Top 5 6 all-time Yankees CFers

What does Sheets's "new medical report" mean?
Once more unto the Andy Pettitte breach

For your Saturday morning enjoyment, the Daily News has a feature on the top five Yankees center fielders of all time. Except they copped out and had No. 1 as a tie (gee, guess who), so it’s really the top six Yankees CFers of all time. Me? I’d go Mantle, DiMaggio, Combs (look at those gaudy numbers), and Bernie. Tough call between Rickey and Bobby, but I’ll give Bobby the benefit of the doubt because he played in New York longer.

What does Sheets's "new medical report" mean?
Once more unto the Andy Pettitte breach
  • Mike Pop

    Can you even judge between the Mick and Dimaggio? If the Mick didn’t get hurt he would of been a definite top choice for all time CF in Yankee history but he struggled at the end and ended up below 300. He was so awesome, had it all. Speed, power, hit for average. Wish I could of saw that guy play. Wish I could have seen Dimaggio play also.

    • Joe

      Mike, I saw Joe D at the end of his career. I remember him as the most graceful athlete I ever saw. I saw the Mick through his entire career. He was awesome. A great combo of speed and power (man he could fly down that first base line). He could bunt with the best of them. I remember him dragging bunts and beating them out. I think Joe was the better fielder. Remember also he lost some prime years while serving in WWII. Mick had raw power. He could hit the ball out of any part of the stadium (that is the old stadium with the real death valley). They were both GREAT.

      I’ll take Bobby over Rickey any day. Bobby always gave 100%.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

        I’ll take Bobby over Rickey any day. Bobby always gave 100%.

        I never got this argument. If Rickey only gave, let’s say, 78%, but his 78% was still better than Bobby’s 100%, wouldn’t you rather have Rickey? Rickey at half speed/effort is still way better than 99% of all baseball players ever.

        George Bush gives 100%. I’ll still take Barack Obama’s 50% over that any day of the week. Effort should always take a back seat to results, IMO.

        • Mike Pop

          No way, I’d take Nady who gives it his all him LF over Manny at 70% any day of the week……..Not!

          • Mike Pop

            him in

        • Whitey14

          Don’t you want to wait to see what Obama’s 50% would be before making that statement? After all, this is a guy who seemingly was more concerned about his fucking Blackberry than his new job as leader of the free world. I’ll give him the same 180 days I’d give any other person elected President before making my judgement, but he isn’t impressing me so far.

          At any rate, this goes back to something I posted in another thread last week. Why, if a guy is supremely talented, a la Manny/Rickey, are we willing to accpet less than their best efforts? What the hell does that say about us as a society? I think it says we don’t have very strong principles and when somebody is good at something we let them get away with things they shouldn’t rather than forcing them to give the same effort as everybody else.

          • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

            “Why, if a guy is supremely talented, a la Manny/Rickey, are we willing to accpet less than their best efforts? What the hell does that say about us as a society? I think it says we don’t have very strong principles and when somebody is good at something we let them get away with things they shouldn’t rather than forcing them to give the same effort as everybody else.”

            I agree.

            Yet I want Manny on my team. As long as he gives 100 percent here that is all I care about if he is on my team while he is on my team.

            As far as me speaking on Bernie in this topic. I never thought Bernie did not feel he was giving it his all. Most people think they are trying their hardest when they do something but they really are not. I do not give everything in my life my all and that is a problem I am trying to address. But everything that I ever really cared about I did (or if I did not, I looked back and thought maybe I could do more)

            A close family member of mine played baseball as a kid much like Bernie Williams. I tried to train him to be less hesitant, but his personality was not of a Pete Rose type.

            Give me a Pete Rose type, a Bob Gibson type of guy with equal talent to a guy like a Bernie and I take the first type and I think everybody else would too. My main grip with Bern is that I think he could have been an all time great in the game. His athletic talent was not ever a question and he is obviously not a dim bulb. I just wise he had that need to be the best.

          • Andy In Sunny Daytona

            You have the most appropriate name ever.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

            Why, if a guy is supremely talented, a la Manny/Rickey, are we willing to accpet less than their best efforts?

            Because you don’t win anything with “effort”. You win with results. Doesn’t matter how hard I try, I’m not beating LeBron James one on one.

            Take any combination of talent and effort you want: whichever combo produces results is the one that matters in the end. David Eckstien can hustle his ass off all he wants, I’ll still take easy, breezy Jose Reyes over him 8 days a week and so would you.

            • Whitey14

              Wrong, I’m perfectly happy with a Jason Bay over a Manny Ramirez. One is supremely talented and performs when he wants to. One has talent and works his ass off to get the most out of it (and doesn’t disrupt the clubhouse/lockerroom/dugout with his spoiled baby antics)

              I may not be the best example for this argument because I stand by my principles every day, not just when it’s convenient. I never looked the other way when Manny was acting up. I found it embarassing.

              You are right though, most people would take the talent over the effort, but that speaks to my point about the lack of principles in our society today and we as sports fans are just a microcosm of society.

              • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                “One has talent and works his ass off to get the most out of it ”

                From what I’ve heard from anecdotal “evidence,” Manny is an incredibly hard worker when it comes to putting time in at the cage and prepping for playing. Just because he looks laid back doesn’t mean he’s lazy and doesn’t try.

                “You are right though, most people would take the talent over the effort, but that speaks to my point about the lack of principles in our society today and we as sports fans are just a microcosm of society.”

                So you’d take Eck over Reyes?

                • Whitey14

                  Manny is a hard worker in the cage and it translates into great batting stats, but he doesn’t just look laid back out in the field, he’s a lazy fielder.

                  Yes, resoundingly, I would take Eckstein over Reyes if there is evidence that Reyes doesn’t always give his all. Besides, hasn’t Eckstein won two World Series to Reyes’ zero? Doesn’t seem as though he keeps his teams from winning big games even though he has less natural talent.

                  If Reyes was already on my team and he wasn’t giving it his all, I would discipline him continually until he did so on a regular basis. I’m not about stroking egos and allowing “star” players to give less effort than those less talented. Anybody that would, or does, should be ashamed of themselves. But that’s just my opinion and I realize it’s most likely the minority opinion these days.

                • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                  “Yes, resoundingly, I would take Eckstein over Reyes if there is evidence that Reyes doesn’t always give his all. Besides, hasn’t Eckstein won two World Series to Reyes’ zero? Doesn’t seem as though he keeps his teams from winning big games even though he has less natural talent.”

                  Luis Sojo has four WS rings. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks have zero. So, Sojo must be better, huh? World Series victories are a TEAM accomplishment. Jose Reyes could very well have a WS ring if Carlos Beltran wasn’t still waiting for a fastball from Adam Wainwright.

