PDA

View Full Version : Best Cardinal Ever


Viva Medias B's
07-31-2006, 10:37 PM
Because I have to leave early for business downtown in the morning, I am posting this poll early. There is still time to vote in the "Best Brewer Ever" poll where Robin Yount currently has a big lead.

Now, we look at the St. Louis Cardinals.

caulfield12
07-31-2006, 10:41 PM
Obviously, Pujols, if he keeps this up another 5-6 years with the same numbers, he easily surpasses Musial. But not yet.

Willie McGee was not an option? They even had cookies endorsed by the guy in St. Louis in his hey-day.

Ozzie was never that likeable...great defensive player, but always seemed like a pain in the butt.

And no McGwire, lol? Enos Country Slaughter? The Dean Brothers?

SoxFanPrope
07-31-2006, 11:00 PM
Obviously, Pujols, if he keeps this up another 5-6 years with the same numbers, he easily surpasses Musial. But not yet.

Great, so in 5-6 year you can vote for Pujols then. Until that time, Stan the Man gets the vote.

The Racehorse
07-31-2006, 11:03 PM
Obviously, Pujols, if he keeps this up another 5-6 years with the same numbers, he easily surpasses Musial. But not yet.

Willie McGee was not an option? They even had cookies endorsed by the guy in St. Louis in his hey-day.

Ozzie was never that likeable...great defensive player, but always seemed like a pain in the butt.

And no McGwire, lol? Enos Country Slaughter? The Dean Brothers?

:?:

... oh, what's the use...

DSpivack
07-31-2006, 11:07 PM
If Pujols keeps this up, he'll be the best. Hard to choose b/w Gibson and Stan the Man, but I'll go with Ozzie Smith's pick and choose the pitcher.

RKMeibalane
07-31-2006, 11:09 PM
Musial, the National League's version of Ted Williams.

Johnny Mostil
07-31-2006, 11:09 PM
Enos Country Slaughter? The Dean Brothers?

I'd at least list Hornsby on the ballot as well.

These polls do seem to trend toward more recent players . . .

eastchicagosoxfan
07-31-2006, 11:11 PM
Obviously, Pujols, if he keeps this up another 5-6 years with the same numbers, he easily surpasses Musial. But not yet.

Willie McGee was not an option? They even had cookies endorsed by the guy in St. Louis in his hey-day.

Ozzie was never that likeable...great defensive player, but always seemed like a pain in the butt.

And no McGwire, lol? Enos Country Slaughter? The Dean Brothers?
Pujohs easily supasses Musial in 5-6 seasons? Maybe in 14-15 seasons. Musial had 3600 hits; over his 22 yeasr career Stan the Man averaged 194 hits for each 162 games played, and batted .331. Pujols has fantastic numbers, but he could just as easily be the next Hal Trotsky. If Pujols is still putting up huge numbers in 2016, in his 15th or 16th season, then he could be compared to Musial. Stan was a great player for all of his career, while Puljohs must produce at his current level for at least another decade.

MrRoboto83
07-31-2006, 11:12 PM
Musial, the National League's version of Ted Williams.

I agree with you on this. Stan gets my vote.

Dan Mega
07-31-2006, 11:16 PM
Stan the Man all the way.

batmanZoSo
07-31-2006, 11:28 PM
Stan Musial, now. But when it's said and done, there won't be too many players from any team ahead of Albert Pujols. Jeez, the fact that he's even considered is astonishing. What's he 26? And he deserves to be on it. :mg:

PKalltheway
07-31-2006, 11:35 PM
I picked Stan Musial, but Bob Gibson comes a close second. There's nobody else I would rather have on the mound in Game 7 of the World Series other than Gibson. Musial and his 3,630 career hits takes the cake though.

Chips
07-31-2006, 11:37 PM
Stan Musial, no doubt about it.

thomas35forever
08-01-2006, 12:11 AM
Musial. How old is he?

