-& who else? Again, 1 through 4 not as good, altough 1 thru 3 are all HOF'ers ..
Upvote
0
souL
I.bulldoze
Lots of journeymen played up the middle with these two stars (both future HoFers?). Ray Durham held down 2b for most of the time, and Ozzie at short.BuckeyeNation27 said:
In '96, when Frank hit a robust .349/40/134, Ventura had a .287/34/105, Durham hit .275 with 30 steals, and Ozzie was Ozzie. Didn't swing a big stick, but had a .981 fielding% (mighta been a gold glover that year, but Omar Vizquel was at the height of his ridiculousness), and Ventura was a Gold Glover. I'd say that was the best the infield ever was, and then it was great, but nothing super-special.
The corner infield was outstanding, but up the middle the Sox were average for most of the 90s.
My favorite Sox infields (though I never got to see them) contained Luis Aparicio and Nellie Fox.
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
The problem with those comparison is that you can't compare offensive statistics from now, with those from back then. It's a different era. Different parks. Juiced ball? Perhaps. Too many factors.
What you can compare is defense. The more overlooked side, but at least equally important in a discussion of all time greats.
The problem I have with the Rangers infield is 1. They are too young to compare with some of these, which doesn't allow for a big enough pool of statistics to compare with. 2. Their defense doesn't compare with any of the top infields of all time. They are most assuredly a top flight offensive infield in today's game.
The Orioles had gold gloves a plenty
The Cards I was thinking of the '82 team actually who beat my Brewers in the World Series. It was Keith Hernandez at 1b, Tommie Herr at 2b, Ozzie at SS, Ken Oberkfell at 3b(had to look that one up), Darrell Porter at C. Obviously Ozzie is the greatest SS defensively I've ever witnessed(kudos go out to Omar now) and won a gazillion Gold Gloves. Keith Hernandez was arguably the greatest fielding 1b, and Herr was very good manning 2b.
Brooklyn (had to look up as I wasn't even born)- 1b Gil Hodges, 2b Jackie Robinson, SS Pee Wee Reese, 3b Billy Cox, C - Roy Campanella. What I read in a blurb on them was this - First baseman Gil Hodges, second baseman Jackie Robinson and third baseman Billy Cox had the best fielding percentages at their positions, respectively. Pee Wee Reese had topped the NL the year before, and catcher Roy Campanella was the premier fielding catcher of the 1950s. Maybe someone who was around then could comment further.
I've actually just started looking deeper into the fielding stats.... I'll have to get back to you on that to guage where the Texas boys stand. (Beware the small sample size!)
What you can compare is defense. The more overlooked side, but at least equally important in a discussion of all time greats.
The problem I have with the Rangers infield is 1. They are too young to compare with some of these, which doesn't allow for a big enough pool of statistics to compare with. 2. Their defense doesn't compare with any of the top infields of all time. They are most assuredly a top flight offensive infield in today's game.
The Orioles had gold gloves a plenty
The Cards I was thinking of the '82 team actually who beat my Brewers in the World Series. It was Keith Hernandez at 1b, Tommie Herr at 2b, Ozzie at SS, Ken Oberkfell at 3b(had to look that one up), Darrell Porter at C. Obviously Ozzie is the greatest SS defensively I've ever witnessed(kudos go out to Omar now) and won a gazillion Gold Gloves. Keith Hernandez was arguably the greatest fielding 1b, and Herr was very good manning 2b.
Brooklyn (had to look up as I wasn't even born)- 1b Gil Hodges, 2b Jackie Robinson, SS Pee Wee Reese, 3b Billy Cox, C - Roy Campanella. What I read in a blurb on them was this - First baseman Gil Hodges, second baseman Jackie Robinson and third baseman Billy Cox had the best fielding percentages at their positions, respectively. Pee Wee Reese had topped the NL the year before, and catcher Roy Campanella was the premier fielding catcher of the 1950s. Maybe someone who was around then could comment further.
I've actually just started looking deeper into the fielding stats.... I'll have to get back to you on that to guage where the Texas boys stand. (Beware the small sample size!)
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
sears3820: "The Brewers in the early 80's had a pretty decnt infield with SS Robin Yount, 3B Paul Molitor, 1B Cecil Cooper, & 2B Jim Gantner."
This was actually one of the groups that popped into my mind when thinking up infields to compare with Texas. The '82 Brew Crew was an offensive machine: Cooper, Molly, & Yount all had 200+ hits that season, Ted Simmons (Catcher) had 23 dongs & 97 RBI, 4 guys had 100+ RBI (Yount, Cooper, Ogilve, & Gorman Thomas), and three of the infielders hit over .300 with 100+ Runs.
Luca: "Sloops I thought you were a lock for Koenig, Lazzeri, Dugan, and Gehrig...."
Actually I was leaning towards the '98 Infield of the Bam-Tino, Knobby, the Captain, & Scotty Too Hotty.
