Stan Musial- Does He Have A Place On An All Time Dream Team?

[AmScray 355]

I say absolutely yes, he does.If everything about his career had been exactly equal only he'd been a Yankee rather than a Card, there's no question in my mind that people would acknowledge this. Short of ARod, he's one of the completest packages the game as ever seen only unlike ARod, Musial was an absolute rock star in the clutch. While he didn't hit for quite the power that Mantle did, he still had 475 career homers, was INSANELY durable but as a percentage hitter, he was probably the most feared of his generation, outside of Williams (arguably, two of the most feared of all time). He had a career slugging percentage actually higher than Mays and Aaron. Defensively, he was very versatile, being ultra solid at any OF position and 1B.Yet time and time again, whenever century teams are mentioned, he's overlooked about 3/4 of the time, usually in favor of any given ovverrated Yankee. Obviously, this is because he's a polack (which IMO is a perfectly acceptable reason to keep him off, as I don't care much for the Polish either, but lets be a *little* honest here and acknowledge what the guy's done).

[SBriand 4]

8/10

[aadams_22 3]

whoever doesn't put him on an all time dream time knows nothing about baseball

[7s7c 0]

I'm currently involved in an online all-time baseball draft. Basically build the best team possible. He went 10th overall. The guy who took McCovey showed up late and picked him like in the 20's or something not 7th overall but that's where he was placed because he missed his 1st round pick originally, so bump up everyone after him one pick until the 20's or so. He also missed the Glavine pick so he was picked later than it indicates really. My picks are bolded. 1 - OF/P - Babe Ruth2 - OF - Ted Williams3 - OF - Willie Mays4 - OF - Ty Cobb5 - 2B - Roger Hornsby6 - SP - Walter Johnson7 - 1B - Willie McCovey8 - OF - Mickey Mantle9 - SS - Honus Wagner10 - 1B - Lou Gehrig11 - 1B/OF - Stan Musial12 - OF - Joe Dimaggio13 - OF - Hank Aaron14 - SP - Roger Clemens15 - SP - Lefty Grove16 - SP - Christy MathewsonRound 217 - SP - Sandy Koufax18 - CF - Tris Speaker19 - OF - Barry Bonds20 - C - Johnny Bench21 - 3B/SS - Alex Rodriguez22 - SP - Cy Young23 - SP - Bob Gibson24 - 1B - Jimmie Foxx25 - OF - Rickie Henderson26 - SP - Tom Glavine27 - SP - Randy Johnson28 - SP - Pete Alexander29 - 2B - Nap Lajoie30 - 3B - Mike Schmidt31 - SP - Warren Spahn32 - SP - Bob FellerRound 333 - SP - Tom Seaver34 - OF - Roberto Clemente35 - SP - Satchel Paige36 - 1B - Hank Greenberg37 - SP - Kid Nichols38 - OF - Mel Ott39 - OF - Ken Griffey Jr.40 - 2B - Joe Morgan41 - SP - Greg Maddux42 - OF - "Shoeless" Joe Jackson43 - SP - Steve Carlton44 - SP - Nolan Ryan45 - 2B - Eddie Collins46 - C - Yogi Berra47 - C - Josh Gibson48 - SP - Pedro MartinezRound 449 - C - Mickey Cochrane50 - SP - Whitey Ford51 - 2B - Jackie Robinson52 - 3B - Brooks Robinson53 - SS - Cal Ripken Jr.54 - SS/1B - Ernie Banks55 - SP - Carl Hubbell56 - OF - Frank Robinson57 - SP - Gaylord Perry58 - OF - Reggie Jackson59 - SP - Eddie Plank60 - SP - Rube Waddell61 - SP - Mordecai Brown62 - 3B - Eddie Mathews63 - IF/OF - Pete Rose64 - SP - Ed WalshRound 565 - 1B - Dan Brouthers66 - SP - Jim Palmer67 - OF - Tony Gwynn68 - SP - Don Drysdale69 - SKIPPED70 - 3B - George Brett71 - OF - Billy Hamilton72 - SP - Bert Blyleven73 - 2B - Charlie Gehringer74 - 3B - Frank "Home Run" Baker75 - SP - Juan Marichal76 - 2B - Rod Carew77 - OF - Carl Yastrzemski78 - SP/RP - John Smoltz79 - 3B - Wade Boggs80 - SP - Smokey Joe WilliamsRound 681 - 1B - George Sisler82 - SP - Robin Roberts83 - RP - Mariano Rivera84 - SP - Fergie Jenkins85 - 2B - Roberto Alomar86 - 2B - Jeff Kent87 - OF - James "Cool Papa" Bell88 - SP - Curt Schilling89 - C - Roy Campanella90 - SS - Derek Jeter 91 - 1B - Johnny Mize