                  Jose Reyes is a slightly above average fielder and a slightly above average hitter. David Eckstein is below average at both. All of his effort does not make him a better player.

                  “If Reyes was already on my team and he wasn’t giving it his all, I would discipline him continually until he did so on a regular basis. I’m not about stroking egos and allowing “star” players to give less effort than those less talented. Anybody that would, or does, should be ashamed of themselves. But that’s just my opinion and I realize it’s most likely the minority opinion these days.”

                  Every manager would discipline a talented player who wasn’t hustling–both Manuels do it with their SS’s routinely–so spare us the soap box. Picking the better player or allowing that player playing time isn’t “stroking egos,” it’s doing what’s going to give your club the most wins. Picking the little SS who could over his better hitting, better fielding counterpart won’t give your team wins.

                • Whitey14

                  My point was that David Eckstein doesn’t keep his team from winning games as evidenced by being a part of two World Series Champions, and maybe Jose Reyes lack of hustle (which you intimated, not me) does. Did Reyes’ lack of hustle cost the Mets any wins this year? What if it did and the total of games it cost them was four? Or what if it only cost them two games, but they were both against the Phillies?
                  I’m sorry if you think I’m on a Soapbox, but I refuse to defend any superstar player who doesn’t give his all. I think we all have a right to expect players to do their best when they are physically capable, not just when they feel like it.

                • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                  Yeah, teams win in spite of Eckstein. He isn’t that good. In fact, you could make an argument that he’s bad.

                  The Mets blew 29 saves this year. Not Jose Reyes’s fault. I used those two because TSJC brought them up in a prior post. He struggled late in the year but I think that has a lot to do with the fact that he burns himself out too much early on and isn’t the greatest at taking a walk, not because he doesn’t hustle.

                  And more on the Manny point–just because he is a bad defender doesn’t mean he’s lazy. Derek Jeter is a bad defender but no one would dare call him lazy. The two are not one and the same.

                  I only feel you’re on a soapbox because in multiple comments you made it sound as if no one would ever choose character over talent.

                • Whitey14

                  “Yeah, teams win in spite of Eckstein. He isn’t that good. In fact, you could make an argument that he’s bad.”

                  He’s a solid, hustling, inexpensive ballplayer and that is why teams continue to sign him.

                  “The Mets blew 29 saves this year. Not Jose Reyes’s fault. I used those two because TSJC brought them up in a prior post. He struggled late in the year but I think that has a lot to do with the fact that he burns himself out too much early on and isn’t the greatest at taking a walk, not because he doesn’t hustle.”

                  That’s a different issue. You’re avoiding answering the question about Reyes by shifting focus to the bullpen.

                  “And more on the Manny point–just because he is a bad defender doesn’t mean he’s lazy. Derek Jeter is a bad defender but no one would dare call him lazy. The two are not one and the same.”

                  Have you ever watched Manny play? I’m guessing if you had we wouldn’t be debating this point. He’s lazy on the base paths and lazy in the outfield, period.

                  “I only feel you’re on a soapbox because in multiple comments you made it sound as if no one would ever choose character over talent.”

                  I said “But that’s just my opinion and I realize it’s most likely the minority opinion these days.” You must have read it wrong to get out of it what you’re claiming.

                • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                  “He’s a solid, hustling, inexpensive ballplayer and that is why teams continue to sign him.”

                  He’s not solid. He’s well below average with his bat and he’s also below average with the glove.

                  “That’s a different issue. You’re avoiding answering the question about Reyes by shifting focus to the bullpen.”

                  Because I believe Jose Reyes (or Wright, or Delgado, or Beltran) didn’t cause the downfall of the Mets. If anything is Reyes’s fault, it’s burning himself out early (by hustling to get all those steals) and not being patient enough at the plate. Those aren’t non-hustle issues.

                  “Have you ever watched Manny play? I’m guessing if you had we wouldn’t be debating this point. He’s lazy on the base paths and lazy in the outfield, period.”

                  Manny is not a fast player, that’s why he’s not good on the base-paths or in the OF. He has incredible flashes of brilliance (high fiving the fan in Baltimore was the highlight of the season) in the field but generally just doesn’t get to balls.

                  “…but that speaks to my point about the lack of principles in our society today and we as sports fans are just a microcosm of society.”

                  That seems pretty soapboxish to me.

                • Whitey14

                  Do you think any Mets games were lost due to Reyes not hustling? It’s a simple question? Theoretically, if he cost them four games (or two games against the Philles) he cost them a spot in the playoffs. Now if you want to pin some of the blame on the bullpen, fine. You say they blew 29 saves. I agree. Good enough for you?

                  You clearly haven’t watched Manny play enough. Slow has nothing to do with why he’s a poor outfielder or a bad baserunner. It has everything to do with lack of hustle, admiring long singles/doubles at home plate and lackadaisical play in the field. If you think him high fiving a fan in the stands was the highlight of the season you’re clearly watching baseball for some other reasons than I am. If I wanted to watch rediculous antics from me-first athletes, I’d watch the NBA.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                You are right though, most people would take the talent over the effort, but that speaks to my point about the lack of principles in our society today and we as sports fans are just a microcosm of society.

                It’s not a “lack of principles”, it’s a difference of opinion about what’s important.

                It’s not poorly-principled of me to want Manny Ramirez over Jason Bay, as you would argue, because I feel baseball is a competition and what’s most central to that competition is to field a team that is capable of producing results, not how hard your team tries. A team full of Manny Ramirezes is a better baseball team than a team full of Jason Bays, because they’re better at playing baseball. What’s important is what the players are supposed to do. They’re not being paid to like each other or chew sunflower seeds the right way or sign autographs, they’re paid to play baseball.

                You say it’s unprincipled to condone a player not giving full effort. I say it’s ill-principled to demand that a player be judged on mercurial and, ultimately, immaterial concepts like “effort” rather than simply judging them on results.

                That’s sorta what the 100% of Bush vs. 50% of Obama thing was: obviously, you’re right in saying that we can’t judge Obama yet, but George Bush was a damn horrible president but he tried really hard to be a good president. He gave max effort, but ultimately, he wasn’t smart enough/wise enough to make the right decisions. If you watched his exit interviews, it’s clear he wants to be judged on effort and not results, and that’s simply inappropriate for us to do. How hard he wanted to make the right decisions doesn’t matter if he makes the wrong one, and a president who has the wisdom to make the right choices but doesn’t try as “hard” as Bush tried (I know, it’s a flawed analogy) would have been better.

