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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ruth the pitcher and hitter
 

Rogers Hornsby was the best.

He was the greatest right handed hitter of all time

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.

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.

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.

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! :D

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.

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:zz: I needed to laugh this afternoon as some of what I have seen today is beyond repulsive.

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?)

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.

You know from personal observation?

Morgan was a better player IMO.

He was great and I despised the Big Red machine.

Melky can be a bit repulsive

While there are still great races, cards, days, etc. the quality of top horses simply doesnt match up anymore in most cases. It is like saying that that a triple A game is the same as a major league game because the score was close. Both may be entertaining events that you had a good time watching (or even betting on) but when push comes to shove you know that the AAA game isnt the same as the majors. Horses like Einstein, while nice horses that are versatile and game, simply arent much better than AAA all stars posing as major leaguers. He and Commentator are far from great horses yet have had longevity which allows them to add to the their list of accomplishments against other less than stellar competition (for the most part) but have never been considered or done anything truly extraordinary. Our society loves lists and all time greats and other rankings. Racings current problem is that historically the modern "stars" simply dont measure up no matter how hard we try to accept the new reality of horseracing.

That's why they need to watch the older races and get an appreciation for the great stars of the past.. If they are only exposed to what's happening now.. they'll have a very flawed view of what greatness in racing is..

No, but even considering the changes in eras, I don't see how anybody could logically argue that Phil Rizzuto, Johnny Evers, or Bid McPhee were truly HOF caliber players.

All I know is that Bob Gibson would have struck out Skip Away every time he faced him.

Who's pretending? Should I submit the list?

I understand what you're saying, and don't completely disagree ( last year's Alabama was as good as it gets from a lot of perspectives ). However, it would be nice if people had a better sense of history.

Come on, Steve, you were as outraged as anyone when Jess Jackson was talking about Curlin being the best of all time. You have to be slightly less subjective and look at the bigger picture.

True but i thought maybe you were really old

He may have plunked him a few times too

Commentator is a laimo with a lot of talent.

Einstein wouldn't win a nice listed race in Europe nevermind a Group 3

Kip Deville is the Okie bred version of Lure I guess lol

Music Note is a plodding slug

Indian Blessing is certainly a worthy G1 filly and a pleasure to watch

Get a grip Steve this a a sorry list.. You forgot Premium Tap and Grasshopper..How could you?

:zz:

as for the latter, i'm thinking secretariat would have still won by 31.


there are two things todays horses have in common with the best ever. ancestry, and having four legs.

Freddy, do you have any hobbies that you actually enjoy? Besides call girls I mean...

Do you realize I listen to 12 plus hours of ATR a week watch at least 40 races a day.. I love racing as much as anyone Steve. Your love for the game is wonderful as is many of us.. How you can think that list represents anything special is disheartening. Could Einstein get with in 15 lengths of Candy Ride, Would Music Note be close to a Winning Colors. Kip Keno couldn't have qualified for the BC mile in 87..Miesque would have been hosed down before he got to the wire.. Come on and tell it like it is.. Racing hasn't had a real star that wasn't Media made in a while.. Mind you I loved Smarty to death but even he was a bit of a paper tiger.

Best horse I have seen in a while is Zarkava..Now that filly was a star

I agree with Steve. The "I was there" card is cool the first few times, and then it just gets old...and makes whoever's saying it seem old too. We get it, the newer horses can never compare to the old....move on already. Some of us appreciate the history, and there's always going to be the wing nuts that think the latest horse is the "best ever", without a clue as to the history of what they're talking about. Educating the younger fans (in a nice way) is the way to go, instead of alienating them...JMO.

All I can say is that when the NFL went on strike some years ago and they played a few games with replacement players, I watched but I didn't pretend that the players were anywhere near the level of the NFL guys. I wasn't going to sit there and appreciate them for what they were, accept that they were as good as we had at the moment, and be happy with it. We want to see the best. Simple as that. You can't argue in one breath that we can't compare the horses of today to the horses of yesteryear because they aren't as good as they used to be and we should just embrace what we have......then in the next breath argue that we shouldn't change the TC because it should be as it always has been and we shouldn't accept a watered down champion. Which way do you want it? If you are acknowledging that the good horses of today aren't as good as they used to be, why are you so intent on continuing to ask them to do the same things as those before? If you are going to hold the Big Brown's and Mine that Bird's to the same standards as the Secretariat's and Affirmed's, then how can you fault us for holding the champions of today to the same standards as the champions of the past? People argue that you can't change the TC because of tradition but then you are telling us to forget the past and accept them for what they are today.

have you completely lost your mind?:D Roberto was clutch!

i love Einstein! he just shows up and runs his guts out. does whatever he has to, to win.:tro: he's star that should be promoted as one.
we can remember the old days but try to root for the stars we have now. or try to make new stars.

I hope the NFL goes on strike again. Maybe the Skins can win another Superbowl.