[AmScray 355]

10 - 1B - Lou Gehrig11 - 1B/OF - Stan Musial

Shocked that he lasted to pick 9.See, that's the problem. Because of Gehrig locking up the 1B slot on any All Time team (and rightly so), Musial has to compete in the OF, where Ruth is a mulligan, anyone with an IQ over 50 picks Williams and that leaves Musial competing with either Mays or Cobb: Mays who hit for more power- which gets all the credit- and was probably better defensively, but Mays wasn't nearly the all-around batter that Musial was.Cobb was a better pure batter, arguably par with Musial defensively but never hit with near as much power.IMO, Musial is a better choice than either, simply because he performs to such an insanely high degree in all areas, as opposed to being "best of all time" in one, but slightly deficient in others.

[7s7c 0]

In terms of this list, I take Musial over Mantle in a heartbeat. I'm a big Cobb fan though and feel that after Ruth, he's the best player ever. Just my opinion. You have to take Cobb's power numbers in context of the deadball era relative to his peers. Cobb has 7 top 5 HR finishes in his career. He could drive the ball, he just believed more in advancing runners, hit and run, slashing the ball, etc. He hated what baseball became after Ruth arrived, namely a game revolving around the HR. He thought that had cheapened the game he loved into a slugfest. I think (and this is just my feeling) that Cobb despised Ruth more that he despised his well publicized disdain for integration. I think he loved baseball over everything and he saw Ruth as a threat to that. Later in his career, Cobb softened on the integration issue, but I don't think he ever softened on his Ruth stance. Regardless, I put Cobb #2 because he really could do it all and defensively he was very underrated. His range factors are very good for the most part. He obviously was arguably the best hitter ever and his steal totals when the SB stat arrived as we know it (I think 1898 was the year when taking an extra base on a hit was considered a stolen base -- this is what cheapens Billy Hamilton SB totals in the 19th century)...were just sick. Just my opinion but all time top 10 I go:1. Ruth2. Cobb3. Williams4. Wagner5. Mays6. W.Johnson7. Gehrig8. Hornsby9. Musial10. MantleI think you could convince me to take Musial over Hornsby but 8th is about the highest I could be convinced of.

[AmScray 355]

It's hard to compare dead-ballers to modern guys since power was such a scant consideration back then, yet such a huge consideration today.

[7s7c 0]

I hear ya. I'm a Cardinals fan and love me some Stan. If Gehrig hadn't fallen he would have certainly been my pick there. You'll notice I took my favorite SP of all-time Bob Gibson ahead of some other guys whom you could argue were better (although not in the postseason, Gibby was untouchable)

[jeff_536 3]

In one of his baseball abstracts...and I'm guessing it was the Historical Baseball Abstract, I just don't have them handy right now...Bill James does an extensive comparison between Musial and Ted Williams.Although he concedes Williams was the better hitter, he concluded Musial was superior is almost every other facet of the game: defence, arm, speed, baserunning, instincts, character, being a good guy, dealing with the public and press...Given a choice, James said he'd take Musial in a heartbeat if he was starting a team.

[7s7c 0]

In his latest top 100 list (where he includes NEL players) he ranks Ted #7 overall and Stan #10 overall.

[El Guapo 8]

7s7c I am assuming your all time draft is for fantasy style points?Why is Bonds 19? I know he is a d-bag but doesn't he have the best overall stats of any player ever?

[7s7c 0]

7s7c I am assuming your all time draft is for fantasy style points?Why is Bonds 19? I know he is a d-bag but doesn't he have the best overall stats of any player ever?

It's actually "voted on" technically. Every team makes the playoffs, seeded 1-8 in each conference. Regular season seedings are determined through PM voting just on the basis of the look of the team itself. Then the playoffs begin are you matched up vs an opponent for each round until you are either eliminated or named champion. That's why post season numbers are prolly waited a bit more heavily than most lists as well. It's certainly not the best system ever but it's fun as hell anyway.