RKMeibalane
08-01-2006, 12:14 AM
Musial. How old is he?

He's eighty five. He'll be eighty six on November 21.

TornLabrum
08-01-2006, 12:15 AM
Stan the Man. Obviously whoever made the selection had no love for Hornsby or Ol' Diz, though.

soxfanreggie
08-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Stan's the man right now, but Albert...already has almost 1,100 hits in addition to being almost halfway to 500 homers. He's 26! He also has a career .331 average with a .628 slugging pct. He hits the ball well, and he also hits for power. He has 462 walks vs 373 Ks...any time you have numbers like that, it's a positive. If he can keep it up, you'll be hearing his name up there with Aaron and Ruth. He's just purely that good.

If he can keep this current pace, he'll have 500 homers, 1,400 RBI, and 2,300 hits at 32. 32!!! He will also have played in his 10th all-star game and probably won another 2 or 3 MVP awards.

buehrle4cy05
08-01-2006, 01:22 AM
Stan the Man, but sucks to be Bob Gibson. He's one of my favorite past-time pitches that I never actually got to see pitch because I wasn't born.

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2006, 02:01 AM
Pujols has fantastic numbers, but he could just as easily be the next Hal Trotsky.

Wow, that's a name I haven't heard for a while. Good memory, ECSF. I was also thinking about Ken Griffey Jr., whose numbers, perhaps not quite as good as Pujols's at the same stage of his career, still got him on the all-(20th) century team. Griffey might not be in the mix for the next such team . . .

ShoelessJoeS
08-01-2006, 02:19 AM
I voted for Gibson, just because if there's one pitcher (ever) who I'd want on the mound in a crucial game....it's him.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 03:14 AM
I'd at least list Hornsby on the ballot as well.

These polls do seem to trend toward more recent players . . .

I agree.

I disagree with the "Pujols passes Musial in 5 or 6 seasons" comments. Maybe 15 or more like years will help him pass Musial. I don't see it happening. I doubt he will be playing in 2016. He may be done by 2010 with his chronic injuries.

All Time Win Shares (Bill James Abstract & 2006 Handbook)

600 + Career Win Shares

Babe Ruth 758
Ty Cobb 726
Barry Bonds 661
Honus Wagner 655
Willie Mays 641
Hank Aaron 641
Cy Young 635
Tris Speaker 633
Stan Musial 604

Albert Pujols 173

TDog
08-01-2006, 04:50 AM
Obviously, Pujols, if he keeps this up another 5-6 years with the same numbers, he easily surpasses Musial. But not yet. ...

Maybe another 10 or 15 years and he arguably surpasses Musial. Stan was the man.

Gibson was good, although he did lose a Game 7, to the Tigers in the 1968 World Series after beating the Red Sox in Game 7 in 1967. He also beat the Yankees in Game 7 in 1964. He pitched well in October, though, 7-2, 1.89 ERA. Most impressive, I think, he started 9 games and pitched 81 innings.

I learned all about Musial and Gibson while listening to Sox games in the early '70s.

Grzegorz
08-01-2006, 05:49 AM
Stan "The Man" Musial...

viagracat
08-01-2006, 09:35 AM
Musial.

I agree with one of the other posters; these polls seem to skew heavily to players that played after 1950. BUt in this case, I think it would've been Musial regardless.

I met Musial many years ago when he spoke at a "Father & Son Sports Breakfast" my dad took me and my brother to when he worked at Wards. He seemed like a real nice guy.

Save McCuddy's
08-01-2006, 10:03 AM
Is the Man Love craze in St. Louis so overwhelming that they've never heard of their franchise's greatest player?

Musial's awesome, but the Rajah is clearly the man:

.358 lifetime BA second only to Cobb, second to no right handed hitter.
2 time triple crown winner.
7 batting titles
9 times tops in slugging

all of this, at second base.

