SIDE NOTE: Our criteria was that the player had to dominate all of the decade. 

Matt’s contention was that the early years provided easy, big stud winners and that the ‘70’s, ‘80’s and ‘90’s didn’t have the clearcut dominant choice. Here’s what his thoughts and the conversation generated (see if you have any problems with any of these guys being called “The Greatest Living Ballplayer”):

1910s: Ty Cobb 

1920s: Babe Ruth 

1930s: Jimmie Foxx (This is a Rebel belief although I would be happy with Lou Gehrig. Foxx kicked booty for all ten years, while 1939 was the year Lou had to retire). 

1940s: Ted Williams (A strong argument can be made for Joe Dimaggio, but William’s numbers were just clearly superior. 

1950s: This one boiled down to Musial, Mantle & Mays. When you first look at them during that decade, it seems close. But upon closer evaluation of the top offensive stats, it’s really a two horse race between Musial and Mantle (Mays is a distant third). And for consistency and durability, the 1950’s belong to Musial. 

1960s: Hank Aaron (Willie Mays started to fade at the end of the 60’s although if we had half decades [1956-1965] Mays would most likely dominate).

And here’s where things get interesting. Matt pointed out that each of the previous decades you could point to one massive star (Ruth) or a bunch of really, really great ballplayers (Foxx, Gehrig; Mays, Mantle, Musial; Williams, Dimaggio) and no matter the name - you wouldn’t mind hearing them called “The Greatest Living Ballplayer”. But in the ‘70’s it wasn’t that obvious. Was it because we had seen these guys play and so they weren’t “immortal”? Was it because not only did we see these players in their hey day, we had actually most recently seen them when they were hanging on, unable to consistently catch up on a fastball? Or was the overall talent level lower than previous decades? I would think it’s part of the first two questions. With African-American players and Latin players getting their opportunity, I can’t believe the talent level was lower.

1970s: This was actually tough to figure out during our conversation. Mike Schmidt came to mind, but the problem is he started slow in the ‘70s and faded in the late ‘80’s. He kicked ass from 1976-1985. Johnny Bench came to mind. Reggie Jackson came to mind. We had decided that Willie Stargell would be viewed as the best of the 1970’s, but statistically evaluating them the same way as Musial, Mays and Mantle, the best ballplayer from the 1970’s was Pete Rose.

1980s: The issue we face in the 1980’s and 1990’s is that roles seem to have specialized. In earlier decades we had legends that did everything. Ruth led the league in homeruns and batted in the mid .300s. Same for Musial, Mantle, Aaron etc. Once we get to the 1980’s we have Ricky Henderson who dominated in some categories and lagged in others. So for overall performance we narrow it down to Dawson, Brett and Yount. Again, evaluating them the way we did for the other decades, Dawson and Yount tie for the lead. I would love to say “you decide”. But we are all about making a statement here at the Monroe Doctrine, so the selection for the 1980’s is Dawson for year to year consistency.

1990s: I hate him, he doesn’t deserve what he is about to receive, but in the 1990’s there was no one close to Barry Bonds. I don’t feel bad about including him here because statistically the questions for him arise in 2000 when his numbers should have started to tail off instead of take off.

I would enjoy your thoughts. Don’t agree? I don’t blame you, by tomorrow I may not agree with myself. Post your thoughts to the Forum.

De Aza (.12)-o-Meter
	OBP: .314 TB: 15 RS: 4 RBI: 3 SB: 1
According to Sports Illustrated, Barry Bond's rookie card used to trade at 500 De Azas, but now has fallen to 166.67