                So, again, my question: if Rickey Henderson not trying hard and not giving max effort is still a much, much, much more productive ballplayer than 100% of Bobby Murcer, why would you not want Rickey playing at partial-effort? He’s still going to make more plays to help you win more consistently than Bobby Murcer. I don’t get that.

                • Whitey14

                  I understand what you’re saying about end results, but baseball is a team game and each player’s actions have an impact on all the other players. I know you can’t measure the negative impact somebody like Manny was having in the Boston clubhouse, but there is an impact that begins to erode a players positive contributions in the batter’s box when he’s lazy in the field and a spoiled brat in the clubhouse..

                  Also, it would be a team of 18 Jason Bays vs. 9 Manny Ramirezes, based on Salary, but even 9 on 9 Jason Bay would win because he hustles and plays defense which are two things foreign to Manny Ramirez on most days. Manny’s stats wouldn’t be as impressive playing against a defensive player such as Jason Bay and Jason Bay’s would be even better playing against a defensive player such as Manny Ramirez. Although I admit, this part of the argument is pretty stupid. We all know Manny couldn’t play the infield ;-)

                  It is about principles when you let somebody give you less than 100% effort just because he’s really good. You owe it to the team to make him play his best all the time because ultimately, that’s going to help you win even more games, which I believe is what prompted your initial comments about taking Rickey over Bobby Murcer.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                  It is about principles when you let somebody give you less than 100% effort just because he’s really good. You owe it to the team to make him play his best all the time because ultimately, that’s going to help you win even more games, which I believe is what prompted your initial comments about taking Rickey over Bobby Murcer.

                  You refuse to leave the hypothetical. Yes, we’d all love a Rickey Henderson who played all out all the time. My question to you is, would you rather have a Rickey who doesn’t play all out all the time or a Bobby Murcer who will crash through a wall for you but can’t possibly steal 100 bases or reach base at a 40% clip?

                  Because 9 times out of 10, your team with Bobby Murcer busting his ass isn’t going to beat my team with Rickey Henderson lollygagging for the first 6 innings and then drawing two walks, stealing second and third twice and scoring on two sac flies in the last 3 innings.

                  You call it unprincipled, I call it romanticization. You’d rather have a team that tries hard and has pluck and comes up short, but gave it its all, I’d rather have a team that is good and wins. We’re all here to win ballgames.

                • Whitey14

                  You sure are fun to argue with!

                  I’d be willing to try 9 Murcers vs. 9 Hendersons because every time Murcer got on base I’d send him against Henderson’s Johnnny Damon-like noodle arm ;-) Again , this is a ridiculous argument because it’s not Rickey Henderson against Bobby Murcer out there.

                  We just disagree and that’s okay. I like reading the stuff you post and you genuinely make me laugh on a regular basis. I’m going to back out of this one because neither of us is going to change the other’s mind and the proverbial dead horse has most likely been beaten enough.

                  Have a good night!

        • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

          “I never got this argument. If Rickey only gave, let’s say, 78%, but his 78% was still better than Bobby’s 100%, wouldn’t you rather have Rickey? Rickey at half speed/effort is still way better than 99% of all baseball players ever.”

          The point you never got is that if a guy is not giving everything he has all of the time you never know where you will be the one time you really need him. That is the point. It is like taking the worlds best rifle into a war but it jams 20 percent of the time, most people would take the second best rifle that almost never jams. That is the point when people say that.

          I am not arguing who was better here, but saying what you might not get.

          “George Bush gives 100%. I’ll still take Barack Obama’s 50% over that any day of the week.”

          Let us see what the new President does and does not do before we anoint the man a great President and World Leader. I wish Mr. Obama great success with his new job.

          “Effort should always take a back seat to results, IMO.”

          Results are the key but without full effort you can never fully count on getting the results you want even with supreme talent.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

            The point you never got is that if a guy is not giving everything he has all of the time you never know where you will be the one time you really need him. That is the point. It is like taking the worlds best rifle into a war but it jams 20 percent of the time, most people would take the second best rifle that almost never jams. That is the point when people say that.

            But you can turn that right back around as well. That second rifle may never jam, but it’s not powerful enough to make that shot to kill your opponent. 100% of not quite good enough is not necessarily better than 80% of excellent.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

            Results are the key but without full effort you can never fully count on getting the results you want even with supreme talent.

            And, without supreme talent, you’re almost assuredly NOT getting the results you want. You’re getting good effort, sure, but it’s not going to be enough.

  • Don W

    How can you rate Combs over Bernie!???

    Combs had a shorter career with an OPS+ 1 point higher than Bern Baby despite:
    1) Only playing during his prime production years. He didn’t come up until he was 25 and was done as a regular at 34.
    2) Having roughly 75% of the PA’s that Bernie had with virtually the same production.
    3) Having played in an era that, let’s be kind, lacked the depth of talent today’s game has. If you disagree please remember that Bernie would not have been allowed to play CF for the Yanks at the time due to his color. Add in Combs not having to face the situational relief pitching in today’s game and this isn’t even close. Bernie by a mile.

    Swing and a miss Joseph.

    • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

      Bernie didn’t have to put up with; the old strike zone, the mound higher, the spit ball, the head hunters (inside pitching). If you ever get to see some of the old games on tape…you ‘ll see what I mean.
      Bernie fits about where is has been rated.
      If guys like Mick, Joe D, Combs were hitting to day…they would be hitting .400 every year. My god just look at the strike zone and mound to-day…you can’t pitch inside and if one thinks the mound being lower isn’t a big deal, you are wrong.
      I liked Bernie a lot…but those others out classed him by a lot. From one who saw all of them play (except Combs).

      • Andy In Sunny Daytona

        Babe Ruth probably would have hit 1200 home runs, Ty Cobb would have .475 for his career, Ted Williams would have an OBP of .975.

        In basketball George Mikan would average 80 PPG and 75 Reb. Bill Russell would block 20 shots a game.

        In football, Red Grange would rush for 2500 yard a season, Sammy Baugh would throw for 6000 yards a year.

        It’s amazing how much stronger and faster and much more athletic players were long ago than they are now.

        • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

          Obviously this is all hyperbole but I think guys like Mikan, Wilt, and Russell would’ve come back down to earth a bit. I mean, those guys were literally giants for their time and there were very few 6’10”-7’+ players in the NBA back then. Now, those guys are almost commonplace.

          If Babe Ruth played in an offense that mimicked the 2000 Colorado Rockies, his career numbers would be:

          .383/.518/.771/1.289, 898 homers, 3132 RBI. The “neutralize stats” button on B-R is fun.

        • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

          What I am trying to point out is the differences in the era they played. Each era had it’s own roads to HOF or greatness. Comparing one to another can get very tricky.

