View Full Version : MLB: Greatest player of the 1960s?
Who is the greatest player of the 1960s? Not greatest player WHO PLAYED in the 1960s (that would likely be Ted Williams), but the player with the best decade-performance.
Some candidates named over at MLB.com (I separated the hitters into my top choices, meh choices, and bad choices).
Hank Aaron: .308/.376/.565 (162 OPS+), .257 ISO, 204/264 SB (77.2%), 17.76 PA/HR over 6661 PA
Willie Mays: .300/.377/.559 (159 OPS+), .259 ISO, 126/168 SB (75%), 17.75 PA/HR over 6213 PA
Willie McCovey: .279/.378/.546 (157 OPS+), .267 ISO, 17/35 SB (48.5%), 16.66 PA/HR over 5000 PA
Frank Robinson: .304/.402/.560 (166 OPS+), .256 ISO, 145/200 SB (72.5%), 19.65 PA/HR over 6209 PA
Mickey Mantle: .282/.415/.542 (171 OPS+), .260 ISO, 55/68 SB (80.8%), 17.58 PA/HR over 4500 PA
Roberto Clemente: .328/.375/.501 (143 OPS+), .173 ISO, 61/85 SB (71.8%), 35.20 PA/HR over 6231 PA
Orlando Cepeda: .295/.351/.502 (137 OPS+), .207 ISO, 94/141 SB (66.6%), 22.37 PA/HR over 5682 PA
Roger Maris: .265/.356/.515 (140 OPS+), .250 ISO, 7/9 SB (77.8%), 17.12 PA/HR over 3475 PA
Lou Brock: .287/.331/.433 (113 OPS+), .146 ISO, 387/513 SB (75.4%), 51.39 PA/HR over 5293 PA
Brooks Robinson: .278/.329/.434 (115 OPS+), .156 ISO, 18/35 SB (51.4%), 36.22 PA/HR over 6737 PA
Sandy Koufax: 2.36 ERA (147 ERA+) over 1807 IP
Juan Marichal: 2.57 ERA (136 ERA+) over 2550 IP
Bob Gibson: 2.74 ERA (135 ERA+) over 2447 IP
Robin Roberts: 3.58 ERA (102 ERA+) over 1303.2 IP
Personally my top 3 are Aaron/Mays/Frank Robinson. Mays has defense and the 3rd best hitting. Aaron has speed, playing time, and the 2nd best hitting (slightly better HR hitting). Frank Robinson is the best hitter by my measures. Said Mays, but could see any of the 3.
nuclearjew
01-24-2009, 09:05 PM
Koufax, for having the greatest 4-year stretch in baseball history.
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:07 PM
if you vote for lou brock i'm gonna dig your eyes out w/ a spoon.
nuclearjew
01-24-2009, 09:11 PM
And it sucks to put Mickey Mantle on this list because his best years were divided between the 1950s and 1960s. I'd say he was the most dominant from 55-64, or a close second behind Aaron.
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:13 PM
where is brooks robinson?
actually, i understand why he's not up there, but the man did have a pretty little glove.
Koufax, for having the greatest 4-year stretch in baseball history.