TornLabrum
08-01-2006, 10:07 AM
Is the Man Love craze in St. Louis so overwhelming that they've never heard of their franchise's greatest player?

Musial's awesome, but the Rajah is clearly the man:

.358 lifetime BA second only to Cobb, second to no right handed hitter.
2 time triple crown winner.
7 batting titles
9 times tops in slugging

all of this, at second base.

Hornsby "only" played 11 full seasons with the Cards. That might have something to do with it.

fquaye149
08-01-2006, 10:10 AM
I voted for Musial just because I voted for Spahn in the Braves' poll. Once again, I feel like it's a horse apiece: one of the greatest hitters ever vs. one of the greatest pitchers ever.

But yeah, where IS Rajah? That's a disgrace.

PennStater98r
08-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Hornsby was still great - and he belongs on the list before Ozzie Smith does - as he does before Lou Brock IMO.

However, Musial is hands down - the best Cardinal - though I could see Pujols some day taking that from him.

Railsplitter
08-01-2006, 10:30 AM
Stan Musial remains THE MAN. He hit a homer in his first at-bat after becoming a grandfather.

Pitchers you have Bob Gibson, but Dizzy Dean as well. Dean was a phemomenal pitcher in th 30's, with a thirty win season in 1934, but had his career cut short by injuries.

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2006, 10:31 AM
Hornsby "only" played 11 full seasons with the Cards. That might have something to do with it.

Probably--although that's still five more seasons than Pujols has had.

If I were feeling (too) generous, I might even nominate Hornsby for best Cub ever. He's not, of course, but he had a monster season in '29 for the Cubs, when the team won the pennant, and played and managed games for another Cub pennant winner in '32 . . .

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 10:35 AM
Hornsby "only" played 11 full seasons with the Cards. That might have something to do with it.

As well as the fact the league batting average was .296 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hornsro01.shtml)in the 1920s.

Batting average for the National League

1921 .296
1922 .295
1923 .291
1924 .287
1925 .303
1926 .292
1927 .290
1928 .284
1929 .304
1930 .313

Granted Hornsby far exceeded the league average but you have to put the stats into context. The greatest offensive players do not solely come from a couple of decades (1920s and 1990s / 2000s) just as the greatest pitchers of all time do not solely come from the (19th Century through 1918 & the 1960s).

Musial played at a high level for many years above and beyond what Hornsby was able to play. Musial hit .330 (49 points above league average) at age 41 playing nearly a full season (135 games) and did it without the benefit of steroids (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml).

Musial has the highest number of MVP voting shares (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml) among clean baseball players. Musial was the best in his era for a long period of time which is why he is in the top ten players of all time.

fquaye149
08-01-2006, 10:50 AM
As well as the fact the league batting average was .296 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hornsro01.shtml)in the 1920s.

Batting average for the National League

1921 .296
1922 .295
1923 .291
1924 .287
1925 .303
1926 .292
1927 .290
1928 .284
1929 .304
1930 .313

Granted Hornsby far exceeded the league average but you have to put the stats into context. The greatest offensive players do not solely come from a couple of decades (1920s and 1990s / 2000s) just as the greatest pitchers of all time do not solely come from the (19th Century through 1918 & the 1960s).

Musial played at a high level for many years above and beyond what Hornsby was able to play. Musial hit .330 (49 points above league average) at age 41 playing nearly a full season (135 games) and did it without the benefit of steroids (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml).

Musial has the highest number of MVP voting shares (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml) among clean baseball players. Musial was the best in his era for a long period of time which is why he is in the top ten players of all time.

Sure but Hornsby, who own the highest single season batting average, among other noteworthy accomplishments, ought to be there before Brock and probably Smith. Hornsby is a first tier hall of famer. He's not at Musial's level, but he ought to be on this list, IMO

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 11:05 AM
Sure but Hornsby, who own the highest single season batting average, among other noteworthy accomplishments, ought to be there before Brock and probably Smith. Hornsby is a first tier hall of famer. He's not at Musial's level, but he ought to be on this list, IMO

I agree 100%.