BSH: "I've actually just started looking deeper into the fielding stats...."
Please don't bother. Fielding stats are the most useless things since the Pet Rock. Does it really matter if a guy has a .957 FP compared with a .965?
This was actually one of the groups that popped into my mind when thinking up infields to compare with Texas. The '82 Brew Crew was an offensive machine: Cooper, Molly, & Yount all had 200+ hits that season, Ted Simmons (Catcher) had 23 dongs & 97 RBI, 4 guys had 100+ RBI (Yount, Cooper, Ogilve, & Gorman Thomas), and three of the infielders hit over .300 with 100+ Runs.
Luca: "Sloops I thought you were a lock for Koenig, Lazzeri, Dugan, and Gehrig...."
Actually I was leaning towards the '98 Infield of the Bam-Tino, Knobby, the Captain, & Scotty Too Hotty.
BSH: "I've actually just started looking deeper into the fielding stats...."
Please don't bother. Fielding stats are the most useless things since the Pet Rock. Does it really matter if a guy has a .957 FP compared with a .965?
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
I woulda mentioned the Brewers but then my homerism would have showed up. Obviously, I like them the best just on a fan level since that is who I grew up with.Sloopy45 said:
Fielding stats are useless? Ah, your mind has been clogged with offense. Are you on steroids?
I guess I will just be safe and say Soriano is a freakin black hole on defense - balls come to him but never get out.
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
BSH: "Fielding stats are useless? Ah, your mind has been clogged with offense. Are you on steroids?"
I never said that FIELDING was useless, I said that FIELDING STATS are useless. I put more of a premium on defense than the average baseball fan does.
The best argument I always make for fielding stats is Wade Boggs. Boggs was a slightly above average 3B with slightly above average range. But, he had great hands & never threw a ball away. Therefore, he led the league in FP each & every season & even won him a Gold Glove or two. But, he was never as good as Nettles, Robinson, Brett, or even Schmidt at the hot corner. That's how those stats can be decieving.
"I guess I will just be safe and say Soriano is a freakin black hole on defense - balls come to him but never get out."
Believe me, I know firsthand that Soriano is a boot. I don't need a number to tell me that.
I never said that FIELDING was useless, I said that FIELDING STATS are useless. I put more of a premium on defense than the average baseball fan does.
The best argument I always make for fielding stats is Wade Boggs. Boggs was a slightly above average 3B with slightly above average range. But, he had great hands & never threw a ball away. Therefore, he led the league in FP each & every season & even won him a Gold Glove or two. But, he was never as good as Nettles, Robinson, Brett, or even Schmidt at the hot corner. That's how those stats can be decieving.
"I guess I will just be safe and say Soriano is a freakin black hole on defense - balls come to him but never get out."
Believe me, I know firsthand that Soriano is a boot. I don't need a number to tell me that.
Upvote
0
BuckStocksHere
Semper Fi!
ANY stat can be deceiving. Even OPS and what not can be led astray by not taking into account home park factors etc...
Stats can generally by twisted for each persons own use....
I still think Nettles was the best I ever saw at 3B. But it is obviously subjective.
A lot depends on who you actually saw, who you read about, who you only saw highlights of...etc.
BTW - gold gloves are as ridiculous as all star votes. They mean very little and the right person doesn't necessarily win.
Stats can generally by twisted for each persons own use....
I still think Nettles was the best I ever saw at 3B. But it is obviously subjective.
A lot depends on who you actually saw, who you read about, who you only saw highlights of...etc.
BTW - gold gloves are as ridiculous as all star votes. They mean very little and the right person doesn't necessarily win.
Upvote
0
Sloopy45:
So what do you think about Range Factor?
While fielding percentage, and so errors, doesn't take into account a guy being slow and not getting to a ball (and hence possibly not getting an error on a hard play), range doesn't take into account field conditions, pitching styles, etc.
I like range vs. range of other players at the same position for the same team in the same year (backups), and then looking at the overall range for the two players over a year or two. Then you can usually get a good idea of a guys defense.
I know Yankees tend to hate range, as when the big Jeter v. Nomar v. Arod battle was going on back in the day, around 2001, Jeter was always near the bottom of the pack for shortstops in range stats. . . (but good on errors - the reverse of Nomar IIRC)
So what do you think about Range Factor?
While fielding percentage, and so errors, doesn't take into account a guy being slow and not getting to a ball (and hence possibly not getting an error on a hard play), range doesn't take into account field conditions, pitching styles, etc.
I like range vs. range of other players at the same position for the same team in the same year (backups), and then looking at the overall range for the two players over a year or two. Then you can usually get a good idea of a guys defense.
I know Yankees tend to hate range, as when the big Jeter v. Nomar v. Arod battle was going on back in the day, around 2001, Jeter was always near the bottom of the pack for shortstops in range stats. . . (but good on errors - the reverse of Nomar IIRC)
Upvote
0