          • Mike Pop

            Ranger, who’s better: The Mick or The Clipper?

            • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

              For me…The Mick!

              • Mike Pop

                Haha

    • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

      Don. Like the name, no so much your paper thing argument.

      “3) Having played in an era that, let’s be kind, lacked the depth of talent today’s game has.”

      Good god yall. Are you kidding me? We play in the most watered down time for baseball EVER. Even with the influx of players from other countries the kids in our own country that are top athletes more than half the time (that is a very conservative number) choose to play another sport.

      30 teams many of which only have one legitimate starter on them.

      Pitchers have had all of their advantages taken away from them in the last 40 years.

      Bernie played in a much smaller ballpark.

      The list goes on and on.

      Now I never saw Combs play so Bernie may have been a better ballplayer than he was (I doubt that he was better all around player but I would not doubt he had equal or greater athletic talent) but some of your rationale is really not all that rational.

      “Bernie would not have been allowed to play CF for the Yanks at the time due to his color.”

      And???? So because of that Bernie was better? Silliness.

      • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

        “And???? So because of that Bernie was better? Silliness.”

        He’s not saying that makes Bernie better. What he’s saying is that players of the early 20th century weren’t playing against a full slate of competition and that needs to be taken into account. Add the Negro League players (Gibson, Bell, Paige, O’Neill, etc.) and more Latin/Asian players and I guarantee you the landscape of baseball in the early 20th century is much different.

        • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

          “He’s not saying that makes Bernie better. What he’s saying is that players of the early 20th century weren’t playing against a full slate of competition and that needs to be taken into account. Add the Negro League players (Gibson, Bell, Paige, O’Neill, etc.) and more Latin/Asian players and I guarantee you the landscape of baseball in the early 20th century is much different.”

          I understand that, but that card is overplayed. American athletes, the cream of the crop are playing other sports now. They were not then. Nobody for the most part in the country cared about non college sports outside of pro baseball.

          How many potential quality baseball players are we losing to the NFL, NBA, and even Golf, skateboarding, skiing, vollyball, extreme sports, etc??? I think those numbers are far greater than the players who now play. Also the difference is back then you actually had guys who were as good or better than a lot of other teams players blocked in the deeper organizations like the Cards etc.

          Again I am not here to say Combs was a better ballplayer than Bernie or vice versa. I just think the so called logic to deem Bernie a better player was silly.

          On a side note Earle “Puffy” Combs was pretty nice on the dance moves and ad libs. He was the best hype man George Herman “Babe” Ruth ever had.

          • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

            “I understand that, but that card is overplayed.”

            I highly disagree. I barely ever hear any mention of it when people talk about great players of the early 20th century. I can’t recall one remark by a mainstream analyst or commentator “questioning” the validity of early 20th century baseball statistics.

            “American athletes, the cream of the crop are playing other sports now.”

            Good athletes =/= good baseball players. If they’re playing something else, chances are they’re better at it than they are at baseball.

            “How many potential quality baseball players are we losing to the NFL, NBA, and even Golf, skateboarding, skiing, vollyball, extreme sports, etc???”

            Probably not as many as you think, considering all of those sports take an extremely different skill set to be successful than baseball.

            “I just think the so called logic to deem Bernie a better player was silly.”

            The race argument wasn’t the whole argument. The baseball landscape, racial makeup aside, is incredibly different in Bernie’s (contemporary) time than in that of Combs, and arguably more difficult. There’s been incredible advances in medicine to keep players performing at a constantly high level (not to mention steroids), video scouting–advanced and in game, a broader base of competition, specialization, etc…

            • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

              ” I can’t recall one remark by a mainstream analyst or commentator “questioning” the validity of early 20th century baseball statistics.”

              You are kidding right? Ever hear Costas? Egg Head Gammons? The countless documentaries? WOW.

              “Good athletes =/= good baseball players. If they’re playing something else, chances are they’re better at it than they are at baseball.”

              If Deion Sanders or Bo Jackson had devoted their life to playing Baseball like they did with Football they would both be enshrined in Cooperstown. Yet I am not even talkinga bout just the upper echelon. If Dave Winfield came out of college today I bet he would be playing in the NBA or NFL not MLB.

              “Probably not as many as you think, considering all of those sports take an extremely different skill set to be successful than baseball.”

              The main thing they all take is hand eye coordination, quickness, and then speed. Seems like a lot of the same things.

              “The race argument wasn’t the whole argument.”

              Never said it was. I also agree that if weighted properly it is a very legitimate one.

              “The baseball landscape, racial makeup aside, is incredibly different in Bernie’s (contemporary) time than in that of Combs,”

              Yes and vice versa.

              “and arguably more difficult. There’s been incredible advances in medicine to keep players performing at a constantly high level (not to mention steroids), video scouting–advanced and in game, a broader base of competition, specialization, etc…”

              The advances in medicine may be keeping better younger players out of the game as well. The roids thing is a legit issue. Video scouting is a wash because it would help both sides, and again the smarter players, managers, teams will use it to their advantage like any tool.

              Specialization may have made parts of the game better, but it also has made for overall poorer quality baseball due to the fact that very few guys are complete players now.

              I once had a conversation with an ELITE MLB Closer. I will not name the guy but he won awards and was a top bullpen guy for a number of years. He pretty much told me that he was listening to music and drinking sodas and getting massages for most of the game and would then go out in the 7th to get loose. In the 8th he would start paying attention to the game a little bit. This guy was an intelligent guy and a great talent but because of the way the game is played now he was mentally lazy in my opinion. Like many modern ballplayers.

              I think if you are a top talent today and you play a thinking mans game correctly you stand out even more than a player of a previous time period.

              One thing I do think has greatly improved in the last 20 years is spectacular plays, diving, etc. That I think is highly due to the high light reel and more specifically ESPN Sportscenter / Baseball Tonight. Some of the specialization has improved the game but I think the after effects have been worse for the overall quality of play.

              • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                “If Deion Sanders or Bo Jackson had devoted their life to playing Baseball like they did with Football they would both be enshrined in Cooperstown. Yet I am not even talkinga bout just the upper echelon. If Dave Winfield came out of college today I bet he would be playing in the NBA or NFL not MLB.”

                Yep, Deion with his 89 OPS+ was a sure fire HOFer. Bo Jackson may’ve had a stronger case but even he wasn’t all that great at baseball. If Dave Winfield were smart, he’d be playing in the MLB because that’s where the most money is.

                “The advances in medicine may be keeping better younger players out of the game as well. ”

                How do you mean? But on this note, I’m very alarmed at the incredible rise in TJS’s for kids younger than 18. I remember hearing a report about 13 year old having it last year. Damn.