There have been a few glaring omissions on these polls (Ryan for California, Foxx for the A's, Eddie Matthews / Braves) but Hornsby / St. Louis is the worst omission to date.

DHL / MLB :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2006, 11:14 AM
I agree 100%.

There have been a few glaring omissions on these polls (Ryan for California, Foxx for the A's, Eddie Matthews / Braves) but Hornsby / St. Louis is the worst omission to date.

DHL / MLB :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Speaking of overlooked St. Louis players . . . I hear there's a guy by the name of Sisler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sislege01.shtml) who probably ought to be on any Browns/Orioles survey . . .

caulfield12
08-01-2006, 11:48 AM
If Albert Pujols died in a plane crash flying to, I don't know where, San Pedro de Macoris, to aid flooding victims after having 5-6 more seasons like this, he would be the choice by the majority of Cardinals fans.

Whether that's fair or not is another thing...people tend to get sentimental about Clemente, Puckett and Koufax because their careers were shortened...heck, the other night I heard an announcer (non-Yankee) crying because Mattingly wasn't in the Hall of Fame.

And yes, Hornsby should have been on the list.

You could have this same argument about Frank Thomas...let's pretend he quit playing baseball after the 1997 season and became a Buddhist monk. Wouldn't he clearly be one of the greatest players in baseball history? Especially now, in light of the fact that he was never part of the steroids story?

Or would Shoeless Joe Jackson still be the greatest hitter?

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 02:22 PM
If Albert Pujols died in a plane crash flying to, I don't know where, San Pedro de Macoris, to aid flooding victims after having 5-6 more seasons like this, he would be the choice by the majority of Cardinals fans.

It still wouldn't make him the "Best Cardinal Ever".

You could have this same argument about Frank Thomas...let's pretend he quit playing baseball after the 1997 season and became a Buddhist monk. Wouldn't he clearly be one of the greatest players in baseball history? Especially now, in light of the fact that he was never part of the steroids story?

Or would Shoeless Joe Jackson still be the greatest hitter?

No, no and no.

caulfield12
08-01-2006, 03:01 PM
So, if Thomas never played past 1997, you wouldn't consider him to be one of the five greatest hitters of all-time (baseball history)?

I'm referring to the White Sox organization by the way with the second part...is there anybody that could possibly be considered the best history in White Sox history besides Jackson or Thomas?

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 03:14 PM
So, if Thomas never played past 1997, you wouldn't consider him to be one of the five greatest hitters of all-time (baseball history)?

I'm referring to the White Sox organization by the way with the second part...is there anybody that could possibly be considered the best history in White Sox history besides Jackson or Thomas?

The is a huge difference between "five greatest hitters of all-time (baseball history)" and five greatest in White Sox history.

That said a 7 year career by Frank Thomas is not enough to offset Eddie Collins, Luke Appling or Harold Baines IMO.

Jackson and Thomas would have the best "peak" seasons but not the best careers. Thomas stayed so now he also has the best career as well.

PKalltheway
08-01-2006, 03:43 PM
I agree 100%.

There have been a few glaring omissions on these polls (Ryan for California, Foxx for the A's, Eddie Matthews / Braves) but Hornsby / St. Louis is the worst omission to date.

DHL / MLB :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Don't forget about Carlton Fisk with the White Sox and the Red Sox. I would put him on the Red Sox ballot ahead of Jim Rice. I don't get why people think he was so good. Yeah he did have a good stretch in the late seventies, but that's it. As great as Minnie Minoso and Nellie Fox were, I would omit one of them in favor of Fisk on the White Sox ballot.

fquaye149
08-01-2006, 05:16 PM
If Albert Pujols died in a plane crash flying to, I don't know where, San Pedro de Macoris, to aid flooding victims after having 5-6 more seasons like this, he would be the choice by the majority of Cardinals fans.

