All-Decade Teams

[Darkslide820]

Wow, I like how I made this thread 2 or 3 weeks ago, it gets no action, and now I check back and it's spawned 4 pages in one day. Whatever.

HardcoreLegend asked about how to choose people. Here's the method that I've pondered: each decade's squad represents the best players at each position over the decade, based on eligible players. I toyed around with different game amounts, and I feel that if you played about 5 years worth of games in a decade, you are eligible for consideration for that decade's squad. For example, Ted Williams started in 1939 and ended in 1960, but he didn't play nearly enough games to become engrained in the public mind as a part of '30s or '60s baseball.

All players who are eligible for a decade are compared based on their statistics or historical relevance for that decade, not their career stats. Using HR's as a measure, Sosa did have the best season for a RF in the 1990's. But it was only 1 year, and came in the second to last year of the 1990s. Therefore, I don't know if you'd consider him the RF of the '90's.

Something else that people may have wondered is if a player could be on more than one squad. For example, someone mentioned that Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson did better in one decade than the other. I would say, if they're still one of the best 5 or 6 pitchers in both decades, then why not have them pitch for both teams? Honus Wagner is most definitely the hands-down pick for 1900's SS, but he should probably also be the 1910's SS.

And to the guy that said it was stupid to have a 2000's team, please realize that the last 7 seasons have produced many new stars, like Pujols, Ichiro, Johan, and David Ortiz, and has witnessed the rise to immortality by Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, and Barroids (who I would put on the squad, BTW, just because of his significance and dominance, however brought about, in this decade). The end of the steroids era should also be a huge turning point in MLB history. We're distant enough now that there would be enough difference between a 2000s and 1990s squad by now.

[superciuc]

figthingbillini wrote

medric822 wrote:

Ok, you would pick him to play SS for 3 reasons-

1) He had more errors than ever last year.

2) Your somking crack

3) Your a Red Sux fan

And FightingBillini, you said you saw several games, where as we saw most/all of them. Jeter is a much better defensive shortstop than A-Rod. Alot of A-Rods errors came on balls that he would still get if he was at short. The only advantage A-Rod has over Jeter is the longball. All those times that Jeter makes those throws to first like that, is because he's in the outfield, where most SS wouldn't reach unless it was to catch a pop-up. If he has poor range, then how can he throw out runners from the outfield grass?

I am not a Red Sox fan. You can't judge "he would have made this, would have made that, he could have gotten to it if he were at a shortstop..." They are very different positions. SS requires the most athletic ability on the field. SS has to be the quickest and have the best arm. A 3B doesn't get the grounders a SS does. Most balls hit to 3B are hit harder. The thirdbaseman is closer to home, and he has much less time to react. Therefore, 3B is much more about reflex than quickness. Apples and oranges.

And there is a reason Jeter makes so many throws from the grass. He has no range, so he plays deeper so he has more time to get to the balls. A-Rod was close to the best there was at short when he played there. Jeter isn't in the top half of baseball.

if you play baseball you should know that a SS has to play more deep of the other infielders and jeter trows a lot of time from the grass because he's fast and he catches grounders then another SS can't catch,you didn't

watch baseball last year

Off-topic:medric,i think you didn't go to school this year because you can't speak english

[medric822]

No, you asshole, I'm homebound from surgery.

[superciuc]

i knew it,thay's why i said it

[medric822]

I can speak it, I just type fast, and dont bother going over my post to see if I have any typo's. And my God, will you ever learn to use the "Quote" button? Or at least do this:

[quote="(INSERT NAME HERE)"](INSERT MESSAGE HERE)[/quote]

[superciuc]

maybe one day(instead of go off-topic PM me)

[Darkslide820]

:offtopic:

History, please.

[njbaseball22]

2000-2006 C Rodriguez 1B pujols(???) 2B biggio(???) 3B rodriguez SS jeter

LF Bonds CF Hunter RF Ichiro

Starters

R.Johnson

Clemens

Schilling

Schmidt

???