                “Specialization may have made parts of the game better, but it also has made for overall poorer quality baseball due to the fact that very few guys are complete players now.”

                Not seeing your point. Specialized pitchers aren’t supposed to be “complete” players–they’re specialists because theyre not complete. My point is, the chance of Combs seeing some fresh, nasty lefty reliever coming out of the pen to face just him was incredibly small.

                “This guy was an intelligent guy and a great talent but because of the way the game is played now he was mentally lazy in my opinion. Like many modern ballplayers.”

                What does that have to do with anything? You said yourself he was a “top bullpen guy” who won awards. Obviously that laziness had nothing to do with the quality of his pitching. Lazy ballplayers =/= bad ballplayers. Mo doesn’t go out to the ‘pen til the 7th, right? Would we call him lazy?

                “One thing I do think has greatly improved in the last 20 years is spectacular plays, diving, etc. That I think is highly due to the high light reel and more specifically ESPN Sportscenter / Baseball Tonight. Some of the specialization has improved the game but I think the after effects have been worse for the overall quality of play.”

                I think that’s because of the fact that defense has improved in just about every era of baseball. I mean, go back and look at the league averages for fielding even 20-30 years ago. The differences are incredible. Those plays could be also be attributed to faster, more athletic players with better range who are better trained and keep in better shape.

                I’m sure great plays like the ones we see on ESPN nightly during the season were made with some frequency in Combs’s time but there we just no cameras around–or at least not a lot.

                • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

                  “Yep, Deion with his 89 OPS+ was a sure fire HOFer. Bo Jackson may’ve had a stronger case but even he wasn’t all that great at baseball. If Dave Winfield were smart, he’d be playing in the MLB because that’s where the most money is.”

                  Again, if he had spent his career and life focusing on baseball I think he would have been an all time great. Deion literally jumped in and out of the game and it was never anywhere close to important to him in the way football was. You can not judge him off of his numbers when he never played compete seasons or was every really a baseball player. Bo put more time into baseball than Deion did, but still it was never his main focus.

                  If you and I threw darts with Bo and Deion and they had never thrown darts they would crush us. If they challenged the best dart competitors in the world they would not do well but they would not embarrass themselves. If they started with darts when they were 5, they would have been as good as anybody who ever chucked a dart.

                  “How do you mean? But on this note, I’m very alarmed at the incredible rise in TJS’s for kids younger than 18. I remember hearing a report about 13 year old having it last year. Damn.”

                  I mean that advanced medicine may be keeping names around the game who are known entities and thus keeping more talented younger players out of the game in some cases over the last 20 years or so.

                  “Not seeing your point. Specialized pitchers aren’t supposed to be “complete” players–they’re specialists because theyre not complete. My point is, the chance of Combs seeing some fresh, nasty lefty reliever coming out of the pen to face just him was incredibly small.”

                  Specialization is not just in pitching. I agree with that part of the argument. But that part I do agree with is partially nullified by the fact pitching is so watered down in recent times that the starting pitcher of yester year might have been as good or better than that fresh reliever you now have out there.

                  I was saying specialization in terms of position players as well and the fact some guys specialize in being a leadoff guy that can not bunt or move runners.

                  “What does that have to do with anything? You said yourself he was a “top bullpen guy” who won awards. Obviously that laziness had nothing to do with the quality of his pitching. Lazy ballplayers =/= bad ballplayers. Mo doesn’t go out to the ‘pen til the 7th, right? Would we call him lazy?

                  Mo is always out there working or thinking about what he would do in certain situations. Mo’s mentality and the way he approaches a game is as or more important than his cutter.

                  “I think that’s because of the fact that defense has improved in just about every era of baseball. I mean, go back and look at the league averages for fielding even 20-30 years ago. The differences are incredible. Those plays could be also be attributed to faster, more athletic players with better range who are better trained and keep in better shape.”

                  I think gloves are better and much larger. I think fields are better and more uniform in the last 50 years. Players may be faster and some may be in better shape, but if they are in better shape why do they get hurt so much more now?

                  “I’m sure great plays like the ones we see on ESPN nightly during the season were made with some frequency in Combs’s time but there we just no cameras around–or at least not a lot.”

                  People did not dive for balls all that much in the OF in the old days. You did not see as many spectacular plays as you do. But you did see more routine plays made more times than not.

              • Andy In Sunny Daytona

                BTW, There is no way that Dave Winfield would have played in the NFL. He never played football in college, we was drafted because he was a great athlete. The NFL would never waste a pick on him nowadays.

                • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

                  My point was not that Dave got drafted by the NFL. My point was he might have never played baseball in his youth like many top child athletes do these days.

                  Heck I would be a lot of the top athletes that could have been today are locked in their basement playing video games and eating frozen pizza and drinking artificially colored bubbly corn syrup drinks instead of playing sports.

                • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

                  NBA

          • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

            One has to remember, adding all those players would’ve been nice but…in the early 1920s they only had 8 teams in the AL. Therefore, you would have had the best players (not Black) playing anyhow.
            Also, not saying all those black players were not good (I saw a few of them myself) but, put a guy like O’Neill (with his great talent) on a AAA team of to-day and he would put up great numbers as he did where he played. Don’t go racist on me, people, Satchel Page pitched for the Brown (St.L) and a couple other teams when he was in his late 40’s (some say 50s) he was great (as a RP).
            If you take (let’s say O’Neill) and put him on a team (NYY) in the 40’s, he more then likely would be a very good player but, he didn’t play…so, one can always go “what if” all one wants to. Facts are as they are, we can’t change history…although some would like to.

      • Mike Pop

        Good god yall. Are you kidding me? We play in the watch the most watered down time for baseball EVER.

        • Mike Pop

          Damn HTML!!!!

          I was trying to say we don’t “play” in anything. We are mere mortals and we watch the game today.

          ARG

          • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

            I actually meant to say “he played”.

            • Mike Pop

              Siento, mi amigo.

              • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

                All good baby, baby.

                At times I may be delusional but I am not so far gone I think I am currently on anybody’s 40 man.

  • Clemson Rob

    Where’s Melky? ;)

    • Mike Pop

      In the Bottom 5! Zing

      • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

        It would be fun to put together a list of the bottom five. Anybody feel like doing that? When I meant it would be fun I meant for somebody else to put together and for me to read and take shots at.

  • http://www.puristbleedspinstripes.com Rebecca-Optimist Prime

    I’m not sure how you can choose between Mantle and DiMaggio…

    • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

      I would like to have the problem to pick between the two on the current roster. “UHM Joe take the day off and DH for us today, Mick you are in CF today, tommorrow you guys switch off again”

      That would be nice.