Whether that's fair or not is another thing...people tend to get sentimental about Clemente, Puckett and Koufax because their careers were shortened...heck, the other night I heard an announcer (non-Yankee) crying because Mattingly wasn't in the Hall of Fame.

And yes, Hornsby should have been on the list.

You could have this same argument about Frank Thomas...let's pretend he quit playing baseball after the 1997 season and became a Buddhist monk. Wouldn't he clearly be one of the greatest players in baseball history? Especially now, in light of the fact that he was never part of the steroids story?

Or would Shoeless Joe Jackson still be the greatest hitter?

But the fact is that Pujols' #'s aren't significantly better than Musial's (and in some categories are NOT better) and Musial did it for an exponentially longer time.

I'm not one for the longevity argument, but when the #'s are exactly the same, the guy who did the exact same thing for 4x as long gets the nod, even if the other was cut short. What might have been? Who knows...but even if Frank quit in 1997, he wouldn't have been better than Jimmie Foxx just because he quit early. If anything, we would have assumed there would be some decline later (a la Griffey, Boggs, hell...Frank himself)

Save McCuddy's
08-01-2006, 05:20 PM
As well as the fact the league batting average was .296 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hornsro01.shtml)in the 1920s.

Batting average for the National League

1921 .296
1922 .295
1923 .291
1924 .287
1925 .303
1926 .292
1927 .290
1928 .284
1929 .304
1930 .313

Granted Hornsby far exceeded the league average but you have to put the stats into context. The greatest offensive players do not solely come from a couple of decades (1920s and 1990s / 2000s) just as the greatest pitchers of all time do not solely come from the (19th Century through 1918 & the 1960s).

Musial played at a high level for many years above and beyond what Hornsby was able to play. Musial hit .330 (49 points above league average) at age 41 playing nearly a full season (135 games) and did it without the benefit of steroids (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml).

Musial has the highest number of MVP voting shares (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml) among clean baseball players. Musial was the best in his era for a long period of time which is why he is in the top ten players of all time.

What? The league average was .296 for the 20's. So what? Hornsby hit .382 for the decade. that's 86 pts above league average for a ten year period. He might not have been 41 and hit 49 pts over the league average, but who cares? In '21 he hit .397, which was 45 pts higher than anyone in the National League other than Easy Ed Roush who hit .352. In '22 He hits .401 with noone else better than .354. In '24 and '25 he bested the next highest batter by 49 and 36 pts respectively and out slugged his two closest competitors .696 to .552 and .756 to .598. That's downright Ruthian.

I digress. This is not an argument about batting average, because if it were, it'd already be over. Hornsby bears out as a slightly better offensive player in each category for their careers and significantly so when the player's peak seasons are compared. What cinches it for me, is that Hornsby gives you that offense at 2nd base!! Take a look at league replacement left fielders in the 40's and 50's, then check out the second basemen of the 20's.

No disrespect to Musial, but it's Hornsby in the objective non-Cardinalized universe.

nedlug
08-01-2006, 05:28 PM
I don't think this is really a contest.

tick53
08-01-2006, 05:49 PM
I liked Bob Gibson a lot, he was fearless. My second favorite was John Cardinal Cody:D: .

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2006, 06:17 PM
I liked Bob Gibson a lot, he was fearless. My second favorite was John Cardinal Cody:D: .

Oh, c'mon! Cody (http://catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcody.html) couldn't hold Carberry (http://catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcarberry.html)'s crosier!

tick53
08-01-2006, 06:31 PM
Oh, c'mon! Cody (http://catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcody.html) couldn't hold Carberry (http://catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcarberry.html)'s crosier!


Carberry! Don't make me laugh Johnny! (but I will) :D:

DoItForDanPasqua
08-01-2006, 06:47 PM
Stan the Man now, but in a few years, if he can keep up this pace, it will be Pujols.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-01-2006, 08:58 PM
What? The league average was .296 for the 20's. So what? Hornsby hit .382 for the decade. that's 86 pts above league average for a ten year period....