Closer

Rivera or Hoffman

2000-2006

c-posada

1b- pujols 2b- soriano 3b- rolen/a-rod ss- jeter/a-rod

of- Bonds, vlad, Andrew Jones, Ichro

Sp- Oswalt, Halladay, Zambrano, Zito, R. Johnson

Rp- Rivera, Hoffman, Nathan, Gagne

[superciuc]

Posada? i see that pudge is a lot better

[medric822]

I like Posada, he's a great catcher who had his best offensive year last year, but Pudge is definately better.

[superciuc]

pudge is better because he has a cannon for arm

[Darkslide820]

2000-2006

c-posada

1b- pujols 2b- soriano 3b- rolen/a-rod ss- jeter/a-rod

of- Bonds, vlad, Andrew Jones, Ichro

Sp- Oswalt, Halladay, Zambrano, Zito, R. Johnson

Rp- Rivera, Hoffman, Nathan, Gagne

I like this team. I'm still torn on Posada or Pudge, and you bring up the A-Rod quandry that I can't resolve (SS or 3B?). But Santana and Schilling should be there, too. Maybe even Jason Schmidt. Accurate OF, would have been my choice. Maybe one more guy. Good bullpen. K-Rod could go in there, too. I'm a little torn on Gagne because he had a VERY GOOD year and a half, wasn't really popular before then, and has been out for more than a year now.

PS: Remember, these teams should be 25 man-squads. Posada and Pudge, for example, could both be on the team, unless you think there's someone better.

[superciuc]

Arod at 3B and jeter at SS,put in Santana,take out Zambrano.

Posada should be the backup catcher

[Bobolini]

40's Catcher -I would use Ernie Lombardi.

60's Catcher -I would use Elston Howard and Joe Torre

[Bobolini]

I was wondering if anyone here ever saw or made All-Decade Teams for MVP. If you've seen anything like this, where? If you're like me and you're into history, who would you put at the different positions for the different squads?

Here are the designations:

1800s (1871-1899)

1900s

1910s

1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s (2000-2006)

The first position I tried to think of was for catchers. Here's who I have so far:

1800s Buck Ewing, ???

1900s Roger Bresnahan, ???

1910s Ray Schalk, ???

1920s Mickey Cochrane, Gabby Hartnett

1930s Gabby Hartnett, Mickey Cochrane

1940s ???

1950s Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella

1960s ???

1970s Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk (27)

1980s Carlton Fisk (72), Gary Carter

1990s Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza

2000s ??? (I-Rod again?)

What do you guys think? Feel free to fill in the blanks for any position for any squad.

My boy! Ted Simmons should be included as a 70's catcher. Hit over .300 5 times in the 70's.

Finished in MVP voting:

1971-16th

1972-10th

1973-14th

1974--13th

1975-6th

1977-9th

[Darkslide820]

I believe I'm gonna have to give you that one, at least based on offensive stats. For their 1970-1979 seasons, Simmons beats Fisk by 467 G, 98 R, 591 H, 117 2B, 4 3B, 7 HR, 322 RBI, 737 TB, 210 BB, and 118 less K. His batting average is only 13 points higher, though, with 297 vs. 284. He barely has a higher OBP, but has a SLG lower by 30 points. Fisk had 40 more SB and 7 less CS, to his credit, as well as one of the most famous HR of all time.

I have no idea about either of their defensive prowess, however, so I can't judge them by that.

[Bobolini]

Well defensively Simmons was average at best. I would give the nod to Fisk on that.

[Sean O]

Jeter is a horrible shortstop, historically terrible in every single way but popups. Rodriguez, on the other hand, is a plus defender at two positions, and light years better offensively.

.305 .386 .573. Ridiculous for a ss/3b.

[Darkslide820]

I don't know why, but for some reason I got a debate for 1950s OF going on in my head. Using my 5 years' worth of games (770 in this case) as the test, here's who I thought of for these spots.