[jeff_536 3]

In his latest top 100 list (where he includes NEL players) he ranks Ted #7 overall and Stan #10 overall.

but an objective ranking vs. who he'd want on his team are two different things.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'd take Bonds over Musial also... Mantle had a great peak, but wasn't over all the player that Musial was.. Mays V Musial is a tough one, but looking a the stats break down, Musial had better career average and onbase percentage and virtually the same slugging. Unless Mays was significantly better in the field, I guess I'd take Musial.......If I was doing, for fantasy baseball purposes, I'd take Ruth, Williams and Bonds in the OF, and Gehrig at first. But for the overall purposes of the team, perhaps I'd consider taking Musial over Williams.. Musial really did get f'd over by playing in St. Louis.. I know intellectually he's great, but it's like I forget, and every time I need to look at his breakdown against other players to be reminded of how great he was. Ernie Banks also gets no love in consideration for all time greats.. The numbers he put up, for his position, were unprecedented until ARod.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

the adjusted OPS career leaders, makes a strong case for Mantle. 1. Babe Ruth, 207 2. Ted Williams, 191 3. Barry Bonds, 182 4. Lou Gehrig, 179 5. Rogers Hornsby, 175 6. Mickey Mantle, 172 7. Dan Brouthers, 170 8. Joe Jackson, 170 9. Ty Cobb, 167 10. Albert Pujols, 167Ty Cobb is also hard to judge. It's hard enough to compare modern players to Musial's era, or Ruths.. but in the Pre-Ruth era? it's extremely hard for me to rank them.

[AmScray 355]

I think we should allow for a "juice factor".Bonds stats stand as they are. Any players from the pre 'roid era get a 15-20% uptick in all categories, if we are to compare them fairly.Musial w/ Roids > Bonds w/ Roids, as far as all around performance.I remember when there used to be rain delays in Cubs games, they would show these things... Man, I loved them so, so much that it got to the point that I actually hoped that the game would get hosed out just so I could watch old HR Derbys.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vGWiB6ryU

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think we should allow for a "juice factor".Bonds stats stand as they are. Any players from the pre 'roid era get a 15-20% uptick in all categories, if we are to compare them fairly.Musial w/ Roids > Bonds w/ Roids, as far as all around performance.I remember when there used to be rain delays in Cubs games, they would show these things... Man, I loved them so, so much that it got to the point that I actually hoped that the game would get hosed out just so I could watch old HR Derbys.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vGWiB6ryU

!) Bonds was a complete, 5 tool player when he was young2) He didn't use steriods over his entire career, just the last few seasons of it.. so you can't just tack on 20 percent to Musial across the board, unless you want to "juice-up" bonds pre-steroids stats too..I'm not sure when bond's first year juicing was, but I know it was a reaction to Sosa and Mac, so I'll take his first 13 years as clean.. here's a side by side of Bonds against Musial. Stans first three years were during the war, so he wasn't against the top notch opposition either103 151 M114 178 M148 175 M126 183 M170 134 B160 200 M205 176 B204 163 B183 182 Push168 167 Push188 169 B170 166 Push178 156 BVery comparable, when you break it down. It's hard to gauge the juice years, but I'll use your 20 percent and add 20 percent to musials stats during this era...155 142 (160) M188 172 (206) M259 146 (174) B268 106 (127) B231 121 (145) B263 118 (144) B174 137 (164) B156 101 (121) BBonds had an additional year of 170Now, I know this isn't the most scientific way of doing things.. it's hard to say how much steroids, combined with the modern weight training, what effect that would have had on Musial. It's hard to judge at all.. but.. even with Steriods, I still would take Bonds.. he's the only member of the 500-500 Home Run and Steals club, he has 7 mvp awards ( three pre-steroids) and eight gold gloves ( the bulk of Musial's career preceded the gold gloves).Musials peak years were also during either a non-integrated league, or a marginally integrated league, so that counts for something.Overall, I'd still give the edge to bonds on my team... but again, it's staggering to me how good Musial is, he really, really is the most underrated player of all time. Being from St. Louis clearly has something to do with it, but also I think it may be because he only hit 475 homeruns and chicks dig the long ball.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I'd take Bonds over Musial also... Mantle had a great peak, but wasn't over all the player that Musial was.. Mays V Musial is a tough one, but looking a the stats break down, Musial had better career average and onbase percentage and virtually the same slugging. Unless Mays was significantly better in the field, I guess I'd take Musial.......If I was doing, for fantasy baseball purposes, I'd take Ruth, Williams and Bonds in the OF, and Gehrig at first. But for the overall purposes of the team, perhaps I'd consider taking Musial over Williams.. Musial really did get f'd over by playing in St. Louis.. I know intellectually he's great, but it's like I forget, and every time I need to look at his breakdown against other players to be reminded of how great he was. Ernie Banks also gets no love in consideration for all time greats.. The numbers he put up, for his position, were unprecedented until ARod.

el o el? Serious no SW here? Mays was one of the best CF, if not the best to ever play. He was an amazing fielder, I think he won over 10 gold gloves. I know Stan Musial was very underrated, but imo Mays was the best player ever.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

el o el? Serious no SW here? Mays was one of the best CF, if not the best to ever play. He was an amazing fielder, I think he won over 10 gold gloves. I know Stan Musial was very underrated, but imo Mays was the best player ever.