Koufax (63-66)
63: 1.88 ERA (159 ERA+), 0.875 WHIP, 306/58 K/BB, 311 IP
64: 1.74 ERA (187 ERA+), 0.928 WHIP, 223/53 K/BB, 223 IP
65: 2.04 ERA (160 ERA+), 0.855 WHIP, 382/71 K/BB, 335.7 IP
66: 1.73 ERA (190 ERA+), 0.985 WHIP, 317/77 K/BB, 323 IP
Pedro (97-00)
97: 1.90 ERA (219 ERA+), 0.932 WHIP, 305/67 K/BB, 241.3 IP
98: 2.89 ERA (163 ERA+), 1.091 WHIP, 251/67 K/BB, 233.7 IP
99: 2.07 ERA (243 ERA+), 0.923 WHIP, 313/37 K/BB, 213.3 IP
00: 1.74 ERA (291 ERA+), 0.737 WHIP, 284/32 K/BB, 217 IP
Randy Johnson (99-02)
99: 2.48 ERA (186 ERA+), 1.020 WHIP, 364/70 K/BB, 271.7 IP
00: 2.64 ERA (181 ERA+), 1.118 WHIP, 347/76 K/BB, 248.7 IP
01: 2.49 ERA (188 ERA+), 1.009 WHIP, 372/71 K/BB, 249.7 IP
02: 2.32 ERA (197 ERA+), 1.031 WHIP, 334/71 K/BB, 260.0 IP
Walter Johnson (10-15, screw 4 years he's the Big Train)
10: 1.36 ERA (183 ERA+), 0.914 WHIP, 313/76 K/BB, 370.0 IP
11: 1.90 ERA (172 ERA+), 1.123 WHIP, 207/70 K/BB, 322.3 IP
12: 1.39 ERA (242 ERA+), 0.908 WHIP, 303/76 K/BB, 369.0 IP
13: 1.14 ERA (259 ERA+), 0.780 WHIP, 243/38 K/BB, 346.0 IP
14: 1.72 ERA (164 ERA+), 0.971 WHIP, 225/74 K/BB, 371.7 IP
15: 1.55 ERA (191 ERA+), 0.933 WHIP, 203/56 K/BB, 336.7 IP
And I have a hard time saying that Koufax, great as his peak was, was greater than Aaron/Mays/Robinson. Look at Mays 60-65, that's not dominant enough?
where is brooks robinson?
actually, i understand why he's not up there, but the man did have a pretty little glove.
He's in the third group. He's good but a glove doesn't make up 40-50% of OPS+.
And it sucks to put Mickey Mantle on this list because his best years were divided between the 1950s and 1960s. I'd say he was the most dominant from 55-64, or a close second behind Aaron.
I don't disagree. Same can be said of a Schmidt. But this was posed on MLB.com, I drew up the rather large candidate comparison, thought it was interesting.
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:17 PM
well, now i feel like an idiot.
didn't he win a gold glove every year during the 60's?
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:19 PM
also, looking at pitching stats, although he only played in 67, 68, and 69, tom seaver had some beast years in that decade.
also, looking at pitching stats, although he only played in 67, 68, and 69, tom seaver had some beast years in that decade.
Yeah, someone said Seaver, but I didn't list him.
Tom Seaver: 2.38 ERA (140 ERA+) over 802 IP
It's nice, but I'd take Koufax, Marichal, and Gibson all before him.
well, now i feel like an idiot.
didn't he win a gold glove every year during the 60's?
For what they are worth, yes, he won every year from 1960-1975
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:26 PM
Yeah, someone said Seaver, but I didn't list him.
Tom Seaver: 2.38 ERA (140 ERA+) over 802 IP
It's nice, but I'd take Koufax, Marichal, and Gibson all before him.
the three years he threw in that decade, seaver had 18, 14, and 18 cg's respectively. if you worked a rookie pitcher that hard now, you'd lose your job faster than adam jones.
the three years he threw in that decade, seaver had 18, 14, and 18 cg's respectively. if you worked a rookie pitcher that hard now, you'd lose your job faster than adam jones.
For every CC Sabathia who can apparently take a workload there's a D-Train, a Doc Gooden, a Kerry Wood, who fell apart. And then a couple dozen pitchers we never heard from because they were worked to an oblivion before you got a chance to use them. Pitchers should not be intensely used (whenever possible) before age 25 or so.
Willie Mays. Mantle is my favorite player of all time, but it's Willie.
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:33 PM
whitey ford is stuck in the same boat as mantle, great for the end of one decade and the beginning of another.
whitey ford is stuck in the same boat as mantle, great for the end of one decade and the beginning of another.
Sorta, though most of his good years are in the 50s (save 1964) so I'd classify him as a 50s candidate.
mongo
01-24-2009, 09:37 PM
Sorta, though most of his good years are in the 50s (save 1964) so I'd classify him as a 50s candidate.
'61 was a good year for him too.
Captain Insano
01-24-2009, 09:42 PM
I voted Mickey, I wish I were around for them times.
CunningRunt
01-24-2009, 09:42 PM
Willie Mays is the greatest player of all time.
nuclearjew
01-25-2009, 12:05 AM
And I have a hard time saying that Koufax, great as his peak was, was greater than Aaron/Mays/Robinson. Look at Mays 60-65, that's not dominant enough?