Willie Mays

Mickey Mantle

Duke Snider

Ted Williams

Ralph Kiner

Stan Musial

Richie Ashburn

Minnie Minoso

Larry Doby

Hank Bauer

Al Kaline

Hank Aaron (who also qualifies for 1960s and 1970s!)

I think the first instinct is to start Mays, Mantle, and Snider in the OF, but then you look at who else is eligible. I would have overlooked Ted and Stan 'cause I think of the 1940s, but they played the entire 1950s as well.

This is probably the most stacked outfield of any decade team.

Who would you have as the starting 3 in the lineup, and who would you put on the bench? Keep in mind that this would be for a 25-man roster, so you can't take everyone, unless you want 12 outfielders on your team.

[Bobolini]

My two cents:

I would start

Mays (1955) 51-127-.319

Mantle (1956) 52-130-.353

Snider (53-55) averaged 41-131.329

Definitely have

Aaron (1957) 44-132-.322

Kaline (1955) 27-102-.340

and maybe Ashburn or Minoso-depends on your IF

Reason I didn't pick Kiner is his 2 best years were 1947 and 1949. 51-127.313, 54-127-.310 respectively.

Williams had a good year in 1957 with 38-87-.388 but I think he is a 40's guy.

Musial is the same. His best year was 1948 with 39-131.376

Good luck.

[Darkslide820]

Yeah, I noticed that about Kiner, too.

Well, I've noticed based on what people have said in this thread as well as some other threads I've seen on the 'net, people tend to wanna put a player in only 1 decade team. Most people would put Honus Wagner in a 1900s team, but he was probably the best SS of the 1910s as well. I think that the same applies for people like Ted Williams and Stan Musial in this case. For the decade, Williams had 227 HRs, 1068 H, .336 AVG, .622 SLG. Musial had 266 HRs, 1771 H, .330 AVG, .568 SLG. I realize that these guys are seen more as 40's guys, but I think they could also go on the 1950's squad, too.

Like I said before, this is probably the most stacked OF of any decade, and if I ever get around to making these teams in MVP, this'll be a tough cut.

[Bobolini]

Musial is a fine example of overlap. mid 40's till the latter part of the 50's . Plus he's "The Man. You could justify quite a few of these guys for 2 different decades

[Snailman]

I'm an 1800's guru, so here's a preliminary list for the 1890's obviously there are too many first basemen and outfielders, and not enough pitchers (not too many good ones in this decade), but it's a start. Let me know what you think.

1890's

c - Jack Clements

c - Buck Ewing

1b - Dan Brouthers

1b - Roger Connor

1b - Jake Beckley

1b - Cap Anson

2b - Cupid Childs

2b - Bid McPhee

3b - John McGraw

3b - Jimmy Collins

3b - Denny Lyons

ss - Bill Dahlen

ss - George Davis

of - Hugh Duffy

of - Billy Hamilton

of - Ed Delahanty

of - Sam Thompson

of - Jesse Burkett

of - Mike Tiernan

of - George Van Haltren

of - Joe Kelley

sp - Kid Nichols

sp - Amos Rusie

sp - Cy Young

sp - Clark Griffith

sp - Gus Weyhing

sp - Jouett Meekin

sp - Nig Cuppy

I'll make a list for the 1880's and the 1870's soon. I know originally the 1800's were all compressed, but there's too much talent to just split it up like that.

[Darkslide820]

Thank you very much for that full team. Some comments and questions, however (you knew I would):

1) You're over by 3 people. I knew it looked a little big.

2) I originally set up the 1800s as one squad (1871 - 1899 for those who didn't see before) because I wasn't sure if there were enough noteworthy players to make 3 different squads with. Of course you can find 25 players for each decade, but 25 great or well known ones?

3) You say there weren't too many good pitchers in this decade, but remember that they moved the mound back 10 feet in 1893 (leading to Hugh Duffy's record the next year) and that they had established the "short" count to draw a walk by 1890. I say "short" because up until then a pitcher may have had 7 or 8 balls to work with before giving up a walk. These as well as other developments helped to build up the more offensive-friendly game that may have taken away potential legacies from some pitchers.