Look up musial's stats and compare them to mays.. Musial's are slightly more impressive.. he has a career 417 on base percentage to mays' .384.... that's a significant difference. Musial also had a slightly higher slugging, .559 to mays .557. Homeruns don't tell the whole story. Again, I have no way to judge the gap between Musial and May's fielding.. but based on their hitting stats, I'd give the nod to Musial.

[Jackets1407 0]

Absolutely impossible to rate new and old....

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

Look up musial's stats and compare them to mays.. Musial's are slightly more impressive.. he has a career 417 on base percentage to mays' .384.... that's a significant difference. Musial also had a slightly higher slugging, .559 to mays .557. Homeruns don't tell the whole story. Again, I have no way to judge the gap between Musial and May's fielding.. but based on their hitting stats, I'd give the nod to Musial.

ill have to check them out.

[MDXS 0]

In Mays vs. Musial, you can't forget that Mays is historically good at a much more critical defensive position. They're both superlative hitters. I think I'd prefer Mays' offense, with his baserunning being a sort of tiebreaker. Even if that's called even, it's the defense that gives Mays the win."Ernie Banks also gets no love in consideration for all time greats.. The numbers he put up, for his position, were unprecedented until ARod."The knock on Banks is that he didn't stick around at shortstop long enough. He was at first base by 31. While he was moving down the defensive spectrum, his offense significantly dropped off. He was ARod for half a career and like a Joe Carter for the other. I consider him a solid Hall of Famer, but would stop short of calling him an All-Time great. Though I guess it would depend on how many shortstops you consider All-Time greats. 3, he's out. 7, he's in...Fake Edit: That "stop short" was accidental.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

In Mays vs. Musial, you can't forget that Mays is historically good at a much more critical defensive position. They're both superlative hitters. I think I'd prefer Mays' offense, with his baserunning being a sort of tiebreaker. Even if that's called even, it's the defense that gives Mays the win."Ernie Banks also gets no love in consideration for all time greats.. The numbers he put up, for his position, were unprecedented until ARod."The knock on Banks is that he didn't stick around at shortstop long enough. He was at first base by 31. While he was moving down the defensive spectrum, his offense significantly dropped off. He was ARod for half a career and like a Joe Carter for the other. I consider him a solid Hall of Famer, but would stop short of calling him an All-Time great. Though I guess it would depend on how many shortstops you consider All-Time greats. 3, he's out. 7, he's in...Fake Edit: That "stop short" was accidental.

3 he's out? Arod and Jeter I guess ( but only 'cause Jeter was on the Yankees). Cal Ripken is not better than ernie banks.

[jeff_536 3]

3 he's out? Arod and Jeter I guess ( but only 'cause Jeter was on the Yankees). Cal Ripken is not better than ernie banks.

Honus Wagner is No. 1.A-Rod has spent the last..what, four or five years as a 3B? Still put him at 1A with Wagner.Jeter is over-rated and isn't one of the 10 shortstops of all time.Yount is up there, Ripken. Larkin. TrammellIn the historic division with Wagner are Appling, Boudreau, Vaughan, Cronin, Aparicio.Banks only spent 8 years as a SS, 1/3 of one of those at 3B.He spent 8 full years and two as a part timer at 1B. His compares as a hitter with Mathews, Schmidt, Dawson, Billy Williams, McGriff, Stargell...some of the best sluggers ever.He only won one gold glove (1960, his second last year as a SS) and losing them to guys like Roy McMillan and Maury Wills as a SS and Bill White and Wes Parker as a 1B.His RF was generally near the league average as a SS, above average as a 1B

[AmScray 355]

In Mays vs. Musial, you can't forget that Mays is historically good at a much more critical defensive position. They're both superlative hitters. I think I'd prefer Mays' offense, with his baserunning being a sort of tiebreaker. Even if that's called even, it's the defense that gives Mays the win.

I'm not going to really argue that Musial was better than Mays defensively overall, however, I think Mays is overstated and statistically speaking, it's kinda worth noting that Mays has a career .978 fielding percentage against Musials career .989.Of course, Musial played a portion of his career at 1b which can account for the higher percentage, so we have to examine their percentages in the OF (where Musial played the vast majority of his games- 1890 in the OF vs. 1016 at 1b)Mays has a career .981 FP in the OF against Musials career .984 OF/FP; basically even-steven. "The Catch", while impressive, causes people to slightly overrate Mays defensively when comparing him to Musial, especially considering the statistics. Defense is usually the push that causes people to take Mays over Musial when the stats just don't make nearly as compelling a case for Mays as people assume.