- This topic has 63 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Agree with the top four of Musial, Pujols, Gibson, Hornsby. Two names I’d like to throw into the discussion for the next 5 to 10 are Edmonds and Rolen. More modern players that enjoyed tremendous success in a Cardinal uniform. Edmonds was arguably the best CF in franchise history (taking nothing away from another great Willie McGee) and Rolen was right there with Boyer with 5 fewer years of service in the uniform. And that shows just how darn good Boyer was during his time. Fun discussion for sure.
Good comments, TC. I put Edmonds a little ahead of Flood as my all-time first team Cardinal center-fielder. Flood was better defensively, although Jimmy was no slouch as we know. Plus he had great power.
Had Rolen stayed healthy and a Cardinal, he likely would have eclipsed Boyer as the club’s all-time best third baseman. But his career descended quite a lot after 2004, and his departure was ugly with the spat with the manager and all.
His 2004 and Torre’s 1971 were probably the best single seasons of a Cardinal third baseman. But then there is Boyer, who was solid as a young player, then put together 5 consecutive consistent seasons, rarely missing a game, and capping the stretch with an MVP and Championship. Thus he retains my number one all-time Cardinal third base slot.
I agree BMike. One thing every one of us agree on without a shadow of a doubt is fans of the Cardinals franchise have been blessed to watch some tremendous ball players. I was going to edit and add Flood as well but I’ll let your post cover it. My sentiments exactly. All of these players have something else in common. They were champions while Cardinals.
It’s interesting that Dizzy Dean only pitched 6 full seasons in the major leagues as a starter, and yet is in the Hall.
Do you think Dean is non-deserving? Was he not famous enough long enough? After all, it is called the “Hall of Fame”.
Sandy Koufax was done at 30 years of age. Did he play long enough?
Perhaps longevity should not be a primary criteria (above some basic minimum) but instead impact during their time.
Dean delivered 35 WAR in just seven years as a Cardinal. That is more than Bob Forsch generated in 15 years. More than Chris Carpenter in nine years. On the offensive side, Red only had 29 WAR over 15 seasons with the Cards. Brock 42 WAR in 16 years, etc.
So, is the Hall only a place for marathoners or can sprinters be recognized, too? 😉
Sure sprinters can be allowed. But who has helped their team the most – a short termer with a higher accumulative WAR, or a player who has played twice as many seasons but with a lower accumulative WAR?
Musial-Gibson-Hornsby-Brock cut these guys in stone. pujols has no place even being considered…. how can there be a guy with an Angels cap on???
pujols has no place even being considered…. how can there be a guy with an Angels cap on???
Because he was one of the greatest hitters of all time while with the Cards?
He sure was. Perhaps you aren’t old enough to remember what Brock meant to the team. A true professional and a gentleman who still wears a Cards cap. Seriously, pujols over Brock? WAR schmar…. Brock over pujols every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Brock = Cardinal extraordinaire. pujols = one-time Cardinal great, now playing for the Los Angeles Angels.
Talking about Brock, he is a guy whose value and contributions to the Cardinals are not fully captured in the numbers. In general I think modern advanced metrics under-value speed. It is hard to capture the impact elite base stealers have on a game. It’s not just the stolen bases, but the disruption to the opponent they cause when they get on base. And often times just being in the batter’s box result in defensive alignment changes and pitcher’s rhythm being disrupted. And on defense, they get to balls other guys might not have been able to track down. There was a saying back around 30 years ago that went “Speed never slumps”.
The other characteristic about Brock is that he was a terrific World Series player. So while he misses the Cardinals top-10 based on WAR, he is a top 10 player for me due to his value beyond WAR.
It appears to me that in recent years, fans have grown to respect defense more than ever before. I suspect a greater awareness of metrics are a part. After all, those stats were never on the back of baseball cards.
In the 2007 fan vote in this forum (well, its predecessor), Ozzie was voted only the no. 11 Cardinal player of all-time, with Brock fifth.
Obviously, neither of those players have played an inning since. So, what has changed since other than greater defensive awareness and appreciation?
P.S. Just so I give the fans their just due, their top four back before the 2007 season are the same as bikemike’s top four today! They were already sold on Albert when he had five Cardinals seasons and one title still ahead.
Brock was way more then defense for the Cards. Other teams discussed how to play Brock when he was on base.
Brock had it all while Smith only had defense.A point of reference. WAR is designed to include full contributions. Brock 42 WAR in 16 years as a Cardinal. Ozzie 60 in 15 seasons with StL.
Tough call on Ozzie and Lou.
Advantages Brock:
-Cards do not have an 1964 flag waving without him – 1967 & ‘68 are questionable as well. Huge contributor to those teams.
-Much better World Series numbers than OzzieAdvantages Smith:
-Played premium defensive position better than anyone – this has a major influence on the outcome of games
-Higher WAR than LouKnowing what we know, I think one would draft Ozzie before Lou. But as Cardinals, I think you still put Lou above the Wizard.
Boyer – I don’t believe it’s accurate to say Ozzie “only had defense”. He worked hard at improving his offense after coming over from the Padres, and did so nicely. You don’t get elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame if you’re just a defensive position player.
I did a comparison of Brock v OSmith if Smith had the same number of ABs as Brock using 1.44 which is the differential of their ABs with STL.
Smith’s BB/K is unbelievable – 1261/609. Big + for him. Brock had 224 more hits and batted 21 points higher. Doubles = Brock 486 and Smith 487. HRs = Brock 149 – Smith 39.
Ozzie was the wizard. Brock has a place in every Card fan’s heart. (the one’s that saw him play).
.
Question – why isn’t Frisch on the left field wall at Busch? First 8 years with the Giants and then 11 years with the Cardinals. He was on 4 pennant winners and 2 World Championship teams with the Cardinals. MVP in 1931.
So what you are saying is that you want yet another retired number. Relatively few fans today care about a player from 80-90 years ago. They want to see Willie McGee’s number retired. What does the team gain from a marketing perspective by retiring Frisch’s number? You may think that is callous, but it matters.
My general take, not related to Frisch specifically, is there are too many retired numbers already, but that toothpaste is never going back into the tube.
If I was to consider retiring another old-timer’s number, I would pick Jim Bottomley (and perhaps Joe Medwick) before Frisch. (Saying that off the top of my head without detailed analysis).
Another way of looking at it is why Frisch chose not to enter the Hall as a Cardinal. Sutter entered as a Carinal after only 4 years with the team. Frisch was with the team for 11 years. Was a player manager for 5 years.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say. Sutter may have been the biggest of all retired number missteps, IMO. It was justified as being rolled in with Jackie Robinson, but in my opinion, it lowered the bar far too low. For the team, it provided the PR benefit of Sutter being known to the fans and a visible wearer of the red jacket. (Remember that at that time, there was no team Hall of Fame.) It was also interesting that the timing was around the same period that Sutter made his decision for the Cards logo on his cap on his Hall of Fame plaque. Had he gone in with a Cubs logo, or no logo, would his number have been retired then? Surely not.
I could make arguments for a number of players to have earned a retired number before Sutter. But again, what is done is done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.