What cinches it for me, is that Hornsby gives you that offense at 2nd base!! Take a look at league replacement left fielders in the 40's and 50's, then check out the second basemen of the 20's.

No disrespect to Musial, but it's Hornsby in the objective non-Cardinalized universe.

Wins Above Replacement Level (WARP 3 - Adjusted for position, ballpark and league averages):

Stan Musial (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/musiast01.shtml) - 195.6

Rogers Hornsby (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/hornsro01.shtml) - 162.9

This takes into account player positions. Your sole argument is second basemen suck more than Left Fielders and therefore even though Musial was significantly better over several more years of his career than Hornsby was able to manage he should be ranked lower.

Stan Musial obtained a higher ratio of MVP votes than any non steroid freak ever in the history of baseball including Ruth and Williams. He was considered the best player in his league for many seasons. Hornsby obviously also had some great seasons but not over nearly as many years as Musial.

I addressed league batting average to refute the argument that the second best batting average must be considered within the era that it was produced. Hornsby's average was significantly higher than the rest of the league in many seasons but so was Musial. If Hornsby had say a .340 average in the 1960s and it would have been lower on the all time BA list but more impressive in reality as league batting averages were 30 points lower.

People who watched Musial gave him far more support in MVP voting than Hornsby.

Hall of Fame voters judged Musial superior based on his (rare) near unanimous election.

Bill James, who has spent more time analyzing this then the rest of us, lists Musial 12 spots higher on the all time list.

Musial accumulated more Win Shares (604) than all but 8 players in the history of baseball. Hornsby accumulated over 100 less (502) during his career. Their peaks were similar but Musial's career was superior which is why he is without question the "Best Cardinal Ever".

Hornsby should have been among the choices (which I stated earlier) but he should NOT have been selected.

Save McCuddy's
08-01-2006, 10:50 PM
We can certainly agree that Hornsby should have been on the list. I'll have to part company and stick to my guns when I say that I'd take him over Musial.

I can't dispute that Musial had 16 seasons of excellence while Hornsby turns in a mere ten. I'm a peak value guy versus valuing longevity and Rajah's peak 6 or 7 seasons are more impressive to me.

fquaye149
08-02-2006, 03:43 AM
We can certainly agree that Hornsby should have been on the list. I'll have to part company and stick to my guns when I say that I'd take him over Musial.

I can't dispute that Musial had 16 seasons of excellence while Hornsby turns in a mere ten. I'm a peak value guy versus valuing longevity and Rajah's peak 6 or 7 seasons are more impressive to me.

Only when compared head to head with Musial. I'm not a big "league average guy"...but Rajah was never the best player in baseball. It was a rarity when Musial was NOT the best player in baseball.

spiffie
08-02-2006, 11:38 AM
Only when compared head to head with Musial. I'm not a big "league average guy"...but Rajah was never the best player in baseball. It was a rarity when Musial was NOT the best player in baseball.
I would say that neither of them was ever THE best. Hornsby led the NL in OPS every year of the decade except 1926. In 2 of those years he led all of baseball, and in 3 other years he was in the top 3 overall. Musial led the ML 3 times. But for neither guy, except for one or two years, would you be able to call them the best player in baseball. Musial played at the same time as Williams, Aaron, and Mays. Hornsby with Ruth, Gehrig, and Speaker. They were both consistently in the Top 5 of MLB hitters, but rarely #1.

Save McCuddy's
08-04-2006, 12:48 AM
...but Rajah was never the best player in baseball.

Wonder who was better during his two triple crown years in '22 and '25 or his other MVP season in '29? Must have been some stiff competition out there if he was never best in the quests for his 7 batting titles or in the 9 seasons he topped the league in slugging. <Insert Napolean Dynamite expletive deleted> .