i don't need a single stat to know ozzie was the BEST fielder - i saw with my own eyes a thousand times
You saw every SS in every game for the past 125 years? Amazing. I'm more impressed with Ozzie's 5.03 vs. a league avg. of 4.10
Since this is not BigBaseball, I'll just take the Pele question. It's one thing to argue stats, what ifs against potential opponents, strength of leagues, etc. However, people don't want to acknowledge the intangibles. Of course, it wouldn't matter if we're talking average players but for arguing the best of the best it matters most. It is in the intangibles that pushes Pele to the top. When Santos stopped at a new city, people did anything they could to attend the match. Civil wars were temporarily halted so that people can watch Santos. Santos also made it possible for South American clubs to play against European clubs, in what is now the Intercontinental Cup. Before, no one in Europe cared about S. American clubs (I think many have that attitude today). People knew then that "Gasolina" was a special player, even before the 1970 WC. He remains the standard in which future players want to measure up with. Yes, Maradona was a footy genius in his own right and a natural talent. But let's face it, if it weren't for Pele, Maradona would have never played in Naples. Pele, along with some other good Brasilian players, made the rest of the world open their eyes to the forest of talent in South America. That's an intangible that's worth more than goals scored or shots attempted. So Maradona was as much a beneficiary of Pele's impact on world soccer as every other South American who was able to ply his trade at the Euro clubs. Even if Pele was never allowed to play in Europe until it was too late, it wouldn't matter if people in Europe thought that South American players were crap. There would never be an Intercontinental Cup if it weren't for Pele and Santos. Deal with it. I guess it's because people here have a bias against those who like to play attractive, sexy footy. Or to put it in a better way, futebol. The way a player can guess how the opponent would react before they react. That's not something that can be taught at the local soccer youth camp. People get so hung up on whether he really scored those goals that it's no wonder that they can't appreciate a brilliant soccer mind. But whatever.
And I'm still jumping in the boat. Go figure. Outfield defensive stats do not compare in importance to infield defensive stats. Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski, Brooks Robinson and those guys did much more to prevent hits than the best fielding outfielders. Range helps cover for inadequate, lead-footed fellow outfielders who are on the roster to provide defense - fine. But for the most part, outfield range eventually bumps into either the infield's bailiwick, foul territory, the other outfielders, or a home run. You can't compare an infielder snagging a certain line drive hit to a center fielder covering a gap. Especially in a stadium like Fenway Park. Willie Mays really did cover acreage, because he had to. But Fenway? That outfield isn't any more challenging than any other park, Green Monster or no. I'm not saying Dom sucked, but it isn't like his defense was so wonderful that the Red Sox had a dynasty, or anything. And it isn't like he played in obscurity, or was an overlooked player. I don't see why running a few stats through the blender outweighs the contemporaries who actually saw the guy. And Joe really was the far better player.
Are you for real? Uruguay won 2 world cups before Pele was even in his teens, Stabile was the top scorer of a WC and Italy pilfered about a dozen players from South America to win 2 WCs and you're telling me people had no idea there was football in SA? Oh, man, not another one. The guy could kick the ball a little better than other guys and you make him sound like he should be given a Nobel prize of some sort. It's a game, for crying out loud, don't make it sound like it's fucking high art.
Nowhere did I discredit the 2 Uruguayan WC conquests. Now, I'm not an expert on world immigration matters but I know that between the last decade of the 19th Century and the third decade of the 20th, SA received millions of people from southern Europe. Most of them went to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. By 1930, there would be still millions of first-generation migrants still alive. Since players living back then weren't that far removed from the experiences of relatives who still lived in Europe, players coming out of that era were regarded as "European" or came close enough to be pilfered, as you put it, as one. Even today, players who are four or five generations removed from those who migrated to SA can be eligible for EU passports, provided that they meet certain criteria. However, I can say with some relative comfort that people in Europe thought that the REST of SA couldn't play jack. It was a different era back then. There were surely those who thought that other non-Europeans couldn't play the game. Pele had three things to deal with: He grew up very poor, in a rural part of Brazil; Brazil suffered the heartbreak of WC 1950; and, well, he's not European, Argentinian nor Uruguayan. With those obstacles, he managed to overcome them and became the greatest player to kick a ball, as you so eloquently put it.