  • Chris

    I don’t know that I’d have Ricky on that list. Sure he’s good enough, but he only really played 2+ seasons for the Yankees as a CF.

    • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

      That is what I was thinking as well. Why not put Deion Sanders on there? He played a good 20 or 30 games in CF.

      I bet Rickey getting into the Hall and the cruddy CF options we have not is what sparked the writers idea of even doing this list.

  • http://amonthoffundays.blogspot.com Phil in LA

    Mickey was better than Joe. I think I’d put Bernie ahead of Combs. Combs didn’t come up till he was 25 and then retired when he started to decline, so, though he was a great player his #’s don’t reflect any acsension or much decline. As CF’s I’ll call Rickey and Bobby a draw. Bobby played like a Hall of Famer in CF for the Yanks in the early `70’s.

    • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

      “Mickey was better than Joe.”

      If this board was average age of 75, this would en cite a riot worse than the whole Bernie V Donnie thing I did not start yet was caught up in.

      • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

        You had to have been there, this is one time the numbers don’t tell the truth (or all of it). Taking everything into account, I would pick Mickey over Joe D., just because of their inter action with the team and the media. Joe was gruff and put off’ish, whereas, ask Mickey a question and you may not like the answer you get because he would tell you the truth none of this junk we get now days.
        Believe it or not, Mickey and Bernie had a lot in common, both; switch hitters, speed, great athlete, hand eye cor., and the biggie…neither one had a baseball players instincts. In their prime, I’d take any one of the bunch.

  • Simon B.

    It’s not until the last several years when I’ve realized the value of OBP that I’ve appreciated just how good Mantle was. Even in his declining days when he could barely jog on those knees, he still put pretty good hitting years. In his prime, he was as good as anybody.

    • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

      “In his prime, he was as good as anybody.”

      And his prime was marred by physical problems (bad luck, and his own poor life choices)

      • Mike Pop

        Hey man, he wanted to live life like a party. Thought he was going to die young like his father and and grandfathers. He still dies youg because of all the bad decisions he made but he was worried bout his life and thought it was going to be short. Definitely my favorite Yankee that I never saw play.

        • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

          Yup and all parties end. Some of the people I respect most in this world have said The Mick was the best player they ever saw. I still feel like he wasted so much, and that makes me feel sick when I think of it.

          • Mike Pop

            Definitely man.

  • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

    “Combs suffered a serious accident in July of 1934. On a day when temperatures exceeded 100 degrees at St. Louis’ Sportsman’s Park, Combs crashed into the outfield wall as he chased a fly ball. He suffered a fractured skull, a broken shoulder and damaged his knee. He was reportedly near death for several days and remained in the hospital for over two months. The next season, he attempted a comeback, but he suffered another serious injury. That injury (coupled with the knowledge that the Yankees were set to bring up a rookie center-fielder named Joe DiMaggio the next season) led to Combs’ decision to retire at the age of 36. He was offered a coaching job with the Yankees in 1936 and instructed his replacement (DiMaggio) on the nuances of Yankee Stadium’s outfield.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earle_Combs

    I am not big on wikipedia or even the biggest stat guy but I just looked him up because I am not old enough to have ever seen the guy play a lick.
    Now that is a ballplayer. I never saw Bernie even dive lol.
    I wonder if Earle held onto that ball.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      I never saw Bernie even dive lol.

      He’s probably too “effeminate”. Right? Am I right?

      • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

        Bernie played too much like a guy thinking everything out before he did it. I think that comes from his personality and the fact he got into baseball later than most guys that make it their profession.

        I never thought Bern was effeminate though. Not sure where you got that from. Bernie seemed hesitant to me and that is not something I admire in a ballplayer.

        Those traits may have helped him at the plate though. Extremely patient hitter, one of the best I have ever seen in that regard.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          I never thought Bern was effeminate though. Not sure where you got that from. Bernie seemed hesitant to me and that is not something I admire in a ballplayer.

          A) Just referencing one of your frequent ad hominem attacks.

          http://riveraveblues.com/2009/01/heyman-half-of-teams-in-baseball-can-add-impact-player-7183/#comment-264596

          B) I distinctly remember you listing as one of your many gripes with Bernie that he was nicknamed “Bambi”. You clearly have characterized Bernie as effeminate and less worthy of your respect (at least in comparison to Mattingly in the course of that convo) because he had a “girly” nickname. So, I call BS as well on you not referring to Bernie as effeminate. It’s just part of your larger, overarching theme: Somebody either says something you disagree with or somebody you like is compared with someone you like less; you resort to silly, petty little jabs against that person’s age/masculinity/athleticism/personal habits/etc. to try and take the speaker (like Law) or player (like Bernie) down a peg.

          Bernie didn’t “dive”… nobody cares but you. He was a great defensive centerfielder for most of his career, but you don’t want to hear that because it might make people think less of other guys you really do like, so you complain about petty inconsequentialities. Rickey didn’t really dive either; neither of them did much because they didn’t need to, they were fast enough to catch the ball on the run. But it doesn’t matter to you, because he’s still “Bambi” with something wrong with his “personality” and he’s “hesitant”. Blah.

          • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

            Seriously dude you have gone back to your normal reaching.

            “B) I distinctly remember you listing as one of your many gripes with Bernie that he was nicknamed “Bambi”. You clearly have characterized Bernie as effeminate and less worthy of your respect (at least in comparison to Mattingly in the course of that convo) because he had a “girly” nickname. So, I call BS as well on you not referring to Bernie as effeminate. It’s just part of your larger, overarching theme: Somebody either says something you disagree with or somebody you like is compared with someone you like less; you resort to silly, petty little jabs against that person’s age/masculinity/athleticism/personal habits/etc. to try and take the speaker (like Law) or player (like Bernie) down a peg.”

            I never said Bernie was effeminate. You said that not me. Bernie’s nick name was Bambi. Just FYI Bambi was a deer, which is a male by the way. A shy hesitant young deer. Rent the Disney movie if you feel the need.

            As far as Law goes he is effeminate. But not sure why that comes into play here.

            “He was a great defensive centerfielder for most of his career”

            Flat out not true. Bernie was very fast for a baseball player for a good portion of his career. Bernie was never a great defensive center fielder.

            “, but you don’t want to hear that because it might make people think less of other guys you really do like, so you complain about petty inconsequentialities.”

            In all seriousness you might need to get out some. You over analyzing my opinions on something and my motives.

            “Rickey didn’t really dive either;”

            Rickey was also not a great center fielder at any point in his career. Rickey had super speed, but was not really into giving a consistent effort.

            But I guess that debunks your whole theory. Rickey was one of my favorite players as well.