What about having (in the 1960s) in 48 World Series IP, 5 ER, 0.85 WHIP, 54 Ks? 3 World Series appearances with 2 rings in those 4 years? And all with a ridiculously fucked-up elbow? It blows my mind how dominant Koufax was.
mongo
01-25-2009, 12:11 AM
What about having (in the 1960s) in 48 World Series IP, 5 ER, 0.85 WHIP, 54 Ks? 3 World Series appearances with 2 rings in those 4 years? And all with a ridiculously fucked-up elbow? It blows my mind how dominant Koufax was.
you have a boner for koufax? gtfo!
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/Koufax.jpg
nuclearjew
01-25-2009, 12:19 AM
31 shutouts in those 4 seasons (and 2 in the WS). 3 Cy Youngs (when Cy Youngs weren't given to each league) and a third-place vote in 1963 when he missed 25% of the season (coincidentally the one season the Dodgers didn't make the postseason).
What about having (in the 1960s) in 48 World Series IP, 5 ER, 0.85 WHIP, 54 Ks? 3 World Series appearances with 2 rings in those 4 years? And all with a ridiculously fucked-up elbow? It blows my mind how dominant Koufax was.
Why does injury always seem to give a guy more credit? Koufax, Griffey, Dawson, these guys are who they are, they don't become larger than life because of a theoretical injuryless career.
nuclearjew
01-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Why does injury always seem to give a guy more credit? Koufax, Griffey, Dawson, these guys are who they are, they don't become larger than life because of a theoretical injuryless career.
Unlike Griffey and Dawson and Mattingly and whomever, Koufax dominated with an injury which then proved to be career-ending, so if you wanted to extrapolate you could say "he would've had a 0.00 ERA if his elbow was 100%!". His career ended in his prime (age of 30). How would your opinion have changed if he had died in the 1965 offseason? The fact is, Koufax was the inspiration for "It Happens Every Spring" even though his career took place after that movie. ;)
CunningRunt
01-26-2009, 09:22 PM
Why does injury always seem to give a guy more credit? Koufax, Griffey, Dawson, these guys are who they are, they don't become larger than life because of a theoretical injuryless career.
Griffey Jr. was probably the best player of the 90's even without the injury. More to your point, I think people always wonder how great a player could have been. Kind of like you wondering how great Ted Williams could have been if he'd played those 3 years he was in WWII.
Griffey Jr. was probably the best player of the 90's even without the injury.
In the 1990s:
Bonds: .302/.434/.602 (179 OPS+), .300 ISO, 17.02 PA/HR, 343/437 SB (78.5%) over 6146 PA
Griffey: .302/.384/.581 (152 OPS+), .279 ISO, 16.18 PA/HR, 151/204 SB (74.0%) over 6182 PA
Bagwell: .304/.416/.545 (159 OPS+), .241 ISO, 22.05 PA/HR, 158/216 SB (73.1%) over 5800 PA
McGwire: .268/.411/.615 (172 OPS+), .347 ISO, 12.48 PA/HR, 9/14 SB (64.3%) over 5054 PA
It was pretty clearly Bonds in the 90s.
More to your point, I think people always wonder how great a player could have been.
That's nice. But durability is a factor of a player, and getting injured is part of that consideration.
Kind of like you wondering how great Ted Williams could have been if he'd played those 3 years he was in WWII.
Those who push for war credit make the same argument as those who pushed for Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame. Those who fought in WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam due to a draft were destined, from birth and beyond their control based on their year of birth (as with race for those doomed to the NeLs), to miss those years. That was not a product of their own personal flaws, just when they were born (and thus were of draft age during a war using a draft).
And war credit is a pretty dicy issue itself.
TheImpossibleMan
02-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Probably Mantle or Aaron.
Probably Mantle or Aaron.
Aaron I can see (though Mays' defense and position has to be worth something), but Mantle? Interesting. Do you care 'bout playing time?
TheImpossibleMan
02-11-2009, 12:36 PM
Not really. We all know Mantle was an absurdly good player, it isn't like his 60's numbers are flukes.
Not really. We all know Mantle was an absurdly good player, it isn't like his 60's numbers are flukes.
Playing time isn't just about reducing variance. Even if you accept (to use a simple number) that a player's .300 batting average is exactly 100% accurate (with zero variance) it's still "better" over 6500 PA vs. 4500 PA.