Bill Buckner deserves HOF consideration too......the METS HOF! Haha. Boston continues to svck. But it's really what New Englanders thrive on. If they were ever better than the Yankees they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Until Dom is considered a better CF than his own brother, don't even think about putting him in the same class as Mays. Your rose-tinted Sox glasses are causing dementia.
i'm more impressed by watching fielders than looking at their stats - and how many times did you see dom dimaggio play in person?
This is just so bogus I can't believe it. OF stats meaningless? Yeah, right. So are all stats. So is everything, Dan. The universe. It's all meaningless. His contemporaries put Dom into the All-Star game every year. If I recall, you made fun of the people who DID actually see him every day. No, you're thinking about people who saw one great catch 49 years ago.
As usual, you have no good arguments. Joe DiMaggio admitted that Dom was a totally superior fielder. I've never said that Dom was a better hitter, though he was a damned good leadoff man.
I'm not because you can only witness a tiny fraction of games. Remember, this all started because Dan made fun of the knowlegeable fans that actually saw Dom play.
You know, this really is absurd. Mays covered acreage but didn't f-ing catch the ball???? Good, Dan. Wonderful argument. You realize that should make Mays' stats BETTER?! Gee, let's see. ARod is the best player in all of baseball and can't lift Texas out of last place. Did you have a point?
Ok, my two cents: Dom should be in the HOF, but he was not better then Joe, Mantle, Mays or Snider. Read up and everyone says that. On Dom vs. Mays: Dom had a much smaller centerfield to cover, thus making it easier to get to more putouts. Now the shortstop situation: Ozzie is the greatest defensive shortstop to ever play the game...no question! A fielder with good range will make more errors due to the fact that they effort for more difficult balls. Take a look at some of the best fielding pct. of all time and then look at the number of chances. A lot of those at the top didn't field anything unless it was right at them. So in summery: Dom-In but not #1. Ozzie-the best. Range=more errors. and finally Joe Jackson should be in the HOF and he is the greatest ever!
I said he was a better FIELDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truly, this is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever encountered. More ground to cover should translate into more POs, not less. Mays only played six years in NY and had MORE POs there.
And Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Does that make him the best hitter of all time? Translation: Mays played CF forever. Thanks Pizza, we already knew that.
Ben, if you only have a smaller area to cover then it is easier to get to the balls. It's the same as the range issue, the more you have the harder it is. It is actually a pretty simple concept.
Hey, I'm the one with all the hooks in my mouth. Compared to outfield putouts, catch/punches are saves, and secondary assists are hat tricks. No, Red Sox marks put him in the All-Star game every year. You recall correctly. Red Sox marks. No, I'm thinking of the people who voted on him five years after he retired...then six years after he retired...then seven years...then eight years...then nine years...then ten years...and on to the present day. And he had a short enough career that he would have been fresh in their minds. But you're more impressed by the fact that he remembered to bring his glove out to center field. So he caught more balls than he dropped. May I refer you to the legal precedent of National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum v. Big Fucking Deal.
Please dig up ANY article that says Dom DiMaggio was a better fielder than Willie Mays. Just one. I'll even let you scour the Red Sox sites out of fairness (or unfairness). Run along and see what you can dig up. We'll be waiting..........
Ugh, this is beyond moronic. It boggles the mind. It's not like Mays is going to stand on the warning track. Ok, here are some FACTS (you know, the things baseball "fans" on Bigsoccer really dislike) Mays range factor in the Polo Grounds: First six seasons in the Polo Grounds 3.02 3.38 3.05 2.83 2.82 2.91 First six seaons in Candlestick Park: 2.66 2.56 2.70 2.57 2.45 2.32 Gee, there goes your theory...
I'm waiting for an article that specifically says Mays was a better fielder than Dom. They played in different eras so nobody made those comparisons. Dom was the best fielding CF of his era. Better than Joe DiMaggio.
No, the problem is you're not thinking. Richie Ashburn didn't make the Hall until 1995. Fielding is usually overlooked. Writers are also more impressed with all-time numbers by guys that play forever. Two-strikes against Dom. He'll make the HOF eventually.
Sorry instead of going by some stat that some stat geek made up I tend to go by what the experts (great players and managers) say, and this is it. I'll bet if you dig hard enough you can come up with a stat that proves my point. When it comes to these invented stats adding this and subtracting that divided by this other thing you can make anything look any way you want it. Everyone knows (experts included) that a player who covers more ground has a better chance to commit errors, thus lowering fielding pct. and having fewer putouts. Dispute this with actual theory not just some geek numbers.