            I also was a fan of Roberto Kelly. I also liked Deion Sanders. I also liked Ron Guidry. I also liked Kirby Puckett. I also liked Tony Gywnn. I also like Dustin Pedrioa. I also liked Dale Murphy.

            SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT.

            “neither of them did much because they didn’t need to, they were fast enough to catch the ball on the run. But it doesn’t matter to you, because he’s still “Bambi” with something wrong with his “personality” and he’s “hesitant”. Blah.”

            I never said there was something wrong with Bernie’s personality. Another reach. I said I am not a fan of hesitant ballplayers.
            If you do not like it stuff it.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

              I’m reaching?

              hahahahahahah..

              I just went back and read the original thread:
              http://riveraveblues.com/2008/11/bernie-williams-still-not-retired-5997/

              And chuckled at how pathetically ignorant and weak all your arguments are and were.

              Ugh.

              • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

                More chaff on your part.

                Keep going back and digging up posts instead of backing up your actual posts today.

                Nice job.

                Hide in the vastness of it all.

                You are a fraud.

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

              Fun fact: Mel Hall gave Bernie that nickname:

              http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2002/08/15/2002-08-15_don_still_an_idol_to_bernie.html

              “…but outfielder Mel Hall dubbed Williams, “Bambi,” which stung the sensitive Williams.”

              So please, can we quit it? Unless you want to be associated with something that Mel Hall ever did.

          • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

            Would not the fact that you put A) out there be the true “ad hominem attack”?

            FOCUS on the issue here buddy, if your whole point is that I use “ad hominem attacks”

            Me stating what I did about Law was my opinion on the guy. Not how he looks, but how he comes across. Part of that I guess is how he looks but I was speaking about his demeanor and the way he speaks. Maybe you think he looks effeminate though since that is what you stated.

            Last time I checked most people weigh were they get their information from or whom they get it from. Law is not a unique voice in baseball so I choose to either get or not get my information from somebody that I find less creepy, annoying and effeminate.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

              Me stating what I did about Law was my opinion on the guy. Not how he looks, but how he comes across. Part of that I guess is how he looks but I was speaking about his demeanor and the way he speaks. Maybe you think he looks effeminate though since that is what you stated.

              Last time I checked most people weigh were they get their information from or whom they get it from. Law is not a unique voice in baseball so I choose to either get or not get my information from somebody that I find less creepy, annoying and effeminate.

              All of this is an ad hominem attack. Me pointing out that you use ad hominem attacks is an ad hominem attack, yes.

              Me going ad hominem to point out that you go ad hominem is not the same thing as you going ad hominem apropos of nothing.

              You are fond of character assassinations. I assassinate your character because I find your constant character assassinations unseemly and anti-intellectual. You may think the two are equal, but they are not. You do it in an attempt to undermine clear thought. I do it in an attempt to restore clear thought to its rightful place.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                Oh, and by the way:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

                You make ad hominem attacks on various people. I call you on it. You then accuse me of making an ad hominem attack on you, which is tu quoque… an ad hominem attack on me.

                You keep spiraling further down and further down. We agreed to drop this before, and then you made your idiotic comments regarding Keith Law, and it resparked all this crap.

                Law constantly has numerous interesting things to say. Many people agree with them, many people don’t, most agree with some and disagree with others. You’re the only person here petty enough to ignore everything Law said and instead dismiss all his validity as a baseball commenter by saying he’s “creepy and effeminate”. You’re a fool.

                Everybody else here seems capable of agreeing or disagreeing on issues/topics on their value, on the facts. You can’t. That’s why you constantly get under my, and other people’s skin. That’s why you start flamewars. Because you’re juvenile, petty, and bigoted against anyone who disagrees with you.

                Ugh. Grow up already.

                • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

                  Calling me anti-intellectual would be you calling yourself an intellectual which no true intellectual person would call themselves that.

                  You are a guy who posts on a message board. Do not elevate yourself past that. That is all you are.

                  I do not choose to listen to Law, and that makes you mad?

                  You are the true bigot. I do not hide behind my feelings, you mask them with words you learned from wikipedia while doing a google search.

                  You for some reason called Bernie Williams effeminate and wanted to put that one me?

                  This is about the 800th time you have started crap with me on here. So here is a proposal. Lets meet up sometime and talk in person and work it out. I would agree to not have problems with you on here again but I will not because you do not honor your word.

                  If you prefer neither, but still want to work it out another way let me know. We can go to a gym and box it out. We could play a game of chess. We could arm wrestle. Let me know homie, you make your choice.

                  To me I come here to talk about baseball, which most people seem to do here. You like to take shots at me for my feelings. On actual issues you never say much to me, and if you do you usually agree but try to find a way to still take a shot.

                  Keep it funky though, one way or another step up and settle this either intellectually or another way you see fit.

                • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

                  BTW I am out for the day. If you need my email holler at your people Ben K he can pass it to you.

                • Mike Pop

                  This was awesome. BOX IT OUT!!! Live on RAB. $13 to order it. RAB would make a killing.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  “You are a guy who posts on a message board. Do not elevate yourself past that. That is all you are.”

                  Not only is this not true, it’s telling of your mindset. So all I am is a guy who writes a Yankees blog? Is that what you mean with this blanket statement? Posting on this site is just something we do. It is not who we are. I think too many people conflate the two. I am not a blogger or a marketer or a writer. Those are things I do, yes, but they are not the essence of me.

                  “I do not choose to listen to Law, and that makes you mad?”

                  No. That doesn’t make anyone mad. It’s that you discount him based on aspects irrespective of his baseball acumen. So what if he dresses well and doesn’t have a booming baritone voice? Don’t listen to him of you don’t want to; the Web is democratic and allows you to choose which information sources you consume. But don’t go trashing a guy because of his looks. I’m sure people could do the same to you.

                  “I do not hide behind my feelings, you mask them with words you learned from wikipedia while doing a google search.”

                  So if you have a good vocabulary you’re masking your feelings with those words. Sorry, Donnie, but words are how we express ourselves. Some of us choose to build vocabularies so we can express ourselves with greater precision. Some of us like words. And, even if tommie’s vocabulary is shit and he did learn all those words in “google search,” so what? That would mean he’s learning something: a more precise way of saying what he wants to say. I think that should be encouraged, not written off as someone hiding behind their feelings.

                  I don’t mean to answer for Tommie, since this is between you and him. Your response just set me off.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                  Ah, the old “You’re just an internet tough guy, let’s see how tough you are in real life, sucka!!!”

                  You’re pedantically predictable as always, Donnie. I’m sure we’ll meet up at the RAB game sometime this summer. I’d be more than happy to explain to you at great length how I don’t have to call myself an “intellectual” in order to smell your fetid anti-intellectualism a mile away.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.
                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                  And for the record (and I promise to Mike, Ben, and Joe this is my last comment on this topic here, for the sake of the board), Donnie, this is the 800th time I’ve started shit with you because YOU CONSTANTLY SAY IGNORANT SHIT. I pick on you and pick apart your words more than anyone else, Donnie, because you say crap so shockingly ignorant and willfully bigoted that it DEMANDS someone respond. Saying that you won’t respect the opinion of Keith Law because he’s “effeminate” is horribly ignorant and bigoted, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Saying that Bernie Williams can’t be better than Don Mattingly because Bernie’s nickname was “Bambi” is horribly ignorant and bigoted, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

                  I start shit with you because you start shit with rational thought and common decency. I start shit with you because you start shit with the world. I won’t apologize for calling a buffoon out on his buffoonery.

    • Andy In Sunny Daytona

      What does the 100 degrees have to do with anything? (I know that you didn’t write it)

      • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

        LOL I thought the same thing. I wonder how much of the story is true. Just seeing that part made me thing it was possibly one of those old time BS newspaper stories.

      • Rich M

        The uniforms back then were made from 100% wool flannel. Not the coolest fabric to be wearing in 100 degree heat.

        • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a The Last Don

          While that is unpleasant the modern 100 percent poly is pretty darn horrible as well.

          • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

            Someone get Costanza on the line.

            • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

              I really do think they could come up with some sort of blend that has a little bit of cotton in them that would be vastly superior to the ones they currently wear, but I think the laundering of the current garments are what they like best. MLB jerseys really clean up well without putting a ton of care into them.

              Where George failed (Costanza not the Boss) was that he went all cotton if I recall correctly.

        • Andy In Sunny Daytona

          But what does him CRASHING into the fence have to do with Wool uniforms?

          • D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

            I think he was saying why they mentioned the heat.

  • Bryan

    Could Dimaggio hit a bunt and make it to 1st rather easily? Could Dimaggio hit the ball 550 feet? Mick in his prime had it all. You take his best 5 years and they match up with the greatest in the game.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      FWIW (and it’s worth a GIGANTIC, TITANIC AMOUNT), DiMaggio missed his Age 29, 30, and 31 seasons to the War.

      You can’t evaluate the two of them without mentioning that. DiMaggio could have easily had 500 HR’s had he been able to play in 1943, 1944, and 1945.

      Mickey played 18 years. DiMaggio only had 13. Three of those seasons taken away were done so against his will.

      • Mike Pop

        The Mick tore his knees up right? I’m saying if you could imagine how many more things he could have done if he aged better. The only reason his lifetime avg is under 300 is because of the last 2 years of his career he should have not played anyways. Mick was 3rd or 4th all time on the HR list when he retired wasn’t he? They were both amazing players and it is so hard to judge who was better. I think Joe D would have had to play more than jjust those 3 seasons to reach 500. He has 361 for his career. That would be more than 46 HR’s all three of those seasons. Would he have done it? I don’t know. Did he have the skill to do it? Of course he did but he only had 1 season where he hit 40+ HR’s. But if you work it out and Joe D played 5 more years he would be at 531 Hr’s for his career. Maybe he would have a lower average and all but the two are very comparable players. Me, I’d take the Mick just because my pop raves about him like he was a god. There is also many pics of him in my house. He really is a great story to me, tragic hero-esque.

        • Andy In Sunny Daytona

          If you take out the last two years that cost Mickey his career .300 average, you take away his 500 home runs.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          I know what you’re saying. I’m just pointing out that i think people sometimes forget that Joe (and Teddy Ballgame, and others of that era) missed their prime years, their absolute prime. Mickey’s body broke down and he tailed off… but that affected the end of his career, not so much the middle.

          Joe lost what likely would have been his three most productive years. Impossible to know how much that took away from his numbers, but it’s likely a lot.

          • Mike Pop

            Definitely man. Joe D’s and Teddy’s numbers would be alot more impressive than they already are. It’s crazy how good those guys were. The Mick missed alot of games in his good years though. When he was 30, 31, and 33 he missed a bunch of games. His numbers could have been a hell of alot better than they already are if he had taken care of himself and did not age so quickly. (Or if there was a DH)

      • http://twitter.com/OldRanger Old Ranger

        HR by a right handed hitter in Yankee stadium in those days…get real. Have you ever seen LF fence in the old stadium? Going from memory (not the best thing to do) I think it was something like 469 with a gap in the wall making it like hitting into a wind tunnel (on most days), so counting the wind…let’s make it like 550.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          Perhaps “500 easily” was hyperbole. But yeah, he would have had a lot more that 369, wouldn’t you say?

          • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

            Let’s do some math, shall we?

            Mickey popped one out every 15.12 ABs, Joe every 18.89 ABs.

            If they had the same number of ABs (Mantle’s 8102), Joe D would’ve had about 429 homers (exact number: 428.7966574).

            • Andy In Sunny Daytona

              Matt shouldn’t your math have Mickey HR avg. only as a RH hitter?

              • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

                I didn’t read the whole convo, my bad.

                And the splits on B-R only start at ’56 so that would skew the data.

              • Mike Pop

                No, why should it? Mickey could switch hit and Joe couldn’t. Why should you punish Mick for that?

                • Mike Pop

                  Oops nevermind. My bad, Andy. Croussett is the man!

                • Andy In Sunny Daytona

                  I don’t care about it one way or another. I think its a stupid arguement. To me Joe Dimaggio sold Mr. Coffee and ate at Dinky Donuts and Mickey Mantle was a drunk who looked like “The Punisher”. I have absolutely no dog in this fight.

                  And yes, Melvin is the man.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

                  Mickey Mantle was a drunk who looked like “The Punisher”.

                  I wish you would have said that he was a drunk who looked like Max Payne… then we could have had a “Say hello to your mother for me” joke squeezed in there.

                • Andy In Sunny Daytona

                  I was watching TMZ online the other day uUsual work day)and Mark Wahlberg was in the parking lot of a golf course with one of his buddies, and the paparazzzi was asking him stupid questions which he never responded too. He gets to his friends car and says bye to him, and he starts to walk away. His buddy yells out his name and says “Say Hello to your mother for me”. The papparazzi all bust out laughing. He just kind of smirks and walks away.

  • http://www.bottledwaterfaq.com Ashley Martinez

    Max Payne is my favorite game and i also like the movie.*,*

  • http://www.watercoolerinfo.com Water Cooler

    i watched the movie MAx Payne and it is sort of psyschedilic he he he “~