4) What about Herman Long? According to MLB.com he had the 2nd most hits in the 1890s (behind Delahanty, of course) as well as the 4th most HRs in the decade. According to Total Baseball 2004, he had 134 Fielding Runs (or ~13 Fielding Wins) over the decade. [Edit] I checked again, and apparently he also had the 2nd most SB in the decade (behind SBH).

I'd like to see the 1880s team. Lots of Giants power coming there (Tim Keefe, Mickey Welch, Buck Ewing, Roger Connor, John Montgomery Ward, probably some more).

Don't know too much about the 1870s team, except that Anson would still be there and you'd probably see the Wright brothers and Al Spalding.

Oh yeah, do you know any web site that lists the number of games in a season. Since it kept changing during the 1800s, this would really help me out in determining if a player should be eligible for the 1870s, 1880s, or 1890s squads.

[Snailman]

Thank you very much for that full team. Some comments and questions, however (you knew I would):

1) You're over by 3 people. I knew it looked a little big.

Yeah, I was hoping for some help, I simply can't narrow down the outfielders or first basemen. Also a couple more pitchers...

2) I originally set up the 1800s as one squad (1871 - 1899 for those who didn't see before) because I wasn't sure if there were enough noteworthy players to make 3 different squads with. Of course you can find 25 players for each decade, but 25 great or well known ones?

Yeah, I think I can find enough for ya. And if not, it'll at least be a fun exercise.

3) You say there weren't too many good pitchers in this decade, but remember that they moved the mound back 10 feet in 1893 (leading to Hugh Duffy's record the next year) and that they had established the "short" count to draw a walk by 1890. I say "short" because up until then a pitcher may have had 7 or 8 balls to work with before giving up a walk. These as well as other developments helped to build up the more offensive-friendly game that may have taken away potential legacies from some pitchers.

I think the count was messed with in the 1880's, but I believe it was all fixed up after the 1887 season, when there was a convention to unify the rules between the American Association and the National League I might be wrong on the year though). The pitching mound change was indeed the problem, and it didn't directly lead to the monster 1894 season. Sure, some pitchers couldn't maintain dominance with the shift, but the biggest problem was the durability of pitchers. Everyone blew their arms that season, and then the next year there was such an absence of pitching that the hitters feasted. The only pitchers left were those with the rubber arms, and it's hard to find dominating rubber-armed hurlers.

4) What about Herman Long? According to MLB.com he had the 2nd most hits in the 1890s (behind Delahanty, of course) as well as the 4th most HRs in the decade. According to Total Baseball 2004, he had 134 Fielding Runs (or ~13 Fielding Wins) over the decade. [Edit] I checked again, and apparently he also had the 2nd most SB in the decade (behind SBH).

I left him off because I thought Dahlen and Davis were better. Maybe I was wrong though. Long was indeed very good, and deserves a second look.

I didn't realize you could sort stats by decade on mlb.com's website. I've been going through year by year looking at batting and pitching leaders. This will make it a lot easier.

I'd like to see the 1880s team. Lots of Giants power coming there (Tim Keefe, Mickey Welch, Buck Ewing, Roger Connor, John Montgomery Ward, probably some more).

I'll try to do that one tomorrow... There's a ton of talent.

Don't know too much about the 1870s team, except that Anson would still be there and you'd probably see the Wright brothers and Al Spalding.

Don't forget Ross Barnes, Deacon White, Paul Hines, and Candy Cummings, but it'll still lack a lot of talent.

Oh yeah, do you know any web site that lists the number of games in a season. Since it kept changing during the 1800s, this would really help me out in determining if a player should be eligible for the 1870s, 1880s, or 1890s squads.

Just look at the standings for each year on baseball-reference.com. I'll compile a list for you if you want. Mostly, I've been using Thebaseballpage.com, and David Nemec's The Great Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Major League Baseball. I'll dust off Total Baseball 6th edition tomorrow. It's such a beast it doesn't even fit on